Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:08 | #

Oh dear, I only managed around 3 mins of this (I might try latter on in the evening but I doubt I will ever be quite that bored), the priest’s grip of the intricacies of logic are, shall we say rather poor, to be extremely kind? I tend not to listen to people whose opening premises seem to be rather dubious. That faith cannot be in error is but a very dogmatic faith itself. As for his take on logic see

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

and

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

One of the central figures in the area of non-classical logic is Graham Priest (see his ‘In Contradiction’ here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contradiction-Graham-Priest/dp/0199263302/ or his ‘Doubt Truth to be a Liar’ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doubt-Truth-Liar-Graham-Priest/dp/0199238510/)

Interestingly Graham Priest seems to something of a Heideggerian (or at least seriously engages with Heidegger’s philosophical themes. His ‘Beyond the Limits of Thought’ (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beyond-Limits-Thought-Graham-Priest/dp/0199244219/) has essays on Heidegger (on the grammar of being) and an introduction to the thought of the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/), which in this context may be of some interest.

Richard Williamson is a rather curious figure in that he was a founding member of the ultra-traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) whose members (or the bishops of SSPX) were, I believe, excommunicated by Pope John Paul II (not a ‘liberal’ Pope or perhaps he was?). Anyway Williamson is even beyond the pale for SSPX and I think has been thrown out of even that organisation (according to internet sources).

Still it’s all more or less Voodoo to me. Now from which end can we extract the sunshine from cucumbers?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:14 | #

Voodoo or not, we cannot get rid of the faith trait.  Secularising its expression only creates displacement into politics.

Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:18 | #

Let’s hope he doesn’t become the Auschbishop of Recantandbury.

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 22 Feb 2013 01:26 | #

Thanks GW for posting this. It was well worth the time to watch. And yes, I watched the whole vid from start to end.

By comparison, Bishop Williamson makes daniels look like a little sissy boy.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:36 | #

This is an example of what I mean by an ideological ‘minimum’ or platform.

I think GW ought to post this list on MR, and then we should all discuss what exactly, if anything, we don’t like about it and why.

I suppose I myself am best described as a paleoconservative, rather than nationalist.

Statement of Principles

Feb. 24, 2004

by Samuel Francis

(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. We oppose any attempt to place American military personnel under foreign command. We oppose any effort to place Americans, military or civilian, on trial before, or subject them to legal punishments by, international courts or organizations. We oppose, and we support official U.S. renunciation of, any treaty, agreement, or convention that seeks to dictate law to the United States or any state, that violates national sovereignty, or denies or violates the constitutional rights of Americans.

(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. We reject the legitimacy and constitutionality of the rulings handed down by the imperial judiciary; we support the appointment of judges and justices who are qualified to interpret the Constitution and the laws and are committed to their proper interpretation; and we support the impeachment of judges and justices who usurp or claim powers not granted them by the Constitution. We also oppose the “imperial bureaucracy” that imposes unconstitutional administrative decrees in such fields as business, agriculture, labor, and education that tyrannically interfere with personal liberty and dignity, private property, the sanctity of the family, and ethical conduct. We support the abolition of those government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels that have no constitutional foundation, including the U.S. Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Health and Human Services, and similar agencies. We support the separation of powers that is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution and of basic human liberty. We support the restoration of the constitutionally proper balance among the three branches of the federal government and the reduction of their powers, size, personnel, and costs to the limits intended by the Constitution.

(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 such legislation as so-called “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 believe in private property and free enterprise as the foundations of our economic life and the basis of American wealth. We oppose efforts by the state to regulate, plan, manage, control, or nationalize private property in any form. 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 support the repeal of the estate tax. We affirm that the best economic decision-maker is the individual acting in what he believes is his own best interest. 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.

(9) A Strong National Defense. We believe in the strongest possible defense for the United States. We oppose the presence of homosexuals and women in the military services and especially of women in combat roles. We believe that in the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Soviet Communism, the United States has little need to retain the political and military commitments to allies made during the Cold War. While we wish these allies well, we believe we cannot continue to support their defense budgets, guarantee their security, fight their wars, or finance their governments and economies through foreign aid. We therefore call for a comprehensive review of all U.S. diplomatic commitments and U.S. withdrawal from those alliances and commitments that no longer serve our national interests or that threaten to entangle us in unnecessary foreign wars, conflicts, and quarrels. We therefore oppose continued membership in NATO and similar outdated Cold War alliances; we oppose sending American troops on U.N. peace-keeping missions or into similar unconstitutionally undeclared wars under the names of “police actions.” We oppose sending American military personnel into wars and conflicts that do not concern our national security and interests. We oppose ever sending American military men into combat without the intention to achieve victory. We oppose using American prisoners of war as diplomatic “bargaining chips” under any circumstances, and we oppose abandoning American POWs to merciless enemies after the cessation of conflict to suit the political interests of office-holders. We oppose all foreign aid and call for its termination. We support the investigation of lobbying groups that represent the interests of foreign states or foreign powers and the enactment of legislation that will outlaw lobbying Congress or the executive branch on behalf of foreign states.

(10) America First Foreign Policy. We believe that in the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Soviet Communism, the United States has little need to retain the political and military commitments to allies made during the Cold War. While we wish these allies well,we believe we cannot continue to support their defense budgets, guarantee their security, fighttheir wars, or finance their governments and economies through foreign aid. We thereforecall for a comprehensive review of all U.S. diplomatic commitments and U.S. withdrawalfrom those alliances and commitments that no longer serve our national interests or thatthreaten to entangle us in unnecessary foreign wars, conflicts, and quarrels.
We therefore oppose continued membership in NATO and similar outdated Cold War alliances; we oppose sending American troops on U.N. peace-keeping missions or into similar unconstitutionally undeclared wars under the names of police actions. We oppose sending American military personnel into wars and conflicts that do not concern our national security and interests. We oppose ever sending American military men into combat without the intention to achieve victory. We oppose using American prisoners of war as diplomatic bargaining chips under any circumstances, and we oppose abandoning American POWs to merciless enemies after the cessation of conflict to suit the political interests of office-holders. We oppose all foreign aid and call for its termination. We support the investigation of lobbying groups that represent the interests of foreign states or foreign powers and the enactment of legislation that will outlaw lobbying Congress or the executive branch on behalf of foreign states.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:38 | #

(11) America First Trade Policy. We believe that just as our nation has legitimate international political and military interests, so it also has a legitimate international economic interest. We believe our trade policy should reflect our national economic interest and that the protection of our economy, including the jobs of our workers, our farms, and our manufacturing industries, is a vitally necessary duty of our national government.

(12) Traditional Education under Local Control. We believe that education is primarily the concern of parents and families and local communities and therefore we oppose federal aid to education and federal efforts to control or direct education. 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 therefore oppose all “sex education” as well as so-called “multiculturalist” and “Afrocentric” curricula, “Outcome-Based Education,” and similar radical indoctrination in the schools. We oppose all efforts to inflate grades, adulterate or “dumb down” tests and examinations, and introduce irrelevant and wasteful courses for the purpose of advancing some backward students over others more talented or more productive. 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 authority of teachers and school administrators to discipline students, including the authority to expel them from school if students will not abide by the rules and laws of the community. 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.

(13) Strong and Just Law Enforcement. We believe in the moral and legal responsibility of the individual and therefore that good behavior should be rewarded and bad behavior should be punished. We believe the most effective and most just response to crime is swift, certain, and morally appropriate punishment. We believe in capital punishment for the crimes of murder, rape, treason, and espionage. We oppose the substitution of the pseudo-sciences of psychiatry, sociology, and “rehabilitation” for real justice. We believe law enforcement should be mainly a function of local and state government, and we therefore oppose all efforts to establish a national police force or to nationalize law enforcement; we oppose similar efforts to create a global or international police force and to “globalize” law enforcement. We oppose the extradition of law-abiding American citizens to trials before foreign courts under laws to which they have never assented. We oppose all international criminal tribunals and all efforts to diminish national sovereignty through the internationalization of criminal law. While we support and deeply respect all law enforcement officers, we also insist that law enforcement at all levels operate within the law, that law enforcement respect the rights of all citizens, and that spying on and harassment of loyal and law-abiding citizens by law enforcement agencies, by the military services, or by intelligence services at any level of government should be strictly forbidden and severely punished.

(14) Protection of the Environment and Natural Heritage. We believe that the natural environment and resources of a nation are among its most precious, valuable, and irreplaceable treasures. We believe in the protection of the environment from reckless greed as well as from irresponsible government. We support the protection of truly endangered species of wildlife and areas of natural beauty.

Posted by Helvena on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:04 | #

Thank you for posting this GW.  The take home from Bishop Williams is that reality is truth which is consistent with the true faith (call it Catholicism if you like).  To the extent that any movement steers from the natural order, it is false.  Wasn’t this the lament of Nietzsche?  No surprise at all that lack Lister could only stomach three minutes or that Heller changed the topic.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 02:51 | #

No I was bored by the dullard cleric after 3 minutes or so. A subtle but important difference ‘love’.

Ah dear old Haller and his Beck-lite ‘agenda’.

Is not the Tea Party etc., merely Sinclair Lewis’ Babbitry looking into a mirror and seeing itself reflected back as a rapidly dying culture?

One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

The USA and ‘the American ideology’ that so informs her politics and culture (yes a misuse of the term, sensu strictissimo, albeit with some notable and fine exceptions) has produced a failed state - isn’t that blindingly obvious even to the most sluggish, dull, and stolid of mind?

Anyone that is an ‘true believer’ in Americanism - I think we all roughly know what I mean by that term - is in the field of ideology and so-called ‘ideas’, the most deadly of Schmittian enemies to autochthonous (that is authentic and indigenous) Europeans.

There is nothing more dangerous than the meta-political ‘enemy’ within for they are so very difficult for most to identify.

The J-lizards from outer-space, or hell if one is a traditional Christian ‘monocausalist’, are but small beer by comparison.

Europa must protect herself, in all regards, from the black sheep of the family ASAP.

The fruit of the liberty tree isn’t tasting quite so good these days.

Anyone care to seriously disagree?

Bring it on by all means boys and girls.

Then again I guess I’m wrong. The USA, with a population of whites in the mid 60%, and rapidly heading downwards as a proportion of the nation has got things ‘right’ and little ‘nothing places’ like Scotland (98% white) and other demographically similar European nations have got things a ‘bit wrong’ what with being ‘socialist hell-holes’ etc., ad nauseum.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 07:50 | #

I agree with EVERY aspect of that Statement of Principles. I would hardly call them “Beck-lite”, however!

Beck, as far as I understand him (which is very little - I’ve only read about the man, never the man himself, nor do I listen to talk radio or tv), is really “Francis-lite”.

Anyway, those who object to the above statement of principles should produce their own statement. What should a nationalist Statement consist in?

Posted by AnalogMan on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:03 | #

America is indeed in dire straits, but to call her the black sheep of the family is a bit steep.  Scotland’s relative homogeneity is, as far as I know, not due to greater vigilance of either its population or its politicians.  It just hasn’t been targeted by the nation-wreckers to the same extent as America, or England.  It’s not really necessary, is it?  If they can destroy England, Britain is gone.

Despite its demographically debased condition, America is still in a much better position than Britain, or Europe. Bishop Williamson was not convicted three times of Holocaust denial in America. Emma West; ‘nuff said. Robust rights to self-defense - I like that.

I must say I prefer Leon Haller’s post.  Those are concrete principles which can serve as a basis for discussion and, hopefully, action.  Much more useful than endless navel-gazing and debating about “ontology” (what the meaning of “is” is).  I guess that makes me a Neanderthal.  I can live with that.

Posted by Silver on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:55 | #

Leon Haller often makes a great deal of sense, yet he strangely struggles so to be taken seriously. 

Well, just coz I’m in the mood.

There once was a man named Leon,
Whose posts would dazzle like neon.
Yet, for all of their splendor,
They could not engender
A racial revival this eon.

And in contrast

If race were a lady, then Lister
Would have, in his pedantry, missed her.
“But imagine the glory!”
He’d cry, relating the story,
“Had I pulled her in close and just kissed her.”

Posted by John on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:45 | #

It must be nice to be able to post piss-taking Limerics, confident that noone can respond in-kind with a better one because there’s nothing that rhymes with Silver.

Posted by Silver on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:14 | #

My limericks offend sayeth John,
But tis only when I’ve got my game on,
Bah, hell itself hath not fury
Like a white nationalist jury,
But before they can take me alive I’ll be gone.

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:18 | #

Sil-VER never fails to beguile

He writes with such flair and style

His name has no rhyme

But come over time

Within you’ll find evil and vile. 

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:01 | #

Silver has poetic talent, of sorts. Perhaps he can craft some soulful nationalist verses? Concepts like belonging vs. ‘homelessness’, nobility vs. savagery, aliens vs. ‘those much put upon’, etc, would find their proper expression; eg, a British nationalist might begin his elegy for England with

      The Island Race is angry / We’ve been put upon too much ...
 
Proceed, good Silver.

America is indeed in dire straits, but to call her the black sheep of the family is a bit steep.  Scotland’s relative homogeneity is, as far as I know, not due to greater vigilance of either its population or its politicians.  It just hasn’t been targeted by the nation-wreckers to the same extent as America, or England.  It’s not really necessary, is it?  If they can destroy England, Britain is gone. (Analogman)

Excellent observation! I’m angry at myself for not earlier making this rather obvious point (though I think it was meant to be on another comment thread). Dr. Lister enjoys repeatedly deploying various rhetorical sleights-of-hand. He properly (if unseemly) castigates the US for its deteriorating demographic profile, ludicrously insinuating, however, that this deterioration is unique and somehow the ineluctable product of America’s (increasingly tattered) system of capitalist political economy. When one points out that various European nations with very different economic systems (France, Sweden), and, indeed, very little US influence (eg, no military bases, or special trade agreements), are facing similar demographic assaults, Lister calls attention to the superior demographic situations of various European backwaters, implying that it is their resistance to Americanization that is responsible for their relatively happier racial position, rather than their geographic and economic backwardness having temporarily insulated them from globalist pressures.

The reality, of course, is that what Lister sees as an American problem (perhaps assumed to be exported to all Western countries) is in fact a white problem. Shouldn’t racialists be the last persons to be surprised that whites the world over react to racial issues in modally similar ways? The problem is not an ontologically corrupted and too widely influential ‘American model’, but an obvious white racial defect or latent susceptibility to a particular type of collectively suicidal behavior, given certain conditions (including the adoption of the ‘right’ mental and moral outlooks). If the USA did not exist, would France or Britain be staunchly ethnonationalist?   

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:03 | #

Apologies. I just discovered that the Francis Statement of Principles @5 got messed up with #9 and 10, which were scrambled in the original (I ought to have caught that pre-posting, however). They should read:

(9) A Strong National Defense. We believe in the strongest possible defense for the United States. We oppose the presence of homosexuals and women in the military services and especially of women in combat roles. We oppose sending American military personnel into wars and conflicts that do not concern our national security and interests. We oppose sending American troops on U.N. peace-keeping missions or into similar unconstitutionally undeclared wars under the names of police actions. We oppose ever sending American military men into combat without the intention to achieve victory. We oppose using American prisoners of war as diplomatic “bargaining chips” under any circumstances, and we oppose abandoning American POWs to merciless enemies after the cessation of conflict to suit the political interests of office-holders.

(10) America First Foreign Policy. We believe that in the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Soviet Communism, the United States has little need to retain the political and military commitments to allies made during the Cold War. While we wish these allies well, we believe we cannot continue to support their defense budgets, guarantee their security, fight their wars, or finance their governments and economies through foreign aid. We therefore call for a comprehensive review of all U.S. diplomatic commitments and U.S. withdrawal from those alliances and commitments that no longer serve our national interests or that threaten to entangle us in unnecessary foreign wars, conflicts, and quarrels. We therefore oppose continued membership in NATO and similar outdated Cold War alliances.  We oppose all foreign aid and call for its termination. We support the investigation of lobbying groups that represent the interests of foreign states or foreign powers and the enactment of legislation that will outlaw lobbying Congress or the executive branch on behalf of foreign states.

I trust that this Statement of Principles, if, per my recommendation, placed as a separate post, will be emended accordingly.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:08 | #

BTW, I should very much like to hear what GW, Lister, and others actually think of that statement of principles? What, if anything, do they find uncongenial? What should be changed for a Nationalist Statement?

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:18 | #

Incidentally, who will defend the Europeans when America follows Lister’s preferred economic model into full economic self-destruction, and they are finally abandoned by the ever-reliable USA?

The Continent without a Military

Doug Bandow
|
February 25, 2013

Europe once was a military power—many military powers, in fact. But no longer. Today Europe is turning into a continent without a military.

In January Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO secretary general, lauded France for taking “decisive action” in Mali. Of course, Paris is likely to find that it is easier to disperse jihadist rebels than reestablish a stable state.

At the same time Rasmussen noted Europe’s gradual disarmament. The other European states have offered little help, prompting Arnaud Danjean, a French member of the European Parliament, to complain that “Europe cannot always give responsibility to one member state.”

His sentiment was echoed by Nick Witney, who once headed the European Defense Agency, who argued that the European Union “is paralyzed, seemingly unable to do more than offer rhetorical support to France and the individual member states that are chipping in with logistical assistance.” So Paris, naturally, has turned to America.

Alas, Rasmussen’s efforts to strengthen the European alliance so far have had little effect. Over the last five years, as noted by Stars and Stripes, “Cuts by countries as large as Germany and as small as Latvia have resulted in program cancellations, changed equipment orders and, in the case of Britain, a plan to mothball a new aircraft carrier.” Clara M. O’Donnell, a European scholar with the Brookings Institution, explained that “what we’re seeing is basically cuts in capability and little thought on what to replace them with.”

Libya was the Europeans’ war, yet they punched far below their weight. As Con Coughlin observed last month in the Daily Telegraph, in Libya “shortages of fundamental equipment, such as air-to-air refueling tankers, cruise missiles and ships, meant that the European military effort found itself at a distinct disadvantage the moment American firepower was no longer available.”

Nevertheless, NATO officials like Rasmussen count Libya a success. A year ago he contended: “If we are to respond to the challenges of tomorrow just as effectively [as in Libya], more allies should make sure they obtain and maintain those kinds of critical capabilities.” But the latest report acknowledged that the gap in military capabilities is widening among the European NATO members and between Europe and America.

Last month Rasmussen declared that “There is a lower limit on how little we can spend on defense.” But NATO members don’t seem to agree. In 2006 the NATO members promised to spend two percent of GDP on the military. Yet today the Europeans collectively spend 1.6 percent of GDP on defense, an astonishing one-third of America’s 4.8 percent.

Only Britain and Greece have joined America at above 2 percent, and Greece does so more to confront fellow NATO member Turkey than to assist Europe. Italy and Spain are devoting less than 1 percent to their militaries.

The alliance members also pledged to devote a fifth of military outlays to procurement. Just five of twenty-eight members do so. Jonathan Eyal of London’s Royal United Services Institute confirms this trend: “Almost every single initiative adopted by the alliance, to put it kindly, has not met with success.”

Rasmussen has launched a “smart defense” initiative, which he recently said “is the way forward for allies to develop and acquire critical capabilities.” However, multinational cooperation can succeed only if the Europeans do something. So far, figures O’Donnell, “smart defense” initiatives have saved less than 1 percent of the spending cuts imposed since 2008.

Some European states are essentially disarming. As Rasmussen explained, “Defense spending among the allies is increasingly uneven, not just between North America and Europe, but also among European allies.” All the Europeans save Britain, France, and Germany account for just 7.5 percent of NATO’s expenditures. Danjean declared that “Europe is giving up in terms of defense.”

No amount of whining by Washington will change this reality. There is no political will to increase outlays. And despite the Europeans’ unwillingness to fulfill their alliance responsibilities, some of them have criticized the Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia. Panetta claimed that “Europe should not fear our rebalance to Asia; Europe should join it.” But the likelihood of the Europeans deploying military personnel in Asia is about as likely as the Europeans conquering Mars.

The Europeans rightly fear that the “pivot” will shift U.S. military resources from Europe. Yet there is no compelling reason why Washington should continue to protect the populous and prosperous continent from largely phantom threats.

The latest example of America defending a NATO member able to secure its own interests is the deployment of Patriot missiles backed by American personnel to Turkey. The Syrian civil war has spilled over the border, but Ankara has backed the opposition and aided rebel fighters. In any case, an attack on Turkey by the beleaguered Assad regime would be military suicide.

Even more disturbing is Europe’s assumption that America should fight the continent’s wars elsewhere. Philip Stephens observed in the Financial Times that “Europeans have caught the interventionist bug just as the U.S. has shaken it off. The French and the British led the war to depose Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi.They are in the vanguard of calls for intervention in Syria.” And the French charged into Mali.

Yet the Europeans want to wage war without having to purchase weapons or train personnel to wield them. Francois Hollande is posing as Napoleon Bonaparte reincarnated, receiving a hero’s welcome in newly liberated Mali. Yet France could not prosecute this war by itself. Nor have most European members of NATO done much to help.

Rather, wrote Stephens, “the war has since been sustained by the United States: alongside heavy-life and tankers,Washington is providing almost all of the ‘ISR’—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—that the French need to track and engage Islamist militants. And, no, it is not charging. French and British claims of ‘full spectrum’ military capability are pretty threadbare.” Not only is Washington not sending an invoice for its services, but the Obama administration approved spending $50 million from the U.S. defense budget to aid France.

Nevertheless, this administration is not happy with European fecklessness. But then, no American president has been pleased by Europeans who for years wanted to constrain U.S. power while relying on it for their own defense. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates rebuked such behavior before leaving office. His successor, Leon Panetta, made similar criticisms mixed with a little more praise.

Yet his call “to invest in this alliance to ensure it remains relevant to the security challenges of the future” has gone for naught. Unfortunately, U.S. policy actively discourages European “investment.” So long as Washington is willing to underwrite not only Europe’s defense, but also its adventures elsewhere, there is little pressure on any European nation to devote serious resources to its military.

British defense minister Philip Hammond has defended America’s strategic shift as recognizing “the emergence of China as a global power” and called upon the European states “to do much more of the heavy lifting in the security of their own region.” He even spoke of the U.S. acting in Asia “on behalf of the alliance.” However, NATO is doing nothing to support America there.

Moreover, Hammond expects the U.S. to remain active in Europe, sharing responsibilities, duties, and costs. Europe will do “much more of the heavy lifting”—which, truth be told, wouldn’t be hard, given its current disappointing efforts. But Washington’s aid would still be required, even while confronting a potential peer competitor on the other side of the world.

True, Hammond pledged that “we will seek to work more closely with our neighbors in Europe, particularly France and Germany, to enhance the capabilities of our own region.” But we see no renaissance of European defense capabilities. Indeed, why should European peoples see the need for anything more than a symbolic national honor guard?

Except for the former Soviet republics bordering Russia, the Europeans face no serious conventional military threat. Claims that an Afghanistan or a Mali endanger the continent fare little better. Noted Christian Moelling with the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik: “At a time of significant financial hardship, some may raise difficult questions about the legitimacy of such militaries, and others might even begin to question the merit of having armed forces at all.”

Yet Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum recently waxed eloquent about Europe acting as a “superpower” to fill the vacuum left by a retreating America. Perhaps “the European Union could become the world’s policeman,” she mused, despite the evident obstacles which she detailed.

The only way to get the Europeans to do so is to tell them that they have no choice but to do more. The Yanks simply aren’t coming.

“A decade of war is now ending,” declared President Obama last month. The Europeans seem appalled. Libya, Mali, Syria, Iran: so many wars and potential wars, so little time. Where are the Americans when they need us?

The United States no longer needs to guarantee the security of prosperous and populous friends in Europe or elsewhere. Washington should tell the Europeans that they have graduated from America’s defense umbrella. It is time for them to formulate their own foreign policy and create the force structure necessary to back it up.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant to president Ronald Reagan and the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

For the record, I do not agree that Europe faces no conventional threats, no doubt because I am not, unlike Bandow, a libertarian. Europe faces massive impending threats from an increasingly fecund, and ideologically ever-recrudescing, Islam, not to mention a coming-into-being Africa with two billion mostly healthy and ambulatory, yet impoverished and envious souls. The real camp of the saints has not yet arrived.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:52 | #

Yes moderate social democracy (plus a moderate ethno-communitarianism) with some controls and some restrictions on the finance sector i.e. casino capitalism - is the height of ‘suicide’. I wonder why the likes of Netherlands or Denmark or Finland are not in extreme penury given their ‘incorrect’ and loathsome ‘socialist’ economic policies?

Intelligent and sustainable long-term socio-economic policy is not delivered by simply letting the market ‘rip’ - how precisely did such free-market ‘shock therapy’ work out for the generation of Russian that enjoyed this policy imposed on them by intellectual pygmies such as Jeffery Sachs? Corrupt gangster capitalism - how very wonderful.

Who but the most willfully blind and/or intellectually dishonest ideologue only has one answer to all the important questions of collective life? The market, the market, the market!

Oh, of course, the free-market theory tells us that nothing and no-one has any intrinsic value rather all things and all people are to be valued by the subjective needs of the purchaser of goods, skills, labour etc., (their marginal utility) in the context of the ebb and flow of supply and demand. All things and all relationships must become explicitly incorporated within the logic of contract and market-exchange.

Nihilism plus liberal ontology as economic theory.

Then under than full and free reign of the market, the free-market ideologue tells us maximal happiness will flow for everyone, yes?

Is that not the ‘story’ Leon? If not why not?

Who would save what is best and genuinely excellent in the European life from vulgarities of our bovine consumerist ‘culture’? Who would save us from the globalist cosmopolitan liberal order of ‘spaceless universalism’ - a process driven by neoliberal ideology in the interests of massive multi-national corporation and plutocrats everywhere?

Yes let’s go with Leon’s worldview. The nightwatchman state and the global ‘free-market’ in all other things - goods, services, labour, let alone extending this dismal view into all human relationships. Excellent.

But I doubt anyone but the plutocrats and their ideological handmaidens (in their comfortable gated-communities) would actually want to live under the subsequent conditions of brutal market Hobbesianism.

Furthermore, as the ruthless competition between individuals was ramped up to full (“sink or swim buddy you’re on you own - this is Randsville after all”) we might expect that the cost and benefits of collective and cooperative political action to be massively raised, everyone attempts to free-ride any such efforts (got to only look out only for number one right?) and the wider imaginative and politico-cultural space is reduced to “Me, myself and I” (which is at base precisely what liberalism is all about).

And, of course, inclusive-fitness theory in the context of social evolution has nothing to tell us about how the much more intense competition between individuals results in relatedness becomes utterly irrelevant from a Darwinian perspective - for example ending up in phenomena like lethal sibling rivalry. No, of course people, that is mere biology, thus has literally nothing to say about the worldview of “at all time and in all circumstances maximal competition between individuals is the highest collective good”.

Remember Leon has his ‘correct theories’ which can in principle never be wrong, nor falsified by any conceivable empirical observation or evidence. Market failure doesn’t exist in Hallerworld. Negative externalities generated by the market (social, cultural, political, environmental) are mere illusions deployed by uniquely greedy ‘leftists’ in order to steal the products of your Lockean labour. Even if you are a quasi-criminal organisation like Goldman Sachs.

Human beings are rather good at being self-serving and selfish - we really don’t need cheerleaders telling everyone that this the highest and most noble aspect of ourselves. It makes any form of the ‘politics of solidarity’ even harder than it presently is to get of the ground.

So yeah let’s have Hallerworld of ruthless ‘free-market’ competition - what Wall Street and corporate America presently serves up under than profoundly liberal ideological miasma. Only times it in intensity by order of magnitude (or two).

Really. Wonderful. And very clever politics from the smartest guy in the room. Remember he once half-read Adam Smith people. Respect is due.

Can I hire some illegal Mexicans Leon? They are damn sight more profitable for me to employ and acting as a reserve pool of labour keeps our plebs ‘in their place’ - nothing is finer in this world than scab labour.

It’s the market don’t ya know?

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:47 | #

“brutal market Hobbesianism”? Cmon, are you really that dumb?

Here is a tiny example of the real Hobbesianism that urban Americans have to deal with all the time:

In Brooklyn, White People Problems v. Nonwhite People Problems

By Steve Sailer

Created 02/24/13

The New York Times devotes ample coverage to the Brooklyn versions of what comedian Louis CK [1] would scoff at as White People Problems, such as getting your child into the right enrichment programs in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods:

<blockquote>For City Parents, a Waiting List for Nearly Everything [2]

By SONI SANGHA

The first parent lined up at 4 a.m. on a Sunday, when the only other people around were out just long enough to stumble from warm taxis through sobering 19-degree air into their homes.

Twenty minutes later, other parents showed up and a line began to form down Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. One father kept a list so that anyone searching for a thawing hot coffee could do so without losing a place in the line. He abandoned that project as more and more people trickled in and the end of the line was no longer visible from the front.

Some parents stood, shimmying and hopping to keep warm. A few line veterans brought chairs and buried themselves under blankets. It was too dark to read, so they chatted about things like schools or children, and they poked fun at one another for being there. Every few minutes, someone would check his watch and express the hope that Carmelo the Science Fellow would open his doors early for his annual summer camp registration.

If waiting in line in the predawn of a January morning for science camp registration sounds crazy, you do not have a New York City child born after 2004. For those children and their parents, especially in the neighborhoods of brownstone Brooklyn, Lower Manhattan and the Upper West Side, not getting into activities, classes, sports teams — and even local schools — has become a way of life. If every generation must have its own designation, call theirs Generation Waiting List.

Looking for a spot in a public prekindergarten program in Lower Manhattan? Put your name on the waiting list.

Ballet for 3-year-olds at the Mark Morris Dance Group in Fort Greene, Brooklyn? The class is full, but they do have a waiting list. ...

Besides population density, social mobility drives the waiting lists in certain neighborhoods, said Tamara Mose Brown, a sociologist who teaches at Brooklyn College. It is no longer a given that people who came to the city from the suburbs as single adults will return to them when they have families, she said. Those who stay tend to settle in neighborhoods where people are similarly educated and share like values. They want their children to experience the diversity and spontaneity of the city, but they also want to control the youngsters’ exposure to those things by keeping them within a neighborhood bubble.

The more people bump into one another, the more ingrained a family becomes into a community and the more information will be exchanged about classes, or public schools. Those connections create cultural capital that helps families socially advance in their worlds. But it also puts them into competition for the limited number of slots for the most highly sought-after activities.

And then there are the Brooklyn versions of Nonwhite People Problems, as seen in this popular video [3] from a not rapidly gentrifying neighborhood:

CRIME SCENE

In Fracas on Train, Parolee Found That Hitting Back Was a Risky Option [4]

In an encounter that was caught on a cell phone camera, Charles Bunn said he was attacked by two teenaged girls, one of whom said she was pregnant.

By MICHAEL WILSON

“You could have at least said, ‘Excuse me.’ ”

And with those eight words, it was on.

The No. 3 train had pulled into the Utica Avenue stop in Brooklyn that afternoon, Jan. 24, and several passengers rushed to board the waiting No. 4 train, among them a 55-year-old man and two teenage girls. On this, everyone agrees.

The man, Charles Bunn, said one of the girls bumped into him. He was annoyed, and after he took his seat and saw the two girls sitting across from him, he spoke those eight words.

As Mr. Bunn tells it, the friend of the girl who bumped him stood up and screamed to her that she didn’t have to say anything, and then turned on Mr. Bunn.

“They both jumped up, and then I jumped up, and that’s when the tussle started,” he said.

A few moments later, someone else on the train started recording the fight on a cellphone. The video, which made its way online, shows the two girls raining punches on Mr. Bunn, while he crouched with his coat pulled over his head, unable to swing. The coat was yanked away, and Mr. Bunn threw a few punches of his own that he said did not connect. It is hard to tell on the video. “I was swinging just to back them off,” he said.

Another man broke up the fracas, and one of the girls, Chantelis Solano, 18, sat down, clearly flustered on the video. She stripped off her coat and yelled something that sounded, on the video, an awful lot like the word “pregnant.”

Mr. Bunn seemed to answer, incredulously, “You’re pregnant?”

It was true. “I had just found out,” Ms. Solano said later in an interview. She and her friend were traveling to the Bronx for a sonogram, she said. And yet, even after the fight had been broken up, she stood and baited Mr. Bunn, saying, “C’mon,” and “Try me.” He did not respond.

All three got off the train at Franklin Avenue. The girls, shouting and cursing, pursued Mr. Bunn as he walked away. Everyone agreed there were more punches, and Mr. Bunn dropped some papers. He picked them up and walked away, the girls following him. The train, and the person filming the fight, departed.

The last thing Mr. Bunn needed was to get caught hitting someone, especially a girl. “I have to suck up a lot of things now,” he said later. “I’m amazed I didn’t do what I wanted to do.”

He had been released from prison just a month earlier, his fourth time behind bars upstate. He had two bad habits. One was cocaine. The other was walking out of the flagship Macy’s department store with merchandise he had not paid for. 

Police officers saw the end of the scuffle on the platform and arrested the girls. Mr. Bunn was treated for scratches and cuts at a hospital. “My pride was shot,” he said. “They’re girls.”

Ms. Solano said she spent a couple of days in jail. She and her friend, Shaquana Rhem, have been charged with assault, harassment and, for striking Mr. Bunn with a purse, possession of a weapon. It was not Ms. Solano’s first time; she has a pending case involving an assault in Westchester County two years ago, she said.

I don’t think Louis CK quite grasps how, in America, White People Problems are interrelated with Nonwhite People Problems.</blockquote>

The problem with you, Graham, is that basically you are a mid-twentieth century man of the instinctive Left - not only disbelieving in God, but patronizing and mocking towards the Church; disliking of commercial society and its allied bourgeois ethics (even where those are deeply morally and culturally conservative: sanctity of contract, thrift, prudence, long-term rewards for the delay of gratification, etc); a genteel disdain, one senses, for ‘striving’, especially on the part of the ‘lower orders’; a rather parochial dislike of America, rooted in national envy; a thoroughgoing intellectual snobbery which holds that society should be structured so as best to allow ‘philosopher-kings’ (presumably including one Dr. Graham Lister) to indulge their intellectual passions and games, without ever having to stoop to doing drudge-work, whether for home (what are women and servants for?) or market - who has been caught flatfooted by the Radical Sixties and its civilization-degrading children (egalitarianism, feminism, and multiculturalism) and, perhaps still worse, left only with such totally unacceptable ‘allies’ as purblind theists, uncultured capitalists, and unsavory racists.

We’re a long way from Listerworld, and I fear matters are only worsening. Keep your eye on the ball: the problem which most threatens Europe is neither the USA nor the free market nor even its rapidly, if predictably, economically collapsing social democratic ‘model’, but colonization by nonwhite migrants. As long as nonwhite immigration continues, there really is no other (political) issue worth worrying about.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:07 | #

Maybe this is what we should be worried about?

“Yes, This Is War.” When Blacks Say It, Maybe Whites Should Take Them Seriously?

By Nicholas Stix
Created 02/22/13

On January 7, four white women [1]—Rebeika Powell and Kayetie Powell-Melchor; and Julie Jackson and Misty Nunley, pictured above —were slaughtered in a Tulsa apartment, allegedly by two black brothers, James and Cedric Poore, pictured below, who appeared in court today [Hearings Set For Brothers Charged In 4 Tulsa Deaths [2], by Russell Hulstine, NewsOn6.com February 22, 2013].

Needless to say, the national Main Stream Media (MSM) is refusing to report this story, just as it refused to report previous black-on-white Tulsa atrocities within the last two years: gentle young sweethearts Carissa Horton and Ethan Nichols [3]; Dorothy and Bob Strait [4], who had been married for 60 years; and retiree William Zachary [5].

Local responses to the slaughter of the four white women were also bizarre in ways that have become banal in the age of racial socialism. Mayor Dewey Bartlett blamed“poverty” and “out-of-state apartment owners.” [6]

 

Murder victims Carissa Horton, 18, and Ethan Nichols, 21.

 

Jerard Davis and Darren Price have been charged; each says the other pulled the trigger.

Tulsa murder victims Bob and Nancy Strait

Tyrone Woodfork, charged with the first-degree rape and murder of Nancy Strait etc.; the authorities “disappeared” the murder of Bob Strait [7], who hung on for weeks before dying from a brutal beating, declaring it to be of natural causes [8]

What’s going on here? I can’t improve on the description at the Facebook page “We Are All Chris Dorner, [9]” set up to celebrate the black ex-LAPD spree killer: “Yes, this is war”. (Christopher Dorner Update: Social media support seen for ex-cop accused of killing spree, [10] February 11, 2013)
Suits me. I consider myself a war correspondent. Since 1990, I’ve been covering America’s longest-running war: The race war [11] that blacks have been waging on whites.

I know; I’m crazy. Paranoid. Delusional. Leftist whites—not to mention blacks—will respond, “There is no race war, except for the one whites are waging on blacks.” Neocons[12] will say, “Race relations are better than ever, except for demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.”
But I have a peculiar habit. When someone tells me he’s going to kill me, I take him seriously.

In 1972, when I was 14, a black boy a year younger than me, John Henry Wright, declared:
“We gon’ kill all the white people.”
Even me?
“Even you, Stix.”
I was then the token white in a small black gang led by Alan “Pancho” Hankins, with John Henry Wright and Arthur Harris. Our main pastime was shoplifting. The other fellows would act as decoys in Waldbaum’s, leading store security astray, while I’d walk out with 20-pound turkeys and such.
Pancho was big on sadism—and masochism. One time he made me beat a really nice, working-class Jewish kid to a pulp. “Beat him, Stix! Beat him, or I’ll beat you!”

But another time, Pancho made me torture him, ordering me to twist his legs practically out of their sockets. “Do it! Do it!” he screamed, while I inflicted pain on him.

I broke free of the gang when “Pancho” and John Henry started saying things like, “You our slave,” cheating me out of my shoplifting proceeds, and threatening to beat me.

I guess they were just being consistent.

I was eventually adjudicated a juvenile delinquent—not for shoplifting, but for truancy. I was big on learning, but not so big on attending school, except for gym and hanging out in the boys’ room, smoking with the Irish and Italian kids [13], and answering multiplication questions they would try and stump me with.

For years, I eluded my junior high school vice-principal, John V. Ryan [14], who’d had his heart set on incarcerating me in reform school. When I turned 16 and convinced my mom to sign me out of high school, I thought I was home free. However, my probation officer had another idea: I could attend a “democratic” reform school called the George Junior Republic [15], or something called the Youth Justice Program.

I wanted to avoid reform school, [16] democratic or otherwise.

When I joined the overwhelmingly male YJP in its second or third week that summer, there were 69 black kids and 13 whites. By its end, there were 65 black kids, and at most five whites. The blacks violently ran off most of the whites, including my drug-dealing roommate, but I had nowhere to go. I would lie in bed at night, and mutter to myself, “I will not let those n[deleted because of corporate censorware [17]]s run me out of here!”

The program was a life-changing experience. Granted, three times black kids named Rickey Booker, “Bo Diddley,” and Johnnie Wilson tried to end my “education.” I earned the nickname among most of the black kids as “the white boy with heart.” They’d never seen a white talk back to a black, or refuse to let one cut in front of him on a cafeteria line. However, kids behind me in line would continuously jump forward, and slap me on the back of the head.

The program was run the first year by Rupert “Butch” Jemott, Keith Carpenter, Jackie and Bob Ancrum, Cecil Canton, Rose Ross, the karate sensei, Furman Simmons, the art teacher Lola, et al.

Even though they were black nationalists, those folks (especially Sensei and Lola) showed me a lot of love.  I never felt the sort of genocidal hatred from them that I have since felt emanate from virtually all black nationalists.

This YJP was run by an Economic Opportunity Commission, [18] one of many founded by Lyndon Johnson, as part of his “War on Poverty,” [19] to buy the black vote [20]. Subsequently, Richard Nixon foolishly sought to co-opt black nationalists by giving them even more money and “programs.” [21] It was an exercise in subsidizing muggers.
As the late James Q. Wilson [22] once observed, you can’t co-opt street fighters.[The Closing of the American City [23], The New Republic, May 11, 1998]

The YJP was officially designed to divert black juvenile delinquents [24] from a life of crime. But in fact, the black supremacists who ran the Nassau County EOCs, and their counterparts, led by Leroy Weathers, who took over the second summer program in 1975, sought to turn the black kids into an army of racial revolution.

During the second summer program, the youth workers assigned us the unreadable novel, The Spook Who Sat by the Door [25], by Sam Greenlee [26], the U.S. Information Agency’s first Affirmative Action [27]hire. Spook tells of the first black CIA agent, “Freeman,” who crisscrosses the country, organizing black urban youth gangs into a revolutionary army. At the end of the book, the blacks rise up and are slaying whitey.

The youth workers thought that Spook was not only great literature, but a realistic plan for action. I [28] briefly debated them, more offended by the book’s awful quality than its evil message.

But, since no other student said anything, I suspect that I was the only one who even tried to read it.

James Graydon was the founder of the Long Beach EOC. According to a Newsday story, circa 1970, Graydon had gotten into a dispute with a man, gone home and collected a shotgun, returned and shot the man to death.

Court records show that Graydon was convicted of manslaughter, [29] but then released on appeal, based on a technicality. In any case, he lost control of the EOC. But, in November, 1974 I believe, our assistant director and future director, Bill Hughes, invited Graydon back to speak as a role model. Although it was already dark outside, Graydon, wearing sunglasses and a psychopathic smile, recounted the glories of the race riots of a few years earlier, musing that it was “time to throw some more Molotov cocktails.”

(In the year 2000, Graydon was arrested [30]and convicted [30]in an extortion/kickback scam—based on his position of head of maintenance for a local Housing Authority. )

Graydon’s vision actually happened—In 1968, in Wilmington, Delaware, [31] members of the Wilmington Youth Emergency Action Council formed [32] a “Liberation Army,” [33] and were caught with numerous caches of weapons.[Gang Payoff Charges Aim Of Senate Probers, [34] UPI, October 12, 1968]

The race war is at least a century old.

If we leave off black slavery-era race warriors, such as Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner, the modern black race war in America started with religio-political cults such as Timothy Drew’s Moorish Science Temple [35] (1913), Jamaican Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association [36] (1916), and New Zealander Wallace Dodd Fard’s Nation of Islam [37] (1930). (The South Asian Fard didn’t have a drop of black blood [38], but passed for black.)

These bloody cults initially had little impact. Drew’s rivals murdered him, and the white authorities showed sanity in dealing with Garvey, whom they deported, and the NOI, which they ran out of Detroit. However, Chicago authorities permitted the murderous cult to set down roots and flourish.

But today our ruling elites treat such cults like royalty.

There’s a huge black literature of genocide from the NOI, Black Liberation Theology, Frances Cress Welsing, Amos Wilson, et al.

Black Liberation Theology’s most famous adherent [39] just got re-elected President.

The black race war has thrived because it enjoyed the support of organizations such as the white-founded NAACP, the antiversites [40], the MSM, and the courts, and because white Communists [41] realized that they could use blacks to topple free Western governments.

Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP’s lead counsel in the Brown case, later told his Supreme Court colleague, William O. Douglas, that the real point of “integration” was not equality, but to conquer whites:
The evils of the past (e.g., slavery) were committed against—and by—persons of the past. We can neither punish the perpetrators nor compensate the victims.Moreover, we ourselves are not these persons of the past. This seeming truism was lost on Justice Thurgood Marshall, who, in response to the condemnation of any government bias against or in favor of anyone, bellowed, ‘You guys [i.e., white people] have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it’s our [i.e., black people’s] turn.’ Again, most, if not all, of the people today, black and white, were not even alive during those past periods of injustice. But what would this racial eye-for-an-eye theory of ‘discrimination’ mean in practice? The implementation of a Jim Crow system against whites? The resurrection of involuntary servitude with whites as slaves?

[Affirmative Action, Negative Justice [42] by Barry Loberfeld, Front Page Magazine, September 21, 2003.]
“Mainstream scholarship” on race today consists almost entirely of lies intended to serve the black race war: “race doesn’t exist; [43]” blacks [i.e., a non-existent race] suffer from “low self-esteem [44]”; Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’ six or seven children [45]; black students are disproportionately disciplined [46], and black men disproportionately imprisoned [47], due to racial profiling [48]; “Ebonics” [49] is equal to or superior to Standard English; the real crime problem in the Jim Crow South consisted of white men raping black women [50]; etc. Journalism on race is no better.

Genocidal ideas have completely taken over academia, the schools, and the most respectable publishing operations.

White public school teachers are forced to attend Teacher Ed schools and, later, professional diversity training sessions, where racists of all colors tell them that they enjoy“white privilege.” [51] To challenge this racist dogma is to commit professional suicide [52].

White teachers routinely endure [53] racist black “students” who shower them with racial epithets, threaten them, maim them, and sometimes rape and murder them.

The common denominator [54] to this pedagogy is that black adults teach black children to hate whites, and encourage them to harass, assault, rob, rape, and even murder them.

In Black Children: Their Roots, Culture, and Learning Styles [55], influential Wayne State University education professor Janice Hale [56] [Email her [57]] maintains that the number one component “for a curriculum for Black children” is “political/cultural (ideology).”
Education for struggle has a consciousness-raising function for Black people, instructing them concerning the following realities:
who they are
who the enemy is
what the enemy is doing to them
what to struggle for
what form the struggle must take.
And Hale’s proposals are for educating pre-schoolers!

The MSM has, since the 1960s, supported the black race war by engaging in largely a two-pronged campaign of covering up or, failing that, rationalizing away violent black racism; and creating a racial fairy tale of white racism, including, especially, racist white cops [58]. Challenging the MSM’s racial fairy tale, whether in “J-school,” or later in anewsroom [59], is again, professional suicide.

The national MSM typically seek to suppress reporting on black massacres of whites and other atrocities. But when they can’t, they seek to turn the perpetrators into victims of “racism” who fought back, or were falsely convicted, most notoriously with the Omar Thornton, [60]Trayvon Martin, [61]Central Park Jogger [62], and Christopher Dorner [63] cases.

Nkosi Thandiwe [64] similarly claimed he was fighting racism, when he murdered Brittney Watts, maimed Lauren Garcia, and wounded Tiffancy Ferenczy. Racist black monsters increasingly also seek to get paid for their crimes [65].

But the war is not limited to violence. It entails non-violent measures as well, such as black shakedowns for anywhere from millions [66] to billions [67] of dollars, and even theharassment of white restaurant patrons [68]. Whites have also seen the government confiscate trillions from them, to pay extortionate reparations [69] to blacks, under threat of violence.

So, yes, this is war. America has to wake up to it—or die.

Nicholas Stix is a New York City-based journalist and researcher, much of whose work focuses on the nexus of race, crime, and education. He spent much of the 1990s teaching college in New York and New Jersey. His work has appeared in Chronicles, The New York Post, Weekly Standard, Daily News, New York Newsday, American Renaissance, Academic Questions, Ideas on Liberty [71] and many other publications. Stix was the project director and principal author of the NPI report, The State of White America-2007 [72]. He blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored [73].

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:41 | #

Joy upon joy! Howard Roark walks amongst us and even leaves comments.

Readers MR of do not worry for Leon Haller will save whitey with a rather improbable witches-brew of Misean ultras, fundamentalist Protestants (plus reactionary Catholics), assault-rifle owners and die-hard Confederates and the odd plutocrat or two. Personally I doubt the last class of people in that list are remotely interested in his politics, but I’m no expert on such things!

White Zion (location to be determined at a late date – it’s only a minor detail folks) will be a Lockean utopia (no it’s nothing like Randsville you cynics!). And in WZ one people will be united under the really, really, really free ‘free-market’. 

Fanatical - almost theological in nature - adherence to the ideas of Ludwig von Mises will be the highest of all values in WZ. Tax cuts for billionaires will be the key economic policy.

Truly those of substantive means (but whom dislike those dark fellows) will finally have a safe haven. And the parasitical, and let’s be honest utterly worthless, Mr. & Mrs. Economically Average (let alone Mr. & Mrs. Economically Below Average) can bloody well learn to stop being so needy (and greedy) and stand on their own two feet because ultimately we come into this world be ourselves and we exit it in the same manner. Ethno-libertarians of the world unite in voluntary association (sorry that’s an unfortunate word in this context - I’ll leave the reader to judge which unfortunate word I was referring to - ethno or unite).

Our situation is as radically autonomous individuals that owe nothing to anyone beyond the content of ephemeral contracts - political and more importantly economic - freely entered into and resiled from (and certainly no-one owes anything whatsoever to that mythology called ‘society’). Any other understanding of the order of things is but a ruse gotten up greedy leftists (the only group of self-serving and greedy people in the ideological world of course). The common good is but an illusion. Public-choice theory tells us so.

Then again ideologically arse-licking ‘wealth creators’, at ever turn, such as the typical vulture capitalist or the slime-ball creatures that operate within Wall Street and the City doesn’t seem like very smart politics - in that I doubt it really plays with many of we, very non-plutocratic, plebs. You know an important part of politics is at least attempting to be popular with substantive numbers of people.

Silly me!

But, then again, I think Mr. & Mrs Average are, almost by definition, typically the majority in any society? Perhaps not?

Can we, dear reader, really be in Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:46 | #

“As long as nonwhite immigration continues, there really is no other (political) issue worth worrying about.”

- Leon

Wrong.

Immigration is going to be resisted with premises of Mises and Hayek style individualism? By Christianity?

The priority for Whites is to get organized, unionized as a group, based on our biological interests.

Then we might have a sound basis to fend-off non-White imposition, migratory and otherwise. 

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:46 | #

Something to seriously ponder.

How one becomes a traditionalist conservative through Christianity

Lawrence Auster wrote: “When I became a Christian believer 24 years ago, it changed many things about me. One of the first and most significant changes was that I began to understand the principle of self-limitation, of placing boundaries on the self, on what the 1920s literary critic Irving Babbitt (in his seminal book Democracy and Leadership) called our expansive, self-aggrandizing appetites.

When I began to believe in Jesus Christ and, to some extent, tried to follow him in my inner life, I began to experience practically a principle, a force, an intelligence, a being, that was outside and higher than my personal self and its desires. Not that I became a particularly good person, or a good Christian, but I did experience this and practice it to some extent, and that made all the difference. Understanding the principle of self-limitation, and understanding that it was both good and practicable, made me understand traditionalist conservatism. Prior to this, I really did not grasp traditional morality, which is the center of traditionalist conservatism. Now I at least understood it and its importance, notwithstanding how incomplete my own practice of it was. Before that, I did not have a grasp of traditional morality, and therefore had no ability to critique the liberal morality of the free self, including my own free self.

How many times have I said that liberalism at its core is the belief that the human self is the highest reality, with no truth or standard outside or higher than the self and its desires? That insight came from my experience of Christ and Christianity.

Babbitt, who was not a Christian, wrote that the higher, guiding principle does not have to come from Christianity; it can come from various other traditions, including philosophical teachings such as Aristotle’s. But it was through the living Jesus Christ that I discovered it.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 01, 2013 06:45 AM | Send

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 02:31 | #

I’m with ya Velociman.

–

Breaking Silence

To honor a great man on the anniversary of his death. Andrew Breitbart was the man, the person, we all thought we were, until he proved us otherwise. We muttered, he acted. We blathered, he produced. He seemed so invincible I still cannot accept it.

We are all Breitbart. If we choose to be.

http://www.velociworld.com/Velociblog/Oldvelocity/004040.html

Posted by Lindtner and Humphreys on Sun, 10 May 2015 21:48 | #

Lindtner + Humphreys

Kenneth Humphreys and Christian Lindtner to appear in international conference:

  FYI: There will be an important international conference on the New Testament in Roskilde, Denmark on June 21-24, 2015

  Gospel Interpretation and Q-Hypothesis.