Posts Tagged ‘White people’

Being White in Philly

Wednesday, March 6th, 2013

My younger son goes to Temple, where he’s a sophomore. This year he’s living in an apartment with two friends at 19th and Diamond, just a few blocks from campus. It’s a dangerous neighborhood. Whenever I go see Nick, I get antsy and wonder what I was thinking, allowing him to rent there.

One day, before I pick him up for lunch, I stop to talk to a cop who’s parked a block away from Nick’s apartment.

“Is he already enrolled for classes?” the cop says when I point out where my son lives.

Well, given that it’s December, I think so. But his message is clear: Bad idea, this neighborhood. A lot of burglaries and robberies. Temple students are prime prey, the cop says.

I’ve shared my view of North Broad Street with people—white friends and colleagues—who see something else there: New buildings. Progress. Gentrification. They’re sunny about the area around Temple. I think they’re blind, that they’ve stopped looking. Indeed, I’ve begun to think that most white people stopped looking around at large segments of our city, at our poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods, a long time ago. One of the reasons, plainly put, is queasiness over race. Many of those neighborhoods are predominantly African-American. And if you’re white, you don’t merely avoid them—you do your best to erase them from your thoughts.

At the same time, white Philadelphians think a great deal about race. Begin to talk to people, and it’s clear it’s a dominant motif in and around our city. Everyone seems to have a story, often an uncomfortable story, about how white and black people relate.

Another story: Dennis, 26, teaches math in a Kensington school. His first year there, fresh out of college, one of his students, an unruly eighth grader, got into a fight with a girl. Dennis told him to stop, he got into Dennis’s face, and in the heat of the moment Dennis called the student, an African-American, “boy.”

The student went home and told his stepfather. The stepfather demanded a meeting with the principal and Dennis, and accused Dennis of being racist; the principal defended his teacher. Dennis apologized, knowing how loaded the term “boy” was and regretting that he’d used it, though he was thinking, Why would I be teaching in an inner-city school if I’m a racist? The stepfather calmed down, and that would have been the end of it, except for one thing: The student’s behavior got worse. Because now he knew that no one at the school could do anything, no matter how badly he behaved.

Confusion, misread intentions, bruised feelings—everyone has not only a race story, but a thousand examples of trying to sort through our uneasiness on levels large and trivial. I do, too. My rowhouse in Mount Airy is on a mostly African-American block; it’s middle-class and friendly—in fact, it’s the friendliest street my family has ever lived on, with block parties and a spirit of watching out for each other. Whether a neighbor is black or white seems to be of no consequence whatsoever.

Yet there’s a dance I do when I go to the Wawa on Germantown Avenue. I find myself being overly polite. Each time I hold the door a little too long for a person of color, I laugh at myself, both for being so self-consciously courteous and for knowing that I’m measuring the thank-you’s. A friend who walks to his car parked on Front Street downtown early each morning has a similar running joke with himself. As he walks, my friend says hello and makes eye contact with whoever crosses his path. If the person is white, he’s bestowing a tiny bump of friendliness. If the person is black, it’s friendliness and a bit more: He’s doing something positive for race relations.

On one level, such self-consciousness and hypersensitivity can be seen as progress when it comes to race, a sign of how much attitudes have shifted for the better, a symbol of our desire for things to be better. And yet, lately I’ve come to fear that the opposite might also be true: that our carefulness is, in fact, at the heart of the problem.

Fifty years after the height of the civil rights movement, more than 25 years after electing its first African-American mayor, Philadelphia remains a largely segregated city, with uneasy boundaries in culture and understanding. And also in well-being. There is a black middle class, certainly, and blacks are well-represented in our power structure, but there remains a vast and seemingly permanent black underclass. Thirty-one percent of Philadelphia’s more than 600,000 black residents live below the poverty line. Blacks are more likely than whites to be victims of a crime or commit one, to drop out of school and to be unemployed.

What gets examined publicly about race is generally one-dimensional, looked at almost exclusively from the perspective of people of color. Of course, it is black people who have faced generations of discrimination and who deal with it still. But our public discourse ignores the fact that race—particularly in a place like Philadelphia—is also an issue for white people. Though white people never talk about it.

Everyone might have a race story, but few whites risk the third-rail danger of speaking publicly about race, given the long, troubled history of race relations in this country and even more so in this city.

A few months ago I began spending time in Fairmount, just north of the Art Museum. Formerly a working-class enclave of rowhomes, it’s now a gentrifying neighborhood with middle-class cachet and good restaurants. I went to the northern edge, close to Girard Avenue, generally considered the dividing line from North Philly, and began asking the mostly middle-class white people who live there, for whom race is an everyday issue, how it affects them.

Strangely enough, a number of them answered. Their stories bring home just how complicated white people’s negotiation with race and class is in this city, and how varied: Everyone does have a race story, it turns out, and every story is utterly unique.

Early on, during my walks around northern Fairmount, I’m surprised by a couple of things. One is the international flavor. On a warm Sunday in October, I buttonhole a woman I’ll call Anna, a tall, slim, dark-haired beauty from Moscow getting out of her BMW on an alley just south of Girard College. Anna goes to a local law school, works downtown at a law firm, and proceeds to let me have it when we start talking about race in her neighborhood.

“I’ve been here for two years, I’m almost done,” she says. “Blacks use skin color as an excuse. Discrimination is an excuse, instead of moving forward. … It’s a shame—you pay taxes, they’re not doing anything except sitting on porches smoking pot … Why do you support them when they won’t work, just make babies and smoking pot? I walk to work in Center City, black guys make compliments, ‘Hey beautiful. Hey sweetie.’ White people look but don’t make comments. …”

American whites I talk to in Fairmount have a decidedly different take. Our racial history, as horrible and daunting as it is, has created a certain tolerance of how things operate in the neighborhood, an acceptance of an edgy status quo.

One Fairmounter blames herself for her grill being stolen from her backyard, because if you don’t fence it in, she tells me, you’re asking for it. A pumpkin gets lifted from her front stoop in the fall, she buys another. That one gets stolen, she gets one more. It’s called city living. Flowerpots, even trash cans—they don’t stick around. Porch chairs have to be chained together. Your car window is likely to get smashed every now and then.

The danger can be a little steeper. One afternoon, at Krupa’s Tavern at 27th and Brown, a guy named Bob tells me about working in the mailroom at Rolling Stone magazine years ago and shows me an anthology of Beat-era writers he’s reading. I can’t resist asking him about his wire-rim glasses, which are way down on his nose and twisted at an absurd angle—there’s no way he can see out of them.

“Oh,” he says, smiling, “I went home one night from the bar and two guys smashed my face into the cement steps of my house”—that’s what messed up his glasses. “A few days later I got my wallet back in the mail—they had thrown it in somebody’s mailbox.”

He acknowledges that his assailants were black. “Not that that matters,” he says.

In 1950, Philadelphia was a predominantly white city, with blacks comprising about 20 percent of the population. A decade later, that number had risen closer to 30 percent, and four years after that—in the summer of 1964—racial unrest flared in North Philadelphia, largely over brutality against blacks by white cops. Hundreds were injured or arrested, and more than 200 stores in North Philly were damaged or destroyed in three days of rioting, with many never reopening. White flight only accelerated in the next decade, and today blacks make up 44 percent of the city’s population, and non-Hispanic whites 37 percent.

John, who lives on Woodstock, a leafy side street between Poplar and the northern stone wall of Eastern State Penitentiary, has seen the city’s demographics shift firsthand. He’s 87, and has lived on this block since he was five. Since 1930.

It was a different place then, before the war. You could walk home from the Blue Jay restaurant, at 29th and Girard, at any hour. Or up to Ridge to the Amish Market.

John worked in the offices of local long-distance haulers.

Milk and bread and ice delivered to your door. A city worker coming by every evening to climb a ladder to light the gas lamps that cast a beautiful glow. There were four nearby houses of prostitution, and tailors and drugstores, a butcher, barbers, a candy store—a self-contained world. Everybody had a laundry tree in the alley out back, and every Monday there’d be a snow of white—until shirts and towels and sheets began disappearing, right after the Second World War.

That’s when blacks from the South, with chips on their shoulders, John says, moved North. They moved into great brownstones above Girard and trashed them, using banisters and doors to stoke their furnaces instead of buying coal. Before long, it looked like Berlin after the war. Whites moved out.

I ask John when he was last above Girard Avenue. He thinks for a moment. “To a football game,” he says. When? “In 1942.”

Over the years he’s been mugged twice, once for a hundred bucks, once for the bottle of liquor he’d just bought. His house was once broken into, and he lost coats and money and Christmas presents and his father’s gold watch. A steel-tipped arrow once shot through his rear kitchen window, impaling a chair just after his nephew had gotten out of it. He watched as four or five black men appeared on the block one afternoon and tried to break into his brand-new Chrysler Imperial. John stood at his door—they walked away when they saw him. Last summer he was sitting on his stoop in a lounge chair and went in to use the bathroom, and when he returned, there was no chair—a neighbor watched a black kid on a bike zero in to lift it.

There’s more. But John doesn’t express sweeping bitterness or anger. “Oh, I have no problems with blacks,” he says. He was once quite friendly with black neighbors on Poplar, whose alley garages he can see from his porch. “They were working people, nice people, lovely people. I hated to see them move.”

Given the monumental changes he’s seen and his declining health, John no longer risks venturing alone beyond his block. There is a monumental spread, too, in his thinking, when he considers the range of black people who have entered his neighborhood.

He tells me about the time, a Saturday afternoon more than 10 years ago, when he came downstairs to his living room to find a stranger had come in through his front door—“It was a nigger boy, a big tall kid. He wanted money.”

It’s a strange moment, not only because of the ugly word, but because of John’s calm in delivering it, as if it is merely fact, one that explains the vast changes in his world.

Fairmount is now a destination of choice for a certain breed of young professional. And among them I discover a tried-and-true test of racial comfort.

Jen lives on Mount Vernon with her husband, an architect, and two children, eight and six; she’s been in Philly since she came to Drexel from Egg Harbor Township on a basketball scholarship two decades ago. Four years ago, Jen began looking into where Sebastian, now in third grade, would start school.

There’s a very good elementary school in Rittenhouse: Greenfield. And that’s the school the parents in Fairmount—the white, middle-class parents, which is Fairmount—shoot for if they’re going public.

Jen took a look at Bache-Martin, the public school four blocks from her house and 74 percent black: Teachers engaged. Kids well-behaved. Small classes. Plus a gym and an auditorium and a cafeteria, a garden, a computer lab. She enrolled her kids there.

Jen was not in the majority. Other mothers told her, “There is a lot of Greenfield pressure.” That pressure is from fellow Fairmounters: pressure to send their kids, collectively, to the right school. Greenfield test scores are a bit higher. It’s also not nearly so black.

Another mother told Jen: “I didn’t want to be the first”—in other words, the first to make the leap to Bache-Martin. “It takes a special person to be first.” Another told her: “Not everybody is as confident as you.”

Sipping tea in Mugshots on Fairmount Avenue, Jen rolls her eyes over the nut of the problem: Unfounded fear. Groupthink. A judgment on a school without even setting foot in it. “I wouldn’t like to imply that it’s about anything else,” Jen says, but of course it is: race.

Most Fairmounters, of course, aren’t trying to push up into Brewerytown, and their concerns are a little more pedestrian. In early December, I go to a civic-association meeting. On the agenda: the upcoming house tour, the winter social, patio planter boxes to help lessen rainwater in the sewers, and the neighborhood scourge: parking! I talk with Eileen and Bruce, who’s the association’s head, in the cozy glass-enclosed back room of their rowhouse on 25th Street. They’re both retired Philadelphia schoolteachers; we discuss neighborhoods.

Brewerytown residents tend to stay above Girard, they tell me. “At Halloween,” Eileen says, “that’s the only time we see them. Lot of little kids from the other side of the tracks—African-American kids. People still give them candy.”

“People get upset,” Bruce says. “We used to have a parade on Sunday afternoon, kids would get nicely dressed up, and kids from up there”—he points north—“would come barely dressed up.”

Eileen says, “People say—”

“At least dress up,” Bruce says. “Unless they’re working here, most of them don’t come in this direction. They seem happy to stay in their little lot, as it were.”

In a way, that sounds an awful lot like the Philadelphia of half a century ago. Before the race riots of that era, before Frank Rizzo, before race relations became openly tense and violent, the old rules applied. Black people knew their place. The difference now is that white people seem to know their place as well—white people stay in their little lot, too.

The problems seem intractable. In so many quarters, simply discussing race is seen as racist. And so white people are stuck, dishonest by default, as we take a pass on the state of this city’s largely black inner city and settle for politely opening doors at Wawa, before we slip back to our own lives.

We’re stuck in another way, too. Our troubled black communities create in us a tangle of feelings, including this one: a desire for things to be better. But for that sentiment to come true—for it to mean anything, even—I’ve come to believe that white people have to risk being much more open. It’s impossible to know how that might change the racial dynamics in Philadelphia, or the plight of the inner city. But as things stand, our cautiousness and fear mean that nothing changes in how blacks and whites relate, and most of us lose out on the possibility of what Jen has found: real connection.

But this is how I see it: We need to bridge the conversational divide so that there are no longer two private dialogues in Philadelphia—white people talking to other whites, and black people to blacks—but a city in which it is okay to speak openly about race. That feels like a lot to ask, a leap of faith for everyone. It also seems like the only place to go, the necessary next step.

Meanwhile, when I drive through North Philly to visit my son, I continue to feel both profoundly sad and a blind desire to escape.

Though I wonder: Am I allowed to say even that?

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/white-philly/

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Whites Only Pastor Conference Has West Alabama Residents Upset

Saturday, July 7th, 2012

The good folk of Winfield, Ala. have been very upset by the news of an annual pastors conference taking place near their town. Not because of any animosity towards religious gatherings, but rather to the stipulation that only white Christians are invited.

Tyler Cantrell, the manager of Norris Music in downtown Winfield, discovered a flier for the conference earlier this week. “It was put up throughout the town in the middle of the night. When everyone was asleep and without the permission of the business owner[s],” he told WBRC news.

Despite the fact that the three-day conference in neighboring Lamar County was reportedly festooned with confederate flags and banners bearing Ku Klux Klan and white-supremacist slogans, and that it was scheduled to end July 6th with a “Sacred Christian Cross Lighting Ceremony” — not unlike the kind performed by the Klan –organizers denied that his organization was a hate group.  “The white race is God’s chosen people,” William C. Collier, the organizer of the event, told WBRC. “We don’t have the facilities to accommodate other people. We haven’t got any invitations to black, Muslim events. Of course we are not invited to Jewish events and stuff.”

The Christian Identity Ministries, which is running the event along with the Church of God’s Chosen, also claims on its website that the “Europeans and their descendants are the chosen people of God.” Ministry founder Mel Lewis spoke with a reporter from WAFF TV and claimed that the town’s mayor was violating their right to free speech and religious freedom.

“We are not breaking any laws. We’re not violating any ordinances. We’re bringing the Word of God to people who want it, obviously, or they wouldn’t be here,” said Lewis.

However the town’s Mayor, Wayne Silas, sees it differently. He told WBRC that “Business people are upset. The city is upset. The city of Winfield does not condone this.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Billboard backlash builds: Group calls for more cooperation in campaign against racism

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

More than 40 people gathered at the former site of a defaced billboard along Duluth’s Sixth Avenue East on Sunday to condemn what some called an act of terrorism, but also to express concern over the billboard’s original message and location.

The group held hands, sang songs and pledged to work harder to end the kind of racism in the community that spurred someone to paint a Confederate flag and a racial slur on a billboard originally intended to combat racism.

“It’s disturbing,” said Janet Haynes, Duluth community activist and University of Minnesota Duluth professor, of the racist graffiti. “But we live with it every day.”

Haynes said the billboard defacing wasn’t simply a teenager causing trouble but an act of “terror” against people of color, and she asked those gathered to raise money to offer a reward to find the person or people responsible.

A new U.S. Marine Corps recruiting billboard already has replaced the Un-Fair Campaign billboard that last week carried the message “Racism: Ignore it and it won’t go away.” To that, someone added, in red, the racial slur “No naggers” and the flag.

Blair Moses of Duluth, who lives within sight of the billboard, said the group’s gathering was a “visible response … to show that this kind of racism is not OK. To say that this is wrong.”

Moses said for someone to feel bold enough to deface the billboard with such a violent message in one of the city’s busiest areas, with no one reporting the crime, was itself concerning.

But others at Sunday’s rally also questioned some of the tactics of the Un-Fair Campaign, saying the effort to educate white people about racism may need to better consider how any reaction affects people of color.

Gabriel Peltier of Duluth said the Un-Fair Campaign needs to rethink its strategic planning to be ready for angry responses the advertising might draw out and that organizers of the campaign need to ask themselves “do we have the right people at the table?”

Haynes said the concept of white people educating white people about white privilege makes sense, “but the backfire is not coming toward white people.” She said the campaign needs to be ready with an active plan to respond as its message draws angry responses.

“When the backlash comes, you need to step forward and take a stand with us,” Haynes said, aimed at Un-Fair organizers at Sunday’s rally.

There also was concern expressed over the billboard’s location in a neighborhood with many people of color.

Ellen O’Neill, executive director of the Duluth YWCA, speaking on behalf of the 18 partners of the Un-Fair Campaign, said campaign organizers will meet “soon” to discuss the billboard situation and the campaign’s response. She said the campaign received the billboard at a discount rate from Lamar Co. and thus could not pick the original location. The billboard will go back up in another neighborhood soon, she noted.

“We’ll look at being more strategic,” O’Neill said of the campaign’s ongoing efforts.

Others defended the Un-Fair campaign strategy and the billboard, saying it has had people of color involved from the beginning and that the group is not insensitive to the racist response.

“It’s a difficult topic. But it’s always been about education, and we are united in keeping that message” said Allegra Henderson, a member of the Un-Fair Campaign committee. “Half the group representatives (on the committee) are people of color.”

O’Neill had been critical of media coverage of the racist graffiti saying it just perpetuated the problem. But others said the message of “ignore it and it won’t go away” applied to this situation as well.

Photos of the vandalized billboard needed to be shown in the media “for people who still believe Duluth doesn’t have a problem,” Haynes said.

The Un-Fair Campaign began in January with a goal of bringing people together to talk about the effects of racism. The main message has focused on white privilege with the line “It’s hard to see racism when you’re white.”

But the campaign also has ignited backlash, with some people saying the campaign itself is racist and alienating in its efforts. A white supremacist rally was held in Duluth in March in direct response to the campaign.

A new video sharing the campaign’s message was rolled out last month. It resulted in more backlash, this time from one of its partners. The University of Minnesota Duluth called the video’s message “divisive” based on complaints at UMD and the main campus of the university. Complaints have come from outside and within university walls, UMD Chancellor Lynn Black said this week. The message in the video was described by O’Neill as the same as before, but in a new format.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Racial and Gender Profiling Can Affect Outcome of Traffic Stops

Sunday, June 24th, 2012

Jeremy Briggs, doctoral candidate in sociology, Topeka, is analyzing police actions during routine traffic stops to understand how race and gender are connected. Perhaps one of his most significant findings is that black and Hispanic women are just as likely as white men to be ticketed, arrested or searched during a traffic stop.

Racial profiling has really come back into political discussions, especially in national media,” Briggs said. “It still matters in traffic stops.”

For his research, Briggs is using a national set of data called the Police Public Contact Survey. The data set was collected in 2005 and includes information from citizens above the age of 16 about their most recent contact with police. The data set includes traffic stops, which are the most common form of police-level contact.

Some of his most significant findings include:

* When compared with men, women were 23 percent less likely to be ticketed, 55 percent less likely to be arrested and 76 percent less likely to be searched when stopped by police. Women were more likely to only receive a warning or have no outcome when stopped by police during a traffic stop.

* Black and Hispanic drivers were significantly more likely to be searched, ticketed and arrested than white drivers when stopped by police. For example, black drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched or arrested when compared with white drivers. Hispanic drivers were almost three times as likely to be searched when compared with white drivers.

By combining data dealing with race and gender, Briggs found the differences between men and women do not hold up for all races. Out of all racial and ethnic categories of male and female drivers, white women were most likely to receive a perceived benefit in a traffic stop, such as receiving only a warning or no outcome at all. But the same is not true for black and Hispanic women, who were just as likely as white men to be ticketed, arrested or searched instead of receiving a warning or no outcome.

Black and Hispanic men were the most likely to be ticketed, arrested or searched during a traffic stop. Black men were 2.5 times as likely as white men to be arrested and twice as likely to be searched. Hispanic men were 1.5 times as likely as white men to receive a ticket and more than three times as likely to be searched.

Briggs also studied the race of police officers during traffic stops. He found that officer race does not appear to have a significant effect on the outcome of the traffic stop. Rather, the outcome seemed to be most affected by driver’s characteristics.

“It is possible that racial and gender differences are explained by some of the controls, such as the reason for the stop, driving frequency and other demographics,” Briggs said. “But it’s also possible that when considering all these other controls, racial profiling still stands. My analysis shows that race and gender do still matter in traffic stops, even controlling for many of these other factors.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

They’ll Call This Video Racist

Friday, June 1st, 2012

They’ll Call This Video Racist

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Who Are We?—The “Dissident Right”?

Saturday, May 12th, 2012

So this is the other side of the Right, eh? Not bad; though of course nothing like as classy as the hushed, oak-paneled,Chambers-of-Commerce-financed precincts of Conservatism Inc.,whose entrance is now barred against me by an angel with a flaming sword. The furnishings are a bit cheesy in fact, if you look too closely, which of course you shouldn’t. Do those drapes really match that carpet?

Nice people, though—most of whom, truth be told, I’ve known for a decade or more. And after watching Conservatism Inc. for a quarter of a century running along behind History’s great rumbling juggernaut squealing ”Would you mind slowing down just a teeny bit, please?” there is always the faint hope that this other crowd might actually turn us back some way towards liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism.

But who are they—I mean, we? What do we call ourselves?

For a special-interest website like VDARE.com this is not really a problem: ”Immigration Patriot” is sufficiently accurate.

VDARE.com occupies a corner of the non-Conservatism Inc. spectrum, though, and publishes commentary from other corners thereof, and it would be nice to have a definitive name for the whole shebang—something a little less defined-by-exclusion than “non-Conservatism Inc.”

Alternative Right” has been snaffled by Richard Spencer, all good luck to him. “Paleoconservative” has come to have a whiff of incense and cassocks about it, at least to me. I have tried to float“Oppositional Right,” but it’s a bit of a mouthful.

The enemies of conservatism are eager to supply their own nomenclature. “White Supremacist” seems to be their current favorite. It is meant maliciously, of course, to bring up images of fire-hoses, attack dogs, pick handles, and segregated lunch counters—to imply that conservatives, especially non-mainstream conservatives, are cruel people with dark thoughts.

Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think “White Supremacist” is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don’t see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.

Even non-whites acknowledge this in unguarded moments: this Zimbabwean blogger, for example, or the American high school student in this exchange with his teacher:

One day I asked the bored, black faces staring back at me: “What would happen if all the white people in America disappeared tomorrow?”

“We screwed,” a young, pitch-black boy screamed back. The rest of the blacks laughed.[ A White Teacher Speaks Out,American Renaissance, July 2009]

Non-white supremacy is after all the rule over much of the world, from entire continental spaces like sub-Saharan Africa to individualblack-run or mestizo-run municipalities in the U.S.A. I see no great floods into these places by refugees desperate to escape the horrors of white supremacy.

We should not let our enemies dictate vocabulary to us, though. In any case, the Whatever Right contains many separatists—who, far from wanting to lord it over nonwhites, just want to get away from them.

No, “White Supremacist” really won’t do, even in an owning-the-insult spirit.

“White Nationalist,” which has a fairly healthy currency here on the Whadda-We-Call-Ourselves Right, strikes me as even more problematical. What is the nation to which “nationalist” is the referent? “White” isn’t a nation, nor likely to become one.

I am of course aware of the much chewed-over distinction between nationalism and patriotism, first aired I think by Orwell, then taken up by Russell Kirk, the bloke who is supposed to have said—and you can register a skeptical background harrumph from me here—that “I am deeply patriotic, but I don’t have a nationalist bone in my body.”

I don’t mind the word “white” in either of those expressions. Conservatism, Inc. or otherwise, is a white people’s movement, a scattering of outliers notwithstanding.

Always has been, always will be. I have attended at least a hundred conservative gatherings, conferences, cruises, and jamborees: let me tell you, there ain’t too many raisins in that bun. I was in and out of the National Review offices for twelve years, and the only black person I saw there, other than when Herman Cain came calling, was Alex, the guy who runs the mail room. (Hey, Alex!)

This isn’t because conservatism is hostile to blacks and mestizos. Very much the contrary, especially in the case of Conservatism Inc. They fawn over the occasional nonwhite with a puppyish deference that fairly fogs the air with embarrassment. (Q: What do you call the one black guy at a gathering of 1,000 Republicans?  A: “Mr. Chairman.”)

It’s just that conservative ideals like self-sufficiency and minimal dependence on government have no appeal to underperforming minorities—groups who, in the statistical generality, are short of the attributes that make for group success in a modern commercial nation.

Of what use would it be to them to embrace such ideals? They would end up even more decisively pooled at the bottom of society than they are currently.

A much better strategy for them is to ally with as many disaffected white and Asian subgroups as they can (homosexuals, feminists, dead-end labor unions), attain electoral majorities, and institute big redistributionist governments to give them make-work jobs and transfer wealth to them from successful groups.

Which is what, very rationally and sensibly, they do.

So it’s not the “white” that bothers me. Heck, conservatives might just as well be honest about it, since it’s so almighty bleeding obvious.

It’s that “supremacy” and “nationalism” are poor fits for the spectrum of views out here on the To-Be-Determined Right.

(Whether “white” will become a poor fit too once I get the Arctic Alliance going, I shall discuss another time.)

What else have we got?

American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor, who has himself used “White Nationalism” in the past, seems to have settled on “race realist.” Again, though, Jared is working his own particular furrow. I’m all forrace realism—it sure beats race denialism—and it’s a key concept underpinning the Who-The-Heck-Are-We Right. But it’s just one concept sharing space with others (the aforementioned liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism) and I don’t think should be privileged.

So what do we call ourselves? I’m going to make a pitch for “Dissident Right.”

The word “dissident” has its roots in Latin dis-, meaning “apart,” and sedere, “to sit.” Dissidents sit apart from the main crowd, don’t join in the community singing, and refuse to applaud the Emperor’s new clothes.

Dissidence is a very honorable estate, made so by the brave dissidents of the great totalitarian empires. Here is the gold standard:

[Wang Ruowang] was jailed by all the major Chinese despots of that era: by Chiang Kai-shek in the 1930s, by Mao Tse-tung in the 1950s, and again in the 1960s, and then by Deng Xiaoping after the student movement of 1989, which Wang—then aged 71—vigorously supported … Wang enjoyed the distinction of having been expelled from the Party twice …

The sensational courage and integrity of those dissidents from totalitarianism in fact gives me pause. There might, I mean, be something a bit impertinent in comparing our occasional inconveniences with the horrors that they, and often their families and friends, faced up to.

There is also the air of loserdom that hangs over dissidence: what I once described in a column as “the futility of dissidents.”

All right; I was obviously on a downer at the time. I’ve put in hundreds of hours with Soviet and Chinese dissidents, though, and they really are a shabby and depressing lot. (I’ll except Wang Bingzhang, who was always smartly turned out.)

Still and all, we need a name. And I suggest that “Dissident Right” is as good as any.

For a fallback position—considering the pusillanimity and careerism of Conservatism Inc., its eagerness to fall into line with any leftist doctrine that does not involve higher taxation or being beastly to embryos—how about just…

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

A Complete Guide to ‘Hipster Racism’

Tuesday, May 1st, 2012

There’s been a lot of talk these last couple of weeks about “hipster racism” or “ironic racism”—or, as I like to call it, racism. It’s, you know, introducing your black friend as “my black friend”—as a joke!!!—to show everybody how totally not preoccupied you are with your black friend’s blackness. It’s the gentler, more clueless, and more insidious cousin of a hick in a hood; the domain of educated, middle-class white people (like me—to be clear, I am one of those) who believe that not wanting to be racist makes it okay for them to be totally racist. “But I went to college—I can’t be racist!” Turns out, you can.

What’s actually complicated is our country’s relationship with race, and our utter ineptitude at talking about it. We suck. {snip} But this new scheme someone came up with—where we prove we’re not racist by acting as casually racist as possible? Not our best, white people. Not our best.

So racism went underground. Sure, you can’t say racist things anymore, but you can pretend to say them! Which, it turns out, is pretty much the exact same thing. There are a couple of strains of “ironic racism” making the rounds right now, and a couple of typical defenses.

1. “Tee-Hee, Aren’t I Adorable?”

This category includes things like wide-eyed acoustic covers of hip-hop songs, suburban white girls flashing gang signs, and this Tweet from Zooey Deschanel: “Haha. :) RT @Sarabareilles: Home from tour and first things first: New Girl episodes I missed. #thuglife.” See, it’s hilarious, because we aren’t thugs—we are darling girls, and real thugs are black people who do crime! {snip}

{snip}

2. “Recreational Slumming.”

Wherein privileged people descend for a visit inside the strange, foreign spaces of othered groups. Like, I don’t know, IHOP. Or that “scary” bar in the south end. Then they go home again. Catchphrase: “It’s soooooo ghetto, but I actually totally like it!”

4. “God, Don’t White People Suck?”

Okay, I get what you’re trying to do here—having some fun at the expense of the oppressors while setting yourself up as one of the “cool” white people—but mainly what you end up doing is implying that black people don’t like informative radio or TED talks. Stuff White People Like: having the best brains! Isn’t it great that we can make fun of ourselves while still reminding you that we’re better than you?

And the thing is, when these things get called out, there really is no defense. But they try:

“No, don’t you see? I’m just showing how I’m so down with [minority group] that it’s totally cool for me to make jokes at their expense. Because we are just that kind of tight bros now.”

No. You cannot unlock some secret double-not-racist achievement by just being regular racist. Otherwise Bill O’Reilly would be president of the NAACP.

“But it’s a JOOOOOKE.”

Here’s the thing about jokes. They only work when they’re aiming up. I wrote this in another piece recently, but I’m just going to plagiarize myself: People in positions of power simply cannot make jokes at the expense of the powerless. {snip}

“Yeah, but we have a black president! Isn’t racism over?”

Okay. That’s probably the most racist thing you’ve said all day, imaginary amalgam of all the careless hipsters in the world. You know how you can tell that black people are still oppressed? Because black people are still oppressed. If you claim that you are not a racist person (or, at least, that you’re committed to working your ass off not to be one—which is really the best that any of us can promise), then you must believe that people are fundamentally born equal. So if that’s true, then in a vacuum, factors like skin color should have no effect on anyone’s success. Right? And therefore, if you really believe that all people are created equal, then when you see that drastic racial inequalities exist in the real world, the only thing that you could possiblyconclude is that some external force is holding certain people back. Like . . . racism. Right? So congratulations! You believe in racism! Unless you don’t actually think that people are born equal. And if you don’t believe that people are born equal, then you’re a fucking racist.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Tibetan Genocide versus White Genocide – Social engineering

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

What you quickly learn when you compare the two is that alleged “anti-racists” vehemently oppose Tibetan genocide because they, like all normal people, believe that these people deserve a home free from harm.

 

So then why do these alleged “anti-racists” (mostly White people I should add) demand and engage in the destruction of White people?

 

What the heck makes these “anti-racists” so eager to do this? What heck makes these “anti-racists”,which are mostly White people, anti-White?

 

Social engineering.

 

Okay, so you’re probably have a bunch of different questions. Let me answer them in simple terms:

 

Who: Anti-Whites, posing as “anti-racists”

What: The Media, Government, Academia.

Where: All White countries, ONLY White countries.

How: Social engineering, abuse of authority.

Why: Ohhh geeze, that’s like asking why are we alive.

 

Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Then and now

Monday, March 12th, 2012

There continue to be rivalries and disagreements about tactics in the resistance to genocide. One division is between word warriors, i.e. knights of the inkpen, i.e. pencil posse on one side, and those who favor a more direct action approach. So let’s dissect the problem with the maximum possible impartiality.

We have among us those who have made a “God” of Adolf Hitler. The following is not meant to disparage the efforts of the German leader. A case could be made that in the last century he was second only to George Lincoln Rockwell in determination, courage, charisma and all it takes to build a political movement.

However, the obstacles faced by Hitler were almost nothing compared to problems confronting the remaining true White folk in America today. Or for that matter in all the once White nations.

Germany of the pre-World War Two era was 98% White people. They were a tough strong people, hardened by the depression years and the defeat of World War One. The German army, both those still in uniform and those who had been discharged, backed German racial nationalism. In fact, at one point Hitler was paid by the Army to give anti-communist speeches.

Of course German communists could be converted to National Socialism, but in the former White nations today, we cannot convert Skraelings, i.e. non-whites, into Aryans.

Hitler was also backed by the Thule society, a large and influential occult, underground movement.

Hitler did not have to contend with the most powerful and pernicious propaganda tool in all of history, that being television. Television is of course a medium armed and/or controlled almost exclusively by that racial-religious tribe that intends to exterminate the White race.

The major point however is this; Hitler was able to go to the streets because he had a built in base for a political army and because person to person propaganda was both traditional and possible.

The fact is, with just a little determination and ability, Hitler could not fail in coming to power in Germany.

Let us compare his situation to what we face today in America and to some extent in other once White nations. Hitler came to power by use of the ballot box and the propaganda tools available at the time. Is there any White resistor so insane as to believe the negroes, mexicans, jews, Orientals, mixtures, judeo-Christians, those Whites mated with non-Whites, and those with a financial stake in preserving the system, will join our fight to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children???

Our potential constituency is hard to estimate as a percentage, but I would guess that five percent of America’s population is optimistic.

So, what is the answer if our kind is to survive? If our propaganda potential is pitiful in comparison to that of our enemies, and if street demonstrations are an exercise in futility, albeit courage, and if “direct action” of the kind demonstrated by Robert Mathews of the Order Bruder Schweigen is suicide, is there any strategy with at least some possibility of success? If “direct action” is suicide, is it wrong to speak with derision of the word warriors/knights of the inkpot?

Let us be honest and declare at this time a propaganda arm is still necessary. And those who are out front trying to awaken more of our folk receive slander from the system and risk their livelihood. So IF they are telling the unvarnished and desperate truth, they should be supported, funded, and honored for their efforts. They are not “knights of the inkpot.”

However, we are plagued with deceivers. Which ones are deceivers because of cowardice, which ones because of stupidity, and which ones because they are enemy agents is hard to tell. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter, the effect is the same.

Whether they teach that their God will save our kind, or that victory through votes is possible, or that eternal procrastination is an answer, or some other suicidal and cowardly nonsense, they must be recognized as enemies.

The fact is, our race cannot survive without exclusively White nations in which to protect, propagate and promote our own kind. Racial integration is certain extinction as proven in Carthage, Egypt, India and on and on.

The creation of a White bastion, and then a White nation will require sacrifice, deaths, warfare, deception, courage, wisdom and new perceptions. The social contracts, the alleged ethics, the religious conceptions, and the political systems that led us to the brink of extinction were self-evidently suicidal, anti-nature and erroneous.

I wrote a short novel titled “KD Rebel” in which I tried to outline a necessity, albeit deliberately leaving out details for two reasons. First, circumstances will demand flexibility and creativity that cannot be foreseen. And secondly, the enemy reads my words too, and it is unwise to divulge either plans or tactics.

But please understand the real messages in KD Rebel. To name a few; an exclusive territorial imperative is absolutely vital; warfare is unavoidable if our kind is to survive; the basic male instinct of sexual lust is nature’s plan for the survival of each race and specie; the capture of women is not immoral; and that a religion of the folk must incorporate nature’s laws and genetic memory.

While we are still able to use the inter-net it remains our best tool for awakening more of our folk. We must take full advantage. An occasional public demonstration at carefully chosen localities can be good for morale. But the territorial imperative is necessary.

The area chosen must be picked for possibilities of deception and eventual defense. Note that the American traveling mass murder machine could not defeat Vietnam with its forests and mountains. But countries like Iraq which are open terrain are easily bombed into submission or rubble.

Understand that America’s “chosen” rulers are totally committed to the extermination of our race and they are ruthless. “Cleansing” of our territorial imperative of Skraelings and traitors will require deception, deniability and “accidents.” Do not give your trust to anyone easily.

Perhaps above all in the creation of a bastion, and then a nation, we must learn traits that are not normal or indigenous to Aryans, but have always been used to conquer and use our people. Quoting General George Patton, “The Aryan mind is helpless in the face of the Jewish mind.” That is because in our societies we were open and honest people. But if the enemy is the living essence of deceit, fraud, duplicity, cunning, illusion, treachery and lies, then we must deal with reality and outdo them at their own game.

Till next time, the Gods willing,

David Lane

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

88 Precepts

Monday, March 12th, 2012

Until the White race realizes that there is only one source from which we can ascertain lasting truths, there will never be peace or stability on this earth. In the immutable Laws of Nature are the keys to life, order, and understanding. The words of men, even those which some consider “inspired” are subject to the translations, vocabulary, additions, subtractions, and distortions of fallible mortals. Therefore, every writing or influence, ancient or modern, must be strained through the test of conformity to Natural Law. The White Peoples of the earth must collectively understand that they are equally subject to the iron-hard Laws of Nature with every other creature of the Universe, or they will not secure peace, safety, nor even their existence. The world is in flames because Races, Sub-races, Nations, and Cultures are being forced to violate their own Nature-ordained instincts for self-preservation. Many men of good will, but little understanding, are struggling against symptoms which are the result of disobedience to Natural Law. As is the Nature of Man, most take narrow, provincial stances predicated on views formed by immediate environment, current circumstances, and conditioned dogma. This is encouraged by that powerful and ruthless Tribe which has controlled the affairs of the world for untold centuries by exploiting Man’s most base instincts. Conflict among and between the unenlightened serves as their mask and shield. A deeper understanding of the Fundamental Laws that govern the affairs of Men is necessary if we are to save civilization from its usurious executioners. The following are not intended to provide a detailed system of government, but as PRECEPTS which, when understood, will benefit and preserve a People as individuals and as a Nation.

The 88 PRECEPTS

1. Any religion or teaching which denies the Natural Laws of the Universe is false.

2. Whatever Peoples perception of God, or Gods, or the motive Force of the Universe might be, they can hardly deny that Nature’s Law are the work of, and therefore the intent of, that Force.

3. God and religion are distinct, separate and often conflicting concepts. Nature evidences the divine plan, for the natural world is the work of the force or the intelligence men call God. Religion is the creation of mortals, therefore predestined to fallibility. Religion may preserve or destroy a People, depending on the structure given by its progenitors, the motives of its agents and the vagaries of historical circumstances.

4. The truest form of prayer is communion with Nature. It is not vocal. Go to a lonely spot, if possible a mountaintop, on a clear, star-lit night, ponder the majesty and order of the infinite macrocosm. Then consider the intricacies of the equally infinite microcosm. Understand that you are on the one hand inconsequential beyond comprehension in the size of things, and on the other hand, you are potentially valuable beyond comprehension as a link in destiny’s chain. There you begin to understand how pride and self can co-exist with respect and reverence. There we find harmony with Nature and with harmony comes strength, peace and certainty.

5. Secular power systems protect and promote religions, which teach of an after-life. Thus, people are taught to abandon defenses against the predators of this life.

6. History, both secular and religious, is a fable conceived in self-serving deceit and promulgated by those who perceive benefits.

7. Religion in its most beneficial form is the symbology of a People and their culture. A multiracial religion destroys the senses of uniqueness, exclusivity and value necessary to the survival of a race.

8. What men call the super natural is actually the natural not yet understood or revealed.

9. A proliferation of laws with the resultant loss of freedom is a sign of, and directly proportional to, spiritual sickness in a Nation.

10. If a Nation is devoid of spiritual health and moral character, then government and unprincipled men will fill the vacancy. Therefore, freedom prospers in moral values and tyranny thrives in moral decay.

11. Truth requires little explanation. Therefore, beware of verbose doctrines. The great principles are revealed in brevity.

12. Truth does not fear investigation.

13. Unfounded belief is pitfall. A People who do not check the validity and effect of their beliefs with reason will suffer or perish.

14. In accord with Nature’s Laws, nothing is more right than the preservation of ones own race.

15. No greater motivating force exists than the certain conviction that one is right.

16. Discernment is a sign of a healthy People. In a sick or dying nation, civilization, culture or race, substance is abandoned in favor of appearance.

17. Discernment includes the ability to recognize the difference between belief and demonstrable reality.

18. There exists no such thing as rights or privileges under the Laws of Nature. The deer being stalked by a hungry lion has no right to life. However, he may purchase life by obedience to nature ordained instincts for vigilance and flight. Similarly, men have no rights to life, liberty or happiness. These circumstances may be purchased by oneself, by ones family, by ones tribe or by ones ancestors, but they are nonetheless purchases and are not rights. Furthermore, the value of these purchases can only be maintained through vigilance and obedience to Natural Law.

19. A people who are not convinced of their uniqueness and value will perish.

20. The White race has suffered invasions and brutality from Africa and Asia for thousands of years. For example, Attila and the Asiatic Huns who invaded Europe in the 5th century, raping, plundering and killing from the Alps to the Baltic and the Caspian Seas. This scenario was repeated by the Mongols of Genghis Khan 800 years later. (Note here that the American Indians are not Native Americans, but are racially Mongolians.) In the 8th century, hundreds of years before Negroes were brought to America, the North African Moors of mixed racial background invaded and conquered Portugal, Spain and part of France. So, the attempted guilt-trip placed on the White race by civilizations executioners is invalid under both historical circumstance and the Natural Law which denies inter-species compassion. The fact is, all races have benefited immeasurably from the creative genius of the Aryan People.

21. People who allow others not of their race to live among them will perish, because the inevitable result of a racial integration is racial inter-breeding which destroys the characteristics and existence of a race. Forced integration is deliberate and malicious genocide, particularly for a People like the White race, who are now a small minority in the world.

22. In the final analysis, a race or species is not judged superior or inferior by its accomplishments, but by its will and ability to survive.

23. Political, economic, and religious systems may be destroyed and resurrected by men, but the death of a race is eternal.

24. No race of People can indefinitely continue their existence without territorial imperatives in which to propagate, protect, and promote their own kind.

25. A People without a culture exclusively their own will perish.

26. Nature has put a certain antipathy between races and species to preserve the individuality and existence of each. Violation of the territorial imperative necessary to preserve that antipathy leads to either conflict or mongrelization.

27. It is not constructive to hate those of other races, or even those of mixed races. But a separation must be maintained for the survival of one’s own race. One must, however, hate with a pure and perfect hatred those of one’s own race who commit treason against one’s own kind and against the nations of one’s own kind. One must hate with perfect hatred all those People or practices which destroy one’s People, one’s culture, or the racial exclusiveness of one’s territorial imperative.

28. The concept of a multi-racial society violates every Natural Law for species preservation.

29. The concept of equality is declared a lie by every evidence of Nature. It is a search for the lowest common denominator, and its pursuit will destroy every superior race, nation, or culture. In order for a plow horse to run as fast as a race horse you would first have to cripple the race horse; conversely, in order for a race horse to pull as much as a plow horse, you would first have to cripple the plow horse. In either case, the pursuit of equality is the destruction of excellence.

30. The instincts for racial and species preservation are ordained by Nature.

31. Instincts are Nature’s perfect mechanism for the survival of each race and species. The human weakness of rationalizing situations for self-gratification must not be permitted to interfere with these instincts.

32. Miscegenation, that is race-mixing, is and has always been, the greatest threat to the survival of the Aryan race.

33. Inter-species compassion is contrary to the Laws of Nature and is, therefore, suicidal. If a wolf were to intercede to save a lamb from a lion, he would be killed. Today, we see the White man taxed so heavily that he cannot afford children. The taxes raised are then used to support the breeding of tens of millions of non-whites, many of whom then demand the last White females for breeding partners. As you can see, man is subject to all the Laws of Nature. This has nothing to do with morality, hatred, good or evil. Nature does not recognize the concepts of good and evil in inter-species relationships. If the lion eats the lamb, it is good for the lion and evil for the lamb. If the lamb escapes and the lion starves, it is good for the lamb and evil for the lion. So, we see the same incident is labeled both good and evil. This cannot be, for there are no contradictions within Nature’s Laws.

34. The instinct for sexual union is part of Nature’s perfect mechanism for species preservation. It begins early in life and often continues until late in life. It must not be repressed; it’s purpose, reproduction, must not be thwarted either. Understand that for thousands of years our females bore children at an early age. Now, in an attempt to conform to and compete in an alien culture, they deny their Nature-ordained instincts and duties. Teach responsibility, but, also, have understanding. The life of a race springs from the wombs of its women. He who would judge must first understand the difference between what is good and what is right.

35. Homosexuality is a crime against Nature. All Nature declares the purpose of the instinct for sexual union is reproduction and thus, preservation of the species. The overpowering male sex drive must be channeled toward possession of females, as well as elements such as territory and power, which are necessary to keep them.

36. Sexual pornography degrades the Nature of all who are involved. A beautiful nude woman is art; a camera between her knees to explore her private parts is pornography.

37. That race whose males will not fight to death to keep and mate with their females will perish. Any White man with healthy instincts feels disgust and revulsion when he sees a woman of his race with a man of another race. Those, who today control the media and affairs of the Western World, teach that this is wrong and shameful. They label it “racism.” As any “ism,” for instance the word “nationalism,” means to promote one’s own nation; “racism” merely means to promote and protect the life of one’s own race. It is, perhaps, the proudest word in existence. Any man who disobeys these instincts is anti-Nature.

38. In a sick and dying nation, culture, race or civilization, political dissent and traditional values will be labeled and persecuted as heinous crimes by inquisitors clothing themselves in jingoistic patriotism.

39. A People who are ignorant of their past will defile the present and destroy the future.

40. A race must honor above all earthly things, those who have given their lives or freedom for the preservation of the folk.

41. The folk, namely the members of the Race, are the Nation. Racial loyalties must always supersede geographical and national boundaries. If this is taught and understood, it will end fratricidal wars. Wars must not be fought for the benefit of another race.

42. The Nation’s leaders are not rulers, they are servants and guardians. They are not to serve for personal gain. Choose only a guardian who has no interest in the accumulation of material things.

43. Choose and judge your leaders, also called guardians, thus: Those who seek always to limit the power of government are of good heart and conscience. Those who seek to expand the power of government are base tyrants.

44. No government can give anything to anybody without first taking it from another. Government is, by its very nature, legalized taking. A limited amount of government is a necessary burden for national defense and internal order. Anything more is counterproductive to freedom and liberty.

45. The Organic founding Law, namely the Constitution of a Nation, must not be amendable by any method other than unanimous consent of all parties thereto and with all parties present. Otherwise, the doors are opened for the advent of that most dangerous and deadly form of government, democracy.

46. In a democracy those who control the media, and thus the minds of the electorate, have power undreamed by kings or dictators.

47. The simplest way to describe a democracy is this: Three people form a government, each having one vote. Then two of them vote to steal the wealth of the third.

48. The latter stages of a democracy are filled with foreign wars, because the bankrupt system attempts to preserve itself by plundering other nations.

49. In a democracy that which is legal is seldom moral, and that which is moral is often illegal.

50. A democracy is always followed by a strongman… some call him dictator. It is the only way to restore order out of the chaos caused by a democracy. Pick your strongman wisely! He must be a guardian in his heart. He must be one who has shown that his only purpose in life is the preservation of the folk. His ultimate aim must be to restore the rule of Law based on the perfect Laws of Nature. Do not choose him by his words. Choose one who has sacrificed all in the face of tyranny; choose one who has endured and persevered. This is the only reliable evidence of his worthiness and motives.

51. A power system will do anything, no matter how corrupt or brutal, to preserve itself.

52. Tyrannies cannot be ended without the use of force.

53. Those who commit treason disguise their deeds in proclamations of patriotism.

54. Propaganda is major component in all power systems, both secular and religious; false propaganda is a major component of unprincipled power systems. All power systems endeavor to convince their subjects that the system is good, just, beneficent and noble, as well as worthy of perpetuation and defense. The more jingoistic propaganda issued, the more suspicious one should be of its truth.

55. Political power, in the final analysis, is created and maintained by force.

56. A power system, secular or religious, which employs extensive calls to patriotism or requires verbosity and rhetoric for its preservation, is masking tyranny.

57. Propaganda is a legitimate and necessary weapon in any struggle. The elements of successful propaganda are: simplicity, emotion, repetition, and brevity. Also, since men believe what they want to believe, and since they want to believe that which they perceive as beneficial to themselves, then successful propaganda must appeal to the perceived self-interest of those to whom it is disseminated.

58. Tyrannies teach what to think; free men learn how to think.

59. Beware of men who increase their wealth by the use of words. Particularly beware of the lawyers or priests who deny Natural Law.

60. The patriot, being led to the inquisition’s dungeons or the executioner’s axe, will be condemned the loudest by his former friends and allies; for thus they seek to escape the same fate.

61. The sweet goddess of Peace lives only under the protective arm of the ready God of War.

62. The organic founding Law of a Nation must state with unmistakable and irrevocable specificity the identity of the homogeneous racial, cultural group for whose welfare it was formed, and that the continued existence of the Nation is singularly for all time for the welfare of that specific group only.

63. That race or culture which lets others influence or control any of the following will perish:

1)Organs of information
2)Educational institutions
3)Religious institutions
4)Political offices
5)Creation of their money
6)Judicial institutions
7)Cultural institutions
8)Economic life

64. Just Laws require little explanation. Their meaning is irrevocable in simplicity and specificity.

65. Men’s emotions are stirred far more effectively by the spoken word than by the written word. This is why a ruling tyranny will react more violently to gatherings of dissenters than to books or pamphlets.

66. The organic founding Law of the Nation, or any law, is exactly as pertinent as the will and power to enforce it.

67. An unarmed or non-militant People will be enslaved.

68. Some say the pen is more powerful than the sword. Perhaps so. Yet, the pen without the sword has no authority.

69. Tyrannies are usually built step by step and disguised by noble rhetoric.

70. The difference between a terrorist and a patriot is control of the press.

71. The judgments of the guardians, the leaders, must be true to Natural Law and tempered by reason.

72. Materialism is base and destructive. The guardians of a Nation must constantly warn against and combat a materialistic spirit in the Nation. Acquisition of wealth and property, as need for the well-being of one’s family and obtained by honorable means is right and proper. Exploitation, particularly through usury, is destructive to the nation.

73. Materialism leads men to seek artificial status through wealth or property. True social status comes from service to Family, Race and Nation.

74. Materialism ultimately leads to conspicuous, unnecessary consumption, which in turn leads to the rape of Nature and destruction of the environment. It is unnatural. The true guardians of the Nation must be wholly untainted by materialism.

75. The function of a merchant or salesman is to provide a method of exchange. A merchant who promotes unnecessary consumption and materialism must not be tolerated.

76. The only lawful functions of money are as a medium of exchange and a store of value. All other uses including social engineering, speculation, inflation and especially usury are unlawful. Usury (interest) at any percentage is a high crime which cannot be tolerated.

77. A nation with an aristocracy of money, lawyers or merchants will become a tyranny.

78. The simplest way to describe a usury-based central banking system is this: The bankers demand the property of the Nation as collateral for their loans. At interest, more money is owed them that they created with the loans. So, eventually, the bankers foreclose on the Nation.

79. Usury (interest), inflation, and oppressive taxation are theft by deception and destroy the moral fabric of the Nation.

80. Wealth gained without sacrifices or honest labor will usually be misused.

81. Nothing in Nature is static; either the life force grows and expands or it decays and dies.

82. Respect must be earned; it cannot be demanded or assumed.

83. Avoid a vexatious man, for his venom will poison your own nature.

84. Self discipline is a mark of a higher man.

85. One measure of a man is cheerfulness in adversity.

86. A fool judges others by their words. A wise man judges others by their actions and accomplishments.

87. In our relationships or interactions, as in all of Nature’s Laws, to each action there is a reaction. That which we plant will be harvested, if not by ourselves, then by another.

88. These are sure signs of a sick or dying Nation. If you see any of them, your guardians are committing treason:

1)mixing and destruction of the founding race
2)destruction of the family units
3)oppressive taxation
4)corruption of the Law
5)terror and suppression against those who warn of the Nation’s error
6)immorality: drugs, drunkenness, etc.
7)infanticide(now called abortion)
8)destruction of the currency(inflation or usury)
9)aliens in the land, alien culture
10)materialism
11)foreign wars
12)guardians(leaders)who pursue wealth or glory
13)homosexuality
14)religion not based on Natural Law

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share