Posted by cladrastis on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:22 | #

No form of order, no reasonable legitimacy or legality can exist without protection and obedience.  The protego ergo obligo is the cogito ergo sum of the state.  A political theory which does not systematically become aware of this sentence remains an inadequate fragment.  Hobbes designated this…as the true purpose of his Leviathan, to instill in man once again “the mutual relation between Protection and Obedience”; human nature as well as divine right demands its inviolable observation.

-Carl Schmitt

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:48 | #

Vdare.com’s Patrick Cleburne weighs in:

So justice has been served in the Iowa State Fair racial violence:  the Des Moines Police spokeswoman who had the temerity not to flatly lie about the culprits being black has lost her job […].  Sergeant Lori Lavorato’s offence of course was integrity.  She has compounded this by not disguising that she has been harmed:

” ‘For reasons I cannot disclose, I am being transferred,’ she said…. ‘I enjoyed being (the public information officer), working with the media and the public, and it’s a job I’m going to miss.’ “

[…] The culprit here is the Des Moines Police Chief Judy A. Bradshaw,

Des Moines Police Chief Judy Bradshaw

an Affirmative Action beneficiary and Racial/Gender Spoils purveyor.  Here she is [see original text for embedded link] gloating about being able to discriminate against men shortly after she got the job.

This behavior is outrageous and Angry White Dude supplies the outrage [link in original piece at URL below]:

”It’s good for Des Moines Iowa’s politically correct police chief that it was ‘Beat Whitey’ night at the Iowa State Fair and not ‘Beat Politically Correct Libtards’ night.  Judy Bradshaw would not have made it out alive. […] What do the 40 young black thugs learn from the chief?  Other than Bradshaw is a waste of oxygen with a lebanese haircut they learn they will never be held responsible for their actions in society.  There will always be an alibi, an excuse, a way around being responsible for the decisions that govern what they do.  This gives young blacks a feeling that no one will ever call them on their actions or stand up to them which only emboldens them to act like antisocial criminals.”

[read the whole thing:  http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/09/05/iowa-fair-wilding-new-obama-campaign-theme/ ]

Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:23 | #

This event has REALLY angered my fellow Iowans, almost as much as anything in recent memory. The recent concert in Dubuque with Ted Nugent got picked on, because he said ‘There are a lot of white faces out there’ (which was a POSITIVE thing, IMHO - and why TN said it, frankly!)

This monkeyshines only proves that the Negro CANNOT be trusted to act in a civilized, rational, MORAL manner- precisely because such are called ‘chayed’ [Beasts] in Scripture, as they are NOT of the race of the People of God.

This, of course, is anathema to the Deicides, the Liberals, and the other detrius masquerading as Americans. Meanwhile, some butch dyke (who, as a woman, should NEVER have even BEEN in the Police Force) or some feminazi wannabe, transfers the only person who ‘called a spade, A SPADE!’

Iowa should wake up, expel the ‘xenos’ from her bosom, and restore her state to a Whites Only paradise, which is still is, in isolated pockets. But, before they do that, they are going to have to WAKE UP, and realize that the Black is NOT the same/equal/normal, when compared to Whites.

Misericordie, Domine.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:27 | #

Lori Lavorato can be seen in this video, posted by Richard Spencer, giving a completely objective account of what happened that night:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/was-beat-whitey-night-really-about-race/ .

Anyone see anything, one single word of what Lori Lavorato says in the video, that should be grounds for firing her as Police Spokeswoman?

OK, now does anyone see anything about this overall situation that should get Judy Bradshaw fired as Des Moines Chief of Police?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:33 | #

“Beat Whitey Night” is what that Iowa governor wanted more of when he put out a call — this goes back a number of years but I well remember it — when he put out a call nationwide for Negroes to come flocking to Iowa, saying his state didn’t have enough Negroes, was too white.  Anyone imagine that governor didn’t know this would be the result?  I can’t imagine it — he’s got two eyes, right? And a brain?  So he must have wanted it.  The only question is why.

Posted by one on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:51 | #

American Renaissance, November 2000

Iowa Follies

From 1980 to 1990 Iowa and West Virginia were the only states in the union whose populations declined. In the decade just past, however, Iowa reversed that trend and grew by 3.3 percent. Still, the population is aging, young people are leaving for other states, and unemployment is at only two percent. Democratic governor Tom Vilsack says Iowa needs more people and thinks immigrants are the solution. He wants the federal government to declare his state an “immigration enterprise zone,” and for it to be exempted from immigration limits. He hopes for 310,000 newcomers over the next ten years. A poll taken by the Des Moines Register found that 58 percent of Iowans — 96 percent of whom are white — oppose the idea, 34 percent approve, and the rest aren’t sure. [William Claiborne, Iowa Looks Abroad for Workers, Washington Post, Sept. 16, 2000. A3.]

Sam Francis - May 24, 2001

Abolishing America (contd.): Iowa’s Options - “Diversity” Or “Hate”?

The debate over immigration may have smothered in its cradle in Washington and national politics, but in more real places it’s still alive and kicking.  One such place is Iowa, which for the last nine months has been pregnant with controversy over the issue.

Last September, the state’s Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, was infected with the idea that what Iowa really needs are more immigrants—namely 350,000 of them—to be imported from Third World countries to help poor, backward, white Iowa “diversify.” For all the pompous rhetoric about the holy mantra of “diversity,” the real reason behind the governor’s plan was much more mundane. Iowa, a mainly rural state, is losing population and needs more people to boost its economy.  The governor’s plan had the support of what at the time were called “business and civic leaders”—that is, those who directly profit form the cheap labor that more immigration brings.

But those who don’t so profit—the vast majority of Iowans – didn’t care much for the governor’s plan.  Some 58 percent thought Iowa was already diverse enough and expressed opposition to the proposal.  A more recent poll, released this month by the pro-immigration Des Moines Register, shows that number hasn’t changed and also that some two-thirds of the citizens of Des Moines think their city “has enough racial, ethnic and cultural diversity for their needs and preferences.”

As suggested above, the invocation of “diversity” has become a kind of dogma that is never explained or subjected to scrutiny. It would be interesting to know how one is supposed to decide how much “diversity” is enough and how much is too little.  For that matter, it would be nice to know why “diversity” is a good thing at all.  How exactly does Iowa suffer from not having more “diversity”?  What benefits of civilized life is Iowa lacking today because it is not sufficiently “diverse”?  Alas, no one seems to know, or, if they know, don’t say.

What they do say is that those who oppose immigration and the “diversity” it brings are full of hate.  Two days after the Des Moines Register imparted the dismal news that Iowans are pretty much satiated with “diversity,” the same reporter unleashed another story claiming that groups opposing immigration are all “hate groups.”  At least one of the groups had run TV ads against Gov. Vilsack’s proposal a few months before.  The meaning is clear. Iowans have been duped into thinking their state has too much diversity because “hate groups” have made them think so.

What’s interesting about the second Register story is that it never tells us what a “hate group” is exactly—just as no one who is for diversity ever tells us what good diversity does.  Both “hate” and “diversity” as they are used today are codewords, deployed to invoke images in people’s minds without inciting actual thought about what they mean.  Everybody’s against “hate,” of course, and everybody is for or should be for “diversity.”  If you’re not for “diversity,” it must be because you’re full of “hate.”

The source of the Register’s smear is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing outfit that specializes in denouncing any group it deems too far to the right as a “hate group.”  But it too doesn’t bother to define “hate group,” and at least some of the information it purveys about some of the groups in question is simply wrong.

Presumably, a “hate group” is a group that advocates hatred—and therefore violence—against certain racial, religious, or ethnic groups.  The problem is that I happen to know most of the groups being denounced and know that they do no such thing.  Nor does the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Des Moines Register provide any information that they do.  In the amazingly non-diverse minds of the Center and the newspaper, anyone who opposes immigration and thinks Iowa is already diverse enough must be driven by hate—and that, as far as I can tell, is the only reason they have for claiming these are “hate groups.”

What is happening in the great Iowa debate about immigration may explain why there hasn’t been more of a debate about immigration in the nation as a whole—those who support mass immigration don’t really have much of an argument on their side, so all they can do is invoke codewords like “diversity” and smear anyone who disagrees with them as driven by “hate.”  What ensues is not a debate but the forensic equivalent of mud wrestling, and what comes out of the “debate” is not truth but merely emotional gratification and the muzzling of real thought and real discussion. Iowans ought to demand something better for their state, because the nation as a whole has failed to demand it for itself.

Posted by one on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:57 | #

Des Moines was 79.6% non-Hispanic white in the 2000 Census.  The state of Iowa as a whole was 92.6% non-Hispanic white.

Tragically, in the last few years, there has been a significant influx of blacks from Chicago and other places into Iowa, as well as a substantial inflow of non-white immigrants.

Based on the 2006-2008 American Community Survey estimates, in a mere 6-8 years, the black population of Des Moines increased by 14% and the Hispanic population increased by 54%.  The white population of Des Moines declined by 7%.  For the state of Iowa as a whole, the white population was unchanged, the black population increased by 18%, the Hispanic population increased by 45%, the Asian population increased by 30%, and the mixed race population increased by 33%.  There has undoubtedly been further increase in the non-white populations since 2006-2008.

Posted by one on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:01 | #

From US Census data

Racial demographics of Iowa

1840: 99.6% white
1850: 99.8% white
1860: 99.8% white
1870: 99.5% white
1880: 99.4% white
1890: 99.4% white
1900: 99.4% white
1910: 99.3% white
1920: 99.2% white
1930: 99.1% white
1940: 99.3% white
1950: 99.2% white
1960: 98.9% white
1970: 98.5% white
1980: 97.5% white
1990: 95.9% white
2000: 92.6% white
2006-2008 ACS estimate: 90.5% white

Posted by torgrim on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:48 | #

Beat Whitey Nite, Iowa’s Governor, puts out a call for more immigration to Iowa….and with no punishment or even acknowledgement, the perps, get a green light for future criminal activity.

Tom Vilsack the once Governor is now head of the Dept. of Agriculture, he even had allusions of the Presidential Office….

Now, he has the power to grand loans to hispanic farmers, guaranteed price supports and markets, the markets of course are the free food programes supported by the Dept. of AG. and this in turn feeds the new serf class from Latin America. Votes for food, and now government subsidized loans to buy out Whitey and his children, who will, be assured, will NOT get the loans. For an example just look at the 1980’s and the land clearances of that decade, and the Family Farm, case closed.

This cabal wants to now displace the original owners, the people that made the land the most productive land in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Vilsack
http://www.SeattleWeekly.com/2010-07-28/news/usda-looks-good-to-washington-s-hispanic-farmers/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:20 | #

The excerpts pasted by “one” have the governor calling for hundreds of thousands of “immigrants” to descend on Iowa.  However, I distinctly remember an Iowa governor (whether Vilsak or not I don’t know) calling specifically on U.S. Negroes to move to the State of Iowa — not immigrants, not Third Worlders, but specifically American Negroes — because, supposedly, Iowa needed to be more diverse.  (Do we need to ask whether the advisor who prompted that governor to put out that call was of (fill in the blank) _______ ethnicity?  No, I don’t think we need to ask ....... It would be like asking how much is two plus two.)

Posted by Dirty Bull on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:37 | #

It’s not Tom Vilsack, But Tom Ball-Sack, more like : )

Posted by TarzanInTheRockies on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:00 | #

I can only assume that the Good Chief Judy has never been despoiled or seriously injured by one or more of the Children of Ham (or perhaps she can’t relate, or even recreate a specific personal event of her own, back there somewhere?).  Or maybe it is only the manifestation of misguided spiritual council.

As a card carrying, proud and patriotic C.C.P. holder (that is concealed carry permit… in my home state as well as reciprocally in 37 other states if memory serves (not Communist Center Party)), I would make the argument that certain designated types of ammunition have been specifically designed for this type of social intercourse. (Hollow Point, probably designed by ol’ whitey, Of course!)

Not that anyone should actually consider using said ammo on our heroine: Or that vulgar language, neanderthal-like behavior, or direct threats of violence to be adequate provocation for defending self from same in today’s ultra-rational world. Not at all.

But, as an ex-infantry type having spent several years in Northern Europe (in the 80’s), why doesn’t this typical type of perversion of preference and crippled reasoning by a portion of white womanhood surprise me here in the midsection of America?

Posted by TarzanInTheRockies on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:05 | #

P.S. “BEAT WHITEY NIGHT” must obviously be some kind of arcane code.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:03 | #

The Kardashian sister I meant there was Khloe but I just checked out the Wiki entry and learned that Khloe’s sister Kim is also a living example of “Once you go black, you never go back [because no white man in his right mind would touch you with a ten-foot pole]”:  Kim has had essentially only Negro boyfriends.  This is perhaps explained by their ancestry being only half-south, the other half being north (they’re half-Armenian, half a mixture of Scottish and Dutch).  In the case of the Kardashian sisters you may have had one of these rare genetic events where nearly all the ancestral traits come from just one parent, in their case the north parent.  That would certainly go a long way toward accounting for it scientifically.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:28 | #

It’s not Tom Vilsack, But Tom Ball-Sack, more like

I was thinking more along the lines of Tom Vilsack-of-Shit but hesitated to post that earlier on the grounds of decorum and good taste.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:56 | #

African Immigrants in Italy

“They actually live better down there than in Milan. They are treated and paid like slaves, but the human relationships are warmer than those you would find in Milan. Africans say the Italian girls look them in the eyes in Calabria, while in the north they wouldn’t.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953619,00.html#ixzz0yo8FDhTX

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:23 | #

northern women are more Afro-receptive

And I think correspondingly, Fred, that northern men are on average less Afro-repulsed than Med men.  Even relatively robust English nationalists are not averse to the incorporation of individuals with recent negro admixture into the English genepool.  If it happened before 1948 that was “legitimate gene flow” you see.  For any self-respecting NS Kraut the above can be nothing but illegitimate horseshit.  And therein lies the fundamental departure of opinion.  Krauts apparently care more about preserving the English (the same as they were with themselves before they limply allowed niggers access to their women) than the English do.  Strange but true.

Posted by pollution on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:59 | #

Assertion doesn’t make something true.

Desmond presents real information that contradicts Scrooby’s imagination, and Scrooby decides to reject reality because it conflicts with his fantasies.

Then, like clockwork, Captainchaos comes along and inserts his anti-English angle into things.

Of course, Scrooby is a middle-aged Jew, so it’s little wonder he’s obsessed with supposed rampant miscegenation by Northern European women.

Posted by pollution on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:05 | #

This is perhaps explained by their ancestry being only half-south, the other half being north (they’re half-Armenian, half a mixture of Scottish and Dutch).  In the case of the Kardashian sisters you may have had one of these rare genetic events where nearly all the ancestral traits cocme from just one parent, in their case the north parent.  That would ertainly go a long way toward accounting for it scientifically.

Do these women look like they inherited nearly all their traits from one northern parent?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:10 | #

n/a writes:

More generally, I think assertions by non-blacks that black men are hypermasculine and/or immensely attractive to white women and/or preternaturally “cool” tend to have more to do with ethnic and status competition among non-blacks than they have to do with blacks. Statements of this sort typically come from one of three groups:

  * non-Northern European ethnics
  * nerds
  * middle-aged men

Silver is a prime example.

“Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin.”

Or others:

# “You think you’re better than me? [Or: I think you’re better than me.] Well, you’re[sic] women fuck negroes. LOLS.”

# “Southern European women are less attractive? At least their not mudsharks! LOLS.”

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/02/reply-to-inconsequential-post-by-guy.html#more

The percentage of European women who are attracted to Africans is very small.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:36 | #

The percentage of European women who are attracted to Africans is very small. (Desmond Jones)

Not that small. I was recently in a cafe in San Francisco, a city with a small and declining black population, and saw three separate tables with couples, wherein the man was black (one a stylin’ light-skinned urban brotha, a second a coal-black African of some type, the third an incredibly ugly and poorly dressed mulatto), and the woman was a fairly attractive white. I was sitting near the cash register. Typically, in the latter two cases the white female paid for food/drinks, in the first one they each paid their own way.

We have totally lost control over our women. The problem is that the 30% of white men who are absolute losers, and the overlapping 70% of white men who are racial losers, have really harmed the reputation of our race considered as a whole. These losers make the rest of us look bad.

This is really warfare we’re in, any way you look at it. Which is why figuring out the ethics (and politics - and mechanics!) of re-racializing and re-empowering our race is, oh let’s see, maybe 40,000 times more important than worrying about whether Nietzsche or Heidegger or Godel or some other Deep Thinker can be conscripted to the white man’s cause. Worries about ontology, and ‘what’s really real’, are matters to be leisurely bruited about over scotch and sodas whilst sitting in plush armchairs reminiscing about our days spent in the White Man’s Revolution - but are quite beside the point when the Beat Whitey Nighters are coming for you and your civilization ...

Posted by Dasein on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:20 | #

The percentage of European women who are attracted to Africans is very small.

This is my impression as well.  Most women I’ve heard express an opinion on the matter say that they are turned off by what they call the African mentality (some have mentioned physiognomy, but mostly it’s behaviour).  And many white women I’ve known with negroes are low status.  The sort of girl few would take seriosly as marriage material, and then has a crisis that leads to them shacking up with a negro.  I believe n/a’s also posted on the lower average social status of mudsharks.

Fred, are you sure you’re not just noticing northern women with negroes more because of either stereotypes pushed by jewish media, or the even greater phenotypic contrast?

Posted by ATBOTL on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:50 | #

“I’d bet you’d travel the length and breadth of the Island of Sicely without finding one single instance of a Sicilian girl letting an African Negro male so much as verbally address her let alone come in the slightest physical contact with her, while in Sweden you’d travel the length and breadth of the country without finding one single instance of a Swedish female who’d be unwilling on principle to sleep with an African Negro.”

This isn’t true.  I don’t know about Sicily, but many Italian women are sleeping with black and Arab immigrant men.  Italy has had very heavy black immigration in the last 15 years. 

The mother of the Kardashian whores looks Mexican to me.  I am very skeptical of her claimed ancestry.  They do not even look Armenian, they have broad faces and very prominent cheekbones, like Mexicans.  Armenians look like Ashkenazi Jews for the most part.  Few Armenians are even as dark as they are, let alone ones who are half “Dutch and Irish.”  IMO that’s just not believable. 

Also, Silver is a troll who should be perma-banned from all pro-white interenet sites.  I do not understand why people like him are tolerated.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:30 | #

The Kardashian whores mother - she has supposed partial Dutch ancestry, have to say, seeing some pictures she does have something of a Dutch ‘look’ about her face. I say this as someone with bona fide Dutch ancestry/relatives myself.

Kim does look very dark, but in the above pic thats the darkest Ive seen her, tanning playing a part I feel.

Also, Silver is a troll who should be perma-banned from all pro-white interenet sites.  I do not understand why people like him are tolerated.

Lol! Truely, it is a mystery that passeth all understanding. For myself I no longer read, comment or otherwise engage with anything he says.

Posted by a.b. on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:44 | #

Kim does look very dark, but in the above pic thats the darkest Ive seen her, tanning playing a part I feel.

She was extremely dark as an infant, looking almost mulatto.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 05:53 | #

Fair point.

She does look very dark there, Im not too up on Armenians, Ive always had them down as being pretty much…well…pretty much white really. She certainly isnt getting those features from mum’s side of the family, thats for sure.

Posted by Silver on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 06:17 | #

Lol! Truely, it is a mystery that passeth all understanding. For myself I no longer read, comment or otherwise engage with anything he says.

I’m shattered.

Look, though many things I’ve said could obviously have been better said, the problem (for you) is that they amount to a ‘natural position’ on race.  In other words, it’s a position millions upon millions could settle on after taking a more honest look at race and racial reality; it’s far from something that requires someone like me or “The Jew” to trick them into.  The point of the sorts of things I say is to make explicit the difference in worldview between this kind of “moderate racialism” (to attach to it a label, though it could use something sexier) and the more extreme version you lovely gents peddle.

As for the occasional barb, get real: it’s the least you can expect when you so casually devastate and dehumanize people.

ATBOTL, your rhetoric would have been more appropriate for 1910, and it may well be more appropriate for 2110.  But it’s not particularly appropriate for 2010.

Posted by Silver on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 06:26 | #

lurker,

She does look very dark there, Im not too up on Armenians,

Or anyone else, for that matter.

Pointing out that none of you can offer a robust method of settling “the racial borderlands” issue—“Shut up about it!” doesn’t qualify—somehow amounts to “trolling.”  Say what you will about me but at least I’ve made a tentative effort in that regard—an effort that, given the present paucity of alternatives, seems to be most likely way the issue will be settled (if it’s to ever be).  Of course, you won’t know anything abou tthat because, as you say, you no longer read comments.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:30 | #

Silver writes:  none of you can offer a robust method of settling “the racial borderlands” issue—“Shut up about it!” doesn’t qualify—somehow amounts to “trolling.”

Until there exists some way for people to test their strongly held beliefs, it does rather amount to trolling to harass people about their nuances.

Posted by cancercures on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:22 | #

I suspect Governor Vilsack’s call for more immigrants to flock to Iowa is to increase competition for jobs and to cause disunity in society. Both are related:

1. Competition for jobs. This drives wages lower, and will increase unemployment. One helps the rich, as more people are dependant on them for employment and are willing to do more for less to remain employed. One helps the state, as more people are dependant on the state for government assistance.

2. Disunity in society. Aside from the two benefactors listed above, racial disunity also keeps regular people divided. Racial (also cultural and linguistic) division exists amongst immigrants and whites. Amongst whites, division also exists over the debate whether racial division actually exists (those who advocate ‘diversity’ versus those who don’t. Or, those who deny there’s problems versus those who do.).

Disunity also benefits the state. As long as the state keeps these people competing and hating each other, they won’t focus on the real enemies, which are the proponents of this immigration policy and those who benefit..These are the enemies.