Saturday, June 30, 2012

Multiculturalism Destroys Trust in Societies

Hat tip to Jihad Watch.

Multiculturalism is a concept of the Left. Its purpose is to erode the cultural and/or ethnic identity of a nation. Unlike the traditional method of (At least gradual) integration of immigrants and their children into the society of their new country, Multiculturalism seeks to keep the new residents as separate as possible from the society and culture of the host country.

For the Left, if the practice is successful, they will have the result of a nation in which those who are descended from, or have integrated with the culture of  the nation. From there, a "fundamentally changed" governmental structure is a strong possibility.

With a former majority with no effective political power now brushed aside, a new Leftist totalitarianism can be instituted. The the creation of a political base from the various new groups that never integrated into the society will provide enough votes for Constitutional Conventions that will overturn the old orders.

If it is not a success, the nation is faced with the possible collapse not only of the political, but also of the economic order. Lawlessness and civil war are real possibilities. At best, the nation may see a Balkanization in which people pack up and leave for regions people by those of similar religious, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds.

Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians, for examples, are told that they have no right to express concern that they will become minorities in their own nation. There, any discussions about mass immigration or lack of integration are met with charges of racism and fascism. Note that these nation cannot even be accused of the high crime topic of today's Academia - that of Colonialism.

The people of nations that have a history of gaining and maintaining of colonies are told that mass immigration and the dilution of their nation's cultural/ethnic makeup is the price that they must pay for the evils of their ancestors. This is patently false enough, but it becomes sickening when applies to nations such as those of Scandinavia or Switzerland.

The excerpts are from a post on the link at top:

Bolding is added.

"The Danes are the world’s most trusting people. Historians and researchers believe that the Danes' nature of trusting other people goes back to the time of the Vikings. The Vikings' domestic economy was simply built on trust: If you live in a time with no police or courts, and you entrust some animal furs to a trader, you need to be able to trust that trader to pay you your money once he returns - often months or years later - from his trade trip.

Trust is very important for the economy to function. According to some researchers, a "10 percent negative change in the level of trust in a population will cause a half percent negative change in economic growth." Both Vikings and anybody who has ever borrowed or lent money knows that trust is important when it comes to finances. Without trust, there will be either no deal or a lot of resources will need to be invested in insurance, lawyers and bureaucracy.

It is easier to trust people if you feel that you know them. This is why businessmen take the effort to travel to meet their clients personally. If you know that the other party shares the same basic values, you already know a lot about that person - because you know yourself. Sharing values means knowing each other, and knowing each other increases trust. This is why criminal gangs - which are built on a high level of trust - are mostly monocultural.

So what happens when people with very different cultural backgrounds and religious values live together? The level of trust naturally goes down. In order to preserve trust and the many benefits coming from this important feeling and experience, the different groups tend to live together in enclaves separated from the other groups. It is important for people to feel "at home" - but what makes that feeling of being at home? It’s the feeling of being surrounded by a recognisable environment and culture where one does not have to communicate excessively to reach mutual understanding and thereby trust.

Proponents of multiculturalism may think that they are working for more confluent societies with more tolerant citizens by waging lawfare against our national borders and thereby forcing us to live with people from cultures that we basically do not know and understand. But their efforts are clearly counterproductive, as the result is cultural segregation and individuals focusing more on themselves. The multiculti segment clearly lacks knowledge of human nature, and their ivory tower theories completely overlook normal real life experience, established psychological theories and well known facts."

Regarding the above, I disagree with the writer. I do not give proponents of Multiculturalism the credit for being merely naive. The know fully well what they are doing.

"It is understandable when people from countries, where you need to be more egoistic to survive, have less reason to trust others to the same degree, and tend to exploit the good will and trust from others. The same goes for people from religions that tell them that adherents of other faiths are unworthy of the same respect.

A recent sample conducted by the Danish tax authorities among Somali immigrants showed that 92 percent of Somali immigrants evade taxes. On average they cheat Denmark of 8,300 USD yearly. This is possible because of the Danish system Tast-Selv ("type in yourself") that allows taxpayers to type in their income to the IRS themselves. It is a system built on the state's trust in the taxpayers and is meant to save a lot of time and money. We are also seeing an alarming increase of so-called trick thefts committed by foreigners and immigrants. Here the thieves, often disguised as police or nursing assistants, deceive the home owner into letting them into the house. This type of crime is another example of exploitation of the typical trusting Danish/Western nature. The alarmingly high degree of tax evasion and social fraud among non-Western immigrants, especially Muslims, is well known but politically incorrect to speak about. A large investigation in Høje-Taastrup, Denmark, showed that 75 percentof all social fraud is committed by immigrants - other countries have similar problems.

Trust makes people happy and countries rich, but letting people from less trust-based cultures into our fellowship turns this strength into our most dangerous weakness. Multiculturalism corrodes trust, a cornerstone for happiness, economic well-being and social cohesion - and thereby eats away at our whole way of life."

-From a comment by Vlad Tepes2 on the same link:

"The LEFT absolutely doesn't believe this deceit about "more tolerant citizens".
The LEFT is using multiculturalism to destroy Denmark.
Flooding white Christian European nations with third world barbarians is a deliberate tactic of the LEFT to destroy Nationalism and Western Civilization.
Nationalism and ethnic homogeniety are some of the greatest defenses the West has against the Left and their battering ram, Islam.
There's a good explanation of this in "Eurabia" by Bat Ye'or.

The LEFT has wanted to destroy white European nationalism since at least WWII and WWI.
White supremecist nationalism as represented by Nazi Germany but also by all the European imperial powers was seen as a threat by the third world but also by the Communists in the Soviet Union and as such it was targeted for destruction by the third world, islam and the communists - thus multiculturism.

Don't take anythng the LEFT says at face value.
The only people who fall for "Proponents of multiculturalism may think that they are working for more confluent societies with more tolerant citizens..." are the useful idiots and clueless delusional Christians and Jews who believe this "all men are created equal" and Love and Peace nonsense.
The LEFT is using Christianity against the Christians.
Clear eyed Christians and Jews see that Islam is out to slit their throats and sell their children into slavery - and multiculturalism is one of the weapons the Left and Islam use in their war against Western Civilization.

Trying to argue against multiculturalism as if its proponents are sincere but just misguided is a sign that someone is not even aware of the real threat."

Friday, June 29, 2012

Justice Department Not to Prosecute Holder

"The Justice Department moved Friday to shield Attorney General Eric Holder from prosecution after the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

The contempt vote technically opened the door for the House to call on the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the case before a grand jury. But because U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen works for Holder and because President Obama has already asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, some expected Holder's Justice Department to balk.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner that the department in fact would not pursue prosecution. The attorney general's withholding of documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, he wrote, "does not constitute a crime."

"Therefore the department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the attorney general," Cole wrote, in the letter obtained by Fox News"

An operation that was designed with the purpose of painting a picture of a Mexico filled with guns obtained from the US in order to justify more restrictive  firearms legislation has come to this.

After he tortuously dragged this thing out since the Autumn of 2011, and then claimed that the timing of Issa's moves and the contempt vote in the House was a political scheme to affect the election in November, Holder  is being protected - his boys are planning to let the Attorney General of the United States get away with having a part in the murder of a Federal Law Enforcement Officer.

Of course, if the only murder victims had been Mexicans, Holder and Company (Now very likely to include Obama) may very well have been breathing even more easily right now - dead Mexicans would have been nothing but collateral damage. What's the difference since so many have been killed by the Cartels anyway?

Little can be cited as a better example of the Leftist mentality. They had a goal to provide justification for enacting more gun bans. To do so, they needed to show that the Cartels in the narco-state on our southern border were acquiring firearms from Americans. Having little to no evidence that this was occurring on any notable scale, they proceeded to make it happen themselves. Firearms dealers were pressured into making sales to individuals who fit the profile of straw purchasers. The purchased guns were allowed to be taken across the border and into the waiting hands of the Cartels.

No amount of dead people would be enough to cause Leftists to regret such a decision if the end result is what they wanted.

Were the Law Enforcement officials in Mexico OK with this? That did not matter as they were not told about the operation.

Obama has claimed that this falls under the domain of Executive Privilege. I have found no source that provides a reasonable argument to support this claim.

Now the United States Department of Justice is claiming that neither what Holder did nor that he failed to do (Illegally refusing to cooperate with the Congressional investigation) were crimes.

Our Republic is in dire straights. Our Supreme Court is effectively no longer a forum for appeals to threats to our freedoms, states are being targeted for removing ineligible voters from the rolls and checking illegal immigration, Obama seizes more power like a bratty kid with other's toys, and our Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the nation, not only arrogantly plays the scofflaw, but gets a free pass from the Justice Department.

"The move by the Holder Justice Department, though, means Republicans are likely to take their case to civil court as they seek documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious -- which was already the unofficial plan. Along with the criminal contempt resolution, Republicans also passed a civil contempt measure Thursday allowing them to go to civil court to try and get an order that would compel the Obama administration to release the documents.

Issa, R-Calif., had acknowledged Thursday night that it was "very possible" the president would instruct the U.S. attorney not to prosecute Holder. He indicated Republicans would use the civil courts to get what they want.

"The House has authorized me to hire staff and legal staff who can pursue civilly through the courts to try to get a federal judge to order, separately, this discovery," he said.

Hill also told that the next stop probably would be civil court, but he suggested the threat of criminal prosecution still looms. For now, the Obama administration can argue that its executive privilege claim over the documents protects Holder from the possibility of prosecution.

But if a civil court rules that claim invalid, Hill said, "then basically Justice has lost that shield." "

Obama no doubt hopes that the civil action can be delayed until after November. Judging by his administration's penchant for miring court proceedings in strategically-placed delays, he may very well find success with that move.

If a civil action fails, then the State of Arizona, in which Border Patrol Brian Terry was murdered, or the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, which has jurisdiction in the case, should issue an arrest warrant for Eric Holder. If they feel that they do not have enough evidence to charge him now, then they should subpoena him to testify before the Grand Jury of Santa Cruz County.* When Holder refuses, then they will have sufficient cause for a warrant. I for one would gladly volunteer to be sworn in by either entity and be charged with executing that warrant. Even though DC would never extradite him to face charges, the point will have been made. He will also be effectively unable to leave DC as cops throughout the nation will be salivating at the thought of detaining him in their respective states to hold him for an extradition hearing.

*I should have noted that, in order to require that Holder answer questions asked of him in a Grand Jury proceeding, he would have to be given immunity first. That part would be a disappointment, but he would have to answer every question, and truthfully so. That would force him to give up a lot of names.

When people are faced with an seemingly impossible situation, "The thing is to get them [The soldiers] to turn their thoughts to what they mean to do, instead of to what they are likely to suffer" - Xenophon to the officers of the Greek force after their Generals had been illegally seized and killed during a truce after the battle of Cunaxa   in 401 BC.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Obamacare Upheld - Roberts Makes Arguments for Defendant

Today Americans have zero to look far as a forum for appeals go. Having upheld the individual mandate (And all else that was affirmed), the Supreme Court has demonstrated that our remaining liberties are only ours as long as no one legislates them away. Even a repeal of the law by a possible Romney Administration would do little good as yet another President and compliant Capitol Hill could later enact a similar law.

On top of that, very little of our freedom is now outside of the boundaries of legislation and thus immune from   being controlled or removed entirely.

I am not a lawyer, but I am utterly unfamiliar with a Judge actually making arguments for one of the parties in a case. When Obamacare was a bill and thus up for discussion (What little there was), its proponents insisted over and over that the penalty was not a tax. Obama himself stated this on numerous occasions. When Roberts voted and wrote his opinion, however, he generously claimed that the penalty, regardless of what everyone who was involved with submitting this legislation said about it , was in fact a tax and thus Constitutional.

And all this time we were worried about Kennedy's vote. For crying out loud, this man, finding so much of it is clear violation of the Constitution, apparently wanted to do away with the whole law!

Again, I am a rustic provincial and cannot give legal opinions, but I recall learning that one of the main things that, apart from the actual wording of a law, Judges must consider "legislative intent". This was explained as the manner in which the initial advocates and affirmative voting members intended that the law be applied and the purpose for which it was made. All of those people were adamant that the penalty was not a tax, yet Roberts, ignoring both the Constitution and the legislative intent, claimed that it was.

The Supreme Court was intended to be our last resort for restraining Government and protecting our liberties. Now it has thrown its hat in the ring with those who seek to reduce us to a well-controlled populace.

As noted by John Locke in his Treatises on Government, when a people, being faced with a government turned oppressive, and having run out of options to appeal wrongs done to them, consequently have no option but "An Appeal to Heaven". We are staring at that point just ahead of us right now. Locke was referring to the situation faced by Jephthah in the Book of Judges (Chapter 11), in which, being unsuccessful in preventing a war in negotiations with the Ammonites, was left with no option other than to prepare to fight and leave the matter up to God. This phrase was used by many of the earlier American revolutionaries, both advocates of independence and those who simply wanted their rights as Englishmen restored, as a rallying cry. You may have seen the phrase "An Appeal to Heaven" on a flag, along with a tree, in books and movies about that time period. It was seen towards the end of the opening credits in each of the HBO John Adams series episodes. (You can rent the episodes)

From New Jersey Patriot:

"This Obamacare decision gives “Taxed Enough Already” a new meaning. This is probably the largest and most insidious tax ever to be foisted on the American public.

Obama and the Democrates swore (except in court) that this was not a tax. This is yet again another example of the lies and deception in which they have engaged. What will they all it now?

I predict that an ever increasing number of companies will cease their healthcare benefits. More and more people will see that the promise that they could keep their insurance and their doctors was a lie…a bald faced lie. They will have to buy insurance from the healthcare exchange. Remember, they will have no choice as to coverage…just like with Medicare, their choices will be limited to options mandated by the government.

All along Obama wanted to do away with the private health care system. The exchanges will fail and the federal government will be forced to provide what amounts to a single payer plan that will be funded by one of two sources…increased taxes or increased borrowing. We might as well just give all our money to the government and let them decide how much we need in order to live.

The death panels are now fully operative. Already they have reduced Medicare payments to doctors. Now they will determine the value of our lives and will tell the medical profession what care they can provide and when it can be provided. Rationing will be the name of the game rather than an occaisional thing.

We now have one hope…that Obama gets defeated, that Republicans retain the house and get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Remember that in order to repeal the law a new law must be passed. The Democrats will fight repeal tooth and nail.

We can make this into a major campaign issue. Not only does the economy suck but many will be paying a significantly higher premium for health care they don’t want and can’t afford. Or they pay thousands in taxes. Companies will pay the tax rather than provide health care. Repeal is the only answer.

Now Romney has three issues: the economy, Obamacare, and a failed foreign policy. They are all due to Obama’s Marxist philosophy. He needs to hit this large and long. He had better not wimp out now or else we are really screwed.

This is what the Tea Party movement was all about. This is what the 2010 election was all about. We must double our efforts and complete the mission. It can be done.

We must rally.

We must get out the vote.

We must let them see that we will not go away.

We must resist."

From Fox News:

"Today marks a sad day in the history of America. With this decision, Americans have lost the right to be left alone, which Justice William O. Douglas once called “the beginning of all freedom.”

It is painful to recognize that the liberties which our forefathers fought a revolution to secure have been lost. But it is clear that our original constitutional system has been thrown out, and we are left with only the democratic process to preserve our rights. That should be a sobering thought for anyone who values liberty.

The significance of this decision cannot be overstated. Our Founding Fathers were greatly concerned that by giving too much power to the federal government, they would be endangering our liberties. So they sought to restrain the federal government by vesting it with only limited powers. As James Madison said, the powers of the federal government were to be “few and defined.” Yet with this decision, it is clear that the powers of the federal government are no longer limited at all. Our only remaining protections are with those liberties which were explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights, and even those are under assault. So today Madison’s vision of the American Republic has been turned on its head: The powers of the federal government are now broad and uncabined, and the freedoms of the people are few and confined.

As Justice Kennedy put it, during oral arguments in March, the individual mandate “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” We wholeheartedly wish that more weight had been added to that statement in the Court’s opinion. But the die has been cast.

We must now look forward, with great trepidation, into this brave new world, a world in which the Constitution has been undone, and federal power knows no limit. This is a day that our Founders would never have wanted to see. All that they had fought to secure and preserve has been lost."

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Christians Stoned - in Dearborn Michigan

Hat tip to Answering Muslims.

Muslims in the Dearborn, Michigan area have become more aggressive in the last few years. An increasing population, coupled with an admittedly bizarre tendency by local law enforcement to give in to demands by Muslims that they [the cops] prevent anyone from saying anything that Muslims deem offensive (Which includes speaking about Christianity in their presence), have helped bring the situation to a boil.

Of course, Muslims can say anything that they wish about Christianity and Judaism. Not only are these replete in the Koran, but English versions (Called "commentaries by Muslims - Korans must be in Arabic) of the book have numerous footnotes that denigrate Christian beliefs.

Before I quote the sources, I will note what I briefly gleaned from reading some material from Ruben Israel's website. He was raised in a Catholic family. At some point, he felt drawn towards Evangelical thought. His explanation, though, aroused deep suspicion for me. One of the first things that he claims is that his Parish Priest did not recommend that he study the Bible with the assistance of an Elder in the faith - he told him not to read it at all. I have engaged in Catholic apologetic for years  (That means explaining, not apologizing), and have found that this claim is bandied about by former Catholics like candy from a parade float. At least nine times out of ten, it turns out that these events never occurred once the claimant is pressed for details. The remainder, while stubbornly clinging to their claims, can never name the Catholic individual who purportedly told them not to read the Bible. Maybe this is because Catholics have been granted indulgences for reading the Bible.  So, I have to take what Mr. Israel claims with, at best, a grain of salt.

What we do know is this, David Wood and others who contribute to Answering Muslims have been on occasion detained by Dearborn Police, not for breaking any laws, but for quietly and respectfully handing out Christian literature in areas in which festivals attended by Muslims were being held. Mr. Wood and his assistants were required by police to turn off their cameras (Not sure what authority the cops thought they had to order that), leave the area with the cops, and were eventually told that they could only hand out their leaflets several blocks away. Several similar events have occurred in the area, leading many to think that Sharia has gained a foothold in the Wolverine State and that non-Muslims there have been reduced to Dhimmi status and are thus prohibited from doing anything that annoys Muslims.

On to Ruben Israel's move:

Mr. Israel and his group, unhappy with the treatment that Christians like Mr. Wood have received, decided to visit Dearborn and say what they wanted to say. It may not have been nice, but nothing that they did was illegal. Angry Muslims proceeded to throw whatever was at hand at Israel and his group.

From Answering Muslims:

"There's no questioning the fact that Ruben Israel's group came to the Dearborn Arab Festival to provoke a response from Muslims. But their actions were protected by the U.S. Constitution. The violent response they received from Muslims, however, was illegal. Every bottle, rock, or milk crate thrown was an assault.

And so the Dearborn Arab Festival has become a beacon for anyone who wants a confrontation with Muslims. If festival security hadn't started entrapping and assaulting Christians in 2009, and if Dearborn Police hadn't unveiled their strategy of arresting Christians in 2010, I doubt Ruben would have ever set foot in Dearborn.

The city is upset by all the attention they're getting. Perhaps it's time for the city to think about the sources of all the negative publicity: The American Arab Chamber of Commerce, the Dearborn Police Department, Chief Ronald Haddad, Prosecutor William Debiasi, Judge Mark Somers, and Mayor John O'Reilly. I have no doubt that if the City of Dearborn were to finally start taking responsibility for their misdeeds (instead of constantly portraying the city as the victim), the spiral they're caught in would eventually turn around" 

From The Blaze:
"In a video posted by Gateway Pundit early this morning, protesters were depicted as being battered by a constant hail of thrown debris, including water bottles and possibly even stones. Skip to nine minutes into the following video to see the “stoning” portion where large, grey projectiles that look very much like rocks are tossed into the air at the demonstrators as the crowd screams “Allahu Akbar” and closes in:

Let me repeat: Christians were allegedly stoned and forced into retreat by an angry mob of Arabs in Dearborn, Michigan. Whether you find the protesters themselves distasteful, it would be alarming indeed to think this reaction was warranted. We can only hope that no one was hurt, and that the people allegedly throwing the items will be brought to justice. However, given the inability of the cameramen to capture the faces of their assailants, we have our doubts."

Videos are on the links at top.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Copts Forced Out of Their Church - Police of no Help

Hat tip to Jihad Watch. (To view the complete article you must register)

....and the press sang the praises of the Arab Spring and assured us that our concerns were unfounded-

Now that the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate has won the Egyptian Presidency, tolerant Islamic Supremacists have moved on from attacking individual Copts to bigger and better things.

"Copts in the village of Basra, Amiriya, Alexandria, Egypt, expressed resentment and fears as they are subjected to attacks and discrimination against their freedom of worship in light of the arrival of the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Signs of a new crisis took place last Friday when Muslims of the village gathered around the church of St. Wannas during the Divine Liturgy, headed by the church’s priest Father Sawirus, demanding the expulsion of Coptic visitors to the church before the end of the prayer, and threatened to burn the church if their demands were not carried out."*

*Like the witch scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail 
"And what do you burn apart from witches?" - Answer of the mob, "More Witches!"

Since pilgrimages are an important feature in worship for Middle and Near Eastern Christians, these also had to be prohibited.

"They also wanted to prevent any journeys coming to the village church, since visitors usually visit the church on their way to visit St. Mina Monastery in King Mariot, near Alexandria."

The police were a big help, though.

"The church’s priest did not find a way but to respond to their demands after calling the Amiriya Police Station for help, especially as the police told him to “settle the problem and do not allow buses to come to the church again”. Accordingly, the priest asked the Coptic visitors to leave before the end of the liturgy. As the worshipers were on their way to get on the buses, some Muslims threw stones at them while the buses were about to leave the village."

... and just to make sure that the Coptic Priest understood that this was no isolated incident but that this is the way it is going to be-

"Following the departure of the visitors, a delegation of Salafists and militants headed to the priest and ordered him not to receive more visits to the church, or else they will demolish the church. Copts had nothing to do in the light of the current situation of the country but to comply with restrictions on their freedom, one of the village’s Copts said. He expressed his fear of the rule of Muslim Brotherhood, which will impose more restrictions on their freedom to practice their rituals as much as the Brotherhood dominates state institutions."

Note that this occurred in the region of Alexandria, a city founded by Alexander the Great. It is a sad irony that he was known to be a protector of religions. A city once known for its learning has long been yet another example of Islamic stagnation and intolerance. 

I personally hold that many Muslims know all too well that their system cannot win doctrinal of historical arguments when it is contrasted against Christianity and Judaism. Since leaving Islam incurs the loss of family, friends, employment, and (Under Islamic law), death, it is easier to just suppress the latter two religions.

It is only going to get worse unless the Christians of the free world come together.

Monday, June 25, 2012

14 Year-Old Shoots Armed Intruder

Once in a while we get good news that fits a Western Civilization- oriented blog perfectly.

"A 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an intruder who broke into his home while brandishing a gun as the teenager watched his three younger siblings, police said.

The teen and his brothers and sisters were at home alone at their residence at 55th Avenue and Baseline when a woman rang the doorbell Friday. The teen didn't open the door because he didn't recognize her, Police Officer James Holmes said Saturday.

Soon after, the teen heard a bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom. When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man breaking through the front door and point a gun at him."

The hero shot the bad guy before the criminal could fire his weapon.

In our society, it is common for young people to watch their younger brothers and sisters for a few hours at a time. Some 14 year-olds even babysit other's kid's for money.

Unfortunately, what has become less common in all too many households are young people who have been taught how to employ a firearm in order to protect their family members. 

The propaganda war against private ownership of firearms picked up speed in the 80's and 90's before leveling off and swinging back in a more correct direction at the turn of the century. The "kids should never have access to guns" dogma , which was introduced at the same time that "no guns in the house" was being treated as an absolute truth, however, has been a harder nut to crack in the minds of many.

Those who hold to the concept that young people should by no means have access to a firearm and ammunition are likely to stand aghast at the thought of what is in effect a young man not only being able to, but also willing, to use deadly force to protect himself and those in his home.

Even the cops felt that they had to make some reference to this in a statement to the press:

"The police and indeed our community does not ever want to see a situation where a teenager of that age has to take a weapon to protect his family ... but this young man did exactly what he should have done," he said. "I'm not sure he gave full thought about what he had to do. He just acted."

I for one am very happy that our youth, unlike child soldiers in many regions of the world, almost never have to arm themselves to combat anyone. What must not be forgotten, though, is that people in that age group not may, but must, have some familiarity with weapons as they may at some point find themselves being the oldest and only capable individual present to take necessary action in the event of a crime. 

Weapons training in teenage years is an integral part of Western Culture. Historically, males were not supposed to be kept apart from weapons and ignorant of their functions until the age of 18. Even a cursory reading about the Greeks, Romans, and Northern Europeans would make that point clear. In the event of a major threat to a Western Society, the old men and boys who did not accompany the army into the field were organized into home defense units. 

The article notes that the cops are not yet aware if the youth had been trained in the use of the firearms, but, judging from the effectiveness of his actions, I would not be surprised if he had been at least instructed in the rudiments of the operation of that particular firearm. Providing such instruction and ensuring that a weapon is accessible is a basic obligation of adults in the family.

No matter how shaken up the 14 year-old will be over this event, I can state with reasonable certainty that he is more than relieved that he was able to take action and not stand by idle and impotent as family members were hurt and/or killed.

-From an earlier post of mine on the same subject in which a young Mom defended her baby and herself:

"An 18 -year old widow and mother of a three-month old baby, who lives in a rural area ofOklahoma, shot and killed an armed intruder with a 12 Gauge shotgun on New Year’s Eve. Unlike many home invasions/robberies, the criminal had knocked loudly for some time and thus provided the victim with time to barricade her door with a couch. These enabled her to, after firstly securing a shotgun and a handgun, call 911 and report the crime. Some may brace at this and state that she should have called 911 first - bad, bad move unless another adult is able to call while the other prepares to defend. Even in an urban or densely populated suburban area, the cops will (unless one just happens to be on your street at the time) take more than five minutes to get a patrol car to the scene of the crime. In rural areas the wait can easily be more than a half an hour.

Anyway, the saddest part of this good news of bad guy gets killed/young mom and baby are OK was that, probably as a result of so much pressure, lies and finger-pointing about firearms ownership from the Left, the mom felt the need to ask the dispatcher if it was OK to shoot the criminal. The dispatcher, being unable to legally tell her to shoot, indicated that the victim needed to do what she had to do to protect herself and the baby. The mom thankfully knew that their safety was paramount, so she ended the threat with a home version of a "whiff of grapeshot".*

Since the bad guy was armed and he was killed during the crime, the accomplice will be charged with first degree murder. For those who are not familiar with the concept of the charge as it applies here or the general legal understanding of defending one’s home, I offer following:

If a person commits a crime, such as burglary while being armed, most states will consider that a crime of the first degree. If anyone, good guy or bad guy, dies during the commission of the crime, that will also result in a first degree murder charge in most states charge for all actors involved (Not including victims if it is determined that they acted within the law)

Deadly Force is not prohibited is to defend oneself in his home. In fact, most states do not have a legal requirement that a resident make an attempt to retreat within the house prior to using deadly force. Also, deadly force can be used to prevent the burglary of a dwelling. This means that deadly force can be applied to stop a person from illegally entering a residence in which people are living and staying.

The Left typically howls at such an event like this. Within days of this news, anti-gun commentators will be given mic time on the networks. There they will throw out the tired, worn out, and completely dishonest mantras that are made to make people think that they are not safer having a firearms in their house and indeed that they are less so. The infamous 43:1 study will no doubt be brought up in support of their desire to get everyone US and other Western nations as defenseless, sheep-like, and in need of totalitarian state control as possible.

The 43:1 study, also called the Kellerman study, which was published in 1986 in the New England Journal of Medicine, was an atrocious example of false use and application of statistics. It was based on cherry-picked statistics in the Seattle area. It suffered from a complete lack of scientific responsibility. It was an attempt to get people to think that they, or someone else who was innocent, are 43 times more likely to be injured or killed by their own firearms than to wind up using it on an intruder. When later pressed about the manner in which he came up with his ratio, he then switched gears and threw out the 2.7:1 ratio - an equally false yet less outrageous number. To provide one example of how poorly the study was done, the only events that were counted as times when a person used a gun in defense of a home was when the bad guy got shot. This was the most pathetic portion of the finding since the vast majority of people who own firearms have, rightly so, no desire to kill people and show/produce/declare their weapon in order to cause the bad guy to leave in the overwhelming amount of circumstances. This fact alone completely threw off the entire average, even if the rest of the statistics had been honestly complied, which they were not. The awful and dishonest techniques used by Kellerman can be seen in part on the link below:

It is safe to say that even rabidly anti-gun people have often refused to use the findings of the Kellerman study in their own arguments due to the fact that the whole thing suffers from a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.

The Left is all-to-aware that individual ownership of arms one of the hallmarks and universal characteristics of Western societies. Unlike the types of societies admired by Leftists, such as medieval China, where the individual was to do as he was told (Even a code of ethics like Confucianism rams this home) and was required to leave the defense of their family, property, and village to the local warlord or emperor, the individual in the West has always been an owner of arms.

Where Eastern societies prohibited one from taking part in defense and thus left his safety to the whim or ability of the ruling despot, Western societies required the individual to own arms. Where the Eastern potentates could pretty much do as they pleased with the people who lived in their domains, their counterparts in the West had to tread cautiously.

For a person who desires to find out more about the crucial place of arms ownership in the Western world and its consequences on the societies that evolved from it, the easiest and quickest way would be to research the Roman, Greek, and early Germanic societies.

The Greeks required the individual, especially if he owned any property, to equip himself at this own expense with a minimum of arms and armor and to take an active part in the defense of his city-state. This was quite an expense as both the materials and work/craftsmanship that went in to making these items were costly. For anyone who has not seen what a Greek Hoplite wore, it consisted of a helmet, shield, armor for the torso and legs, a sword and spear. This was a right and an obligation that was not optional. Later they allowed for more lightly-armored Peltasts. The individual was also required to train exhaustively, to learn how to fight in a hoplite formation and also needed to drill/practice on a regular basis with those of his community. In times of threats to the city-state, the Hoplite, like the others noted below, did not have the option of remaining home with his family.

The Romans also required those who possessed property to equip themselves at their own expense and to train and appear with their equipment in times of crisis. Unlike the Greeks, they created early on several classes where the amount of equipment one as required to purchase was based on the amount of property they owned with the exact specifications enumerated. Those with the most property had to be the most heavily equipped, those with less assessed property would have to purchase less.

The Germanic society was the most egalitarian as far as armed individuals go. All free men could be called up at anytime. There of course were differences as to what arms certain individuals could afford to posses, but the system, which went by the label of Fyrd among the Saxons, existed throughout Germanic societies by different names and technically continued as an obligation throughout the middle ages. Interestingly, the emergence of professional troops of the nobility and the resultant lack of reliance on the Fyrd-type bodies has a direct correlation with the subjugation and suppression of the common people. The concept was employed in the defense preparations of Elizabethan England when threatened by the Spanish Armada. The decline of the nobility and relative absence of one in daughter nations such as the US brought the practice back into common use. Colonial men were required to periodically report for drill and inspections of their equipment. These militias formed the basis of the first contingents to oppose what they believed to be British tyranny.

All of these and others types not mentioned here are an integral part of Western societies. These responsibilities have continued in various forms and frequency of use into the present day. In the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court had for evidence incredible amounts of citations of those who actually made the constitution or were contemporaries of those who did. All state clearly that the Militia (Modern Fyrd) consist of all able-bodied men (I would include women if they have been familiarized with weapons). The National Guard bodies of individual states, while constituting a sort of professional core of militia, is also a part of the US Army Reserve structure and has not taken the place of the militia.

To apply the protest against such an idea to early human societies, we could use the example of cave people. In a free society, like those who banded together and lived in natural shelters like caves, what would have happened to an individual who wanted the protection of the cave and the clan but did not want to take part in the clan's defense? Well, it is guaranteed that he would be cast out to fend for himself. His lack of willingness to expose himself to the danger common to all who stood in defense of the clan or his aversion to any violence for any purpose would result in his expulsion from that society. In the caves, one would forfeit his chance to survive if he refused to take part in defense. In Greek, Roman, Germanic and other Western societies, one who refused to take part would forfeit his right to have any say in how the society is run. He could not vote, speak at assemblies, or sit in or attend a Germanic council. (Saxon – Witan) In short, he had no right to have his opinion counted if he would not fight.

Today the Left wants several things:

1. To make themselves as defenseless as possible and to need state control of every aspect of their lives.

2. To make everyone else as defenseless and as needful as they.

3. To create a society where those who are intellectually [sic] against any violence can not only be free from any obligation to take part in defense (while fully enjoying its benefits) but also, contrary to the basic setup of free societies, get to have their opinion forced on those who do defend. (As in the recent homosexual agenda 'Obamian' move to force the military to have no restrictions whatsoever against overt homosexuality).
(The claims that gays have always been there has no weight as so have others who engage in prohibited activities. The idea as stated in an earlier post is that the military simply has the obligation to decide what types of behavior may be detrimental to military operations or discipline on any scale. Note too that the military -even in the 80s had a significant open secret of a problem with sexual activity in squadbay (open floor type) female barracks - long before Don't Ask Don't tell kicked off)

4. To create a lawless environment that necessitates ever-broadening powers of both state and federal government.

5. To end once and for all any right, responsibility, or obligation of citizens to take protective action consistent with what the individual in Western cultures has done since its inception. (This of course is also aimed at one of the last responsibilities left for Western male, who has seen himself more and more marginalized from his place in the secure and orderly society that was created by his predecessors. This of course is not meant to exclude women from taking an active part in defense; indeed, feminists seem to pursue with zeal the goal of making all women completely defenseless and dependant on the police)

6. To cause the populace of the US to be unable to maintain its sovereignty in the face of the establishment of either a one-world government or regional pan-national governing bodies such as the EU or a hypothetical North American union.

Some will argue that the right to defend oneself is archaic and an unnecessary vestige of an earlier time. They will add that the establishment of professional police bodies, the active-duty military and National Guard Reserve, the lack of need to hunt for daily food, and the absence of threats from neighboring communities has negated the necessity for individuals to own arms.

Nothing could be further from the truth for any of these cases. Numerous court decisions have ruled that police cannot be held responsible for failing to protect an individual from violent criminal activity. The military is designed to deal with threats directly against the nation or states. Arms cannot be considered as only for hunting as this activity is only for a very limited application and is not the main purpose which is ensuring that a person can take protective measures. Lastly, the rise of exceptionally violent activity and the possibility things getting worse in the future makes the responsibility of one to own and become proficient with a firearm more important than it has been in a long time.

In short, no one event or chain of events has occurred that has removed the right and obligation of the individual to protect himself, his family, and his community.

The young Mom in the article performed a brave act that is keeping with the highest tradition of the Western concept of self-defense and preparedness. She is to be praised for her actions.

*A brief reference to Napoleon Bonaparte, who used that phrase in describing how he suppressed riots of the Sections in the tumultuous years of the early French republic. He used artillery. Grapeshot is made of bags filled with multiple projectiles. A shotgun is the closest thing to such an effective weapon that an individual may posses.

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."


Sunday, June 24, 2012

UN - Undermine Europe's Ethnic/Cultural Homogeneity

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

This is certainly an appropriate follow-up to yesterdays post. In that one, the ethnic and cultural identity of Swedish people were denied by some, terribly denigrated by others, and agreed by all Multiculturalists involved to be in need of absolute suppression.

In the article linked above, a UN Migration representative stated to the British House of Lords that European nations must become Multicultural. To do so, their ethnic and cultural homogeneity must be "undermined".

"He [Peter Sutherland] told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states". "

It is interesting that the enormous ongoing drain on national financial resources of European countries caused by rampant immigration is not taken into account.

"He told the committee: "The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.

"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.' "

In summary. Mr.Sutherland states that too many Europeans do not know that the best thing for them is to change the ethnic and cultural makeup of their nations. Since they are too ignorant and thus need to be helped, the steady rain of immigrants should be turned into a  monsoon to transform  European nations into Multicultural regions that no longer have a core group of people with similar outlooks/political tastes or any desire to maintain their national sovereignty. How dare the Danes, for example, insist that their nation have a majority of ethnic Danes?

Political writers such as Alexis de Tocqueville and Montesquieu were quite clear and correct in noting that, for republics or democracies to survive, the political base must have a sufficient degree of ethnic and cultural homogeneity. Without this, the nation can be easily pulled in different directions and lose its sense of identity.

This of course is exactly what the Left desires. Nations comprised of ethnic/cultural majorities tend to resist radical changes or any surrendering of national sovereignty to one-world or regional governments. The most simple way to remove this annoying obstacle is to change a nation's electorate. The Stalinist/Maoist/Khmer Rouge method was to kill off millions of the recalcitrants and inspire sufficient fear in the rest to keep them cooperative. The modern Multicultural method is to import massive amounts of people with cultures foreign to those of the nations that must be undermined. Once the number of the new citizens becomes a majority or otherwise reaches the minimal amount necessary for a constitutional convention, the indigenous will have no effective political power and consequently be be unable to prevent the dissolution of their national constitutions.

Multiculturalism is the modern Left's answer to the rise of the proletariat that never happened.

The German Socialist Bertolt Brecht summed up the Leftist outlook:

"After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"

I refuse to believe that Europeans will put up with this much longer. Their societies were built and governed by people who were fully aware of the legacy that they had to bequeath to their descendants. I just hope that the heirs realize the threats facing them before it is too late.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Sweden's Cultural Identity Denied and Attacked by Left

A standard game play of Leftists is the excising of the identity of a people. In the US, this is done by the systematic portrayals of every notable American personage as racist, greedy, haughtily aristocratic, or just plain bad. Significant events in our nation's history are consequently made out to be motivated by all of the bad things attributed to the bad guys who created our awful system.

I noted in an anecdotal fashion in an earlier post how things have changed in our American schools.

-From the above post:
"My oldest, now 21, was probably of the last generation of public school students who learned to appreciate the legacy of George Washington. This man, in giving his support to our independence movement (Unlike the one we praise today, who is honored because he won an election), risked almost certain confiscation of his considerable property and his probable execution for treason to the Crown. He then secured his honored place in history by twice walking away from quite powerful positions of authority (Once when he resigned his commission after the Treaty of Paris and the second after the conclusion of his second term as President).

In doing so he truly became the American Cincinnatus, the man of the early Roman Republic who, after holding the Senate-ordered Office of Dictator and leading his people out of the crisis that necessitated his rule, resigned and returned to his small farm after a mere fifteen days of his allotted six-month tenure.

Washington certainly deserved the song that my oldest sang in school for his birthday. It was a treasure to watch the five and six year-olds sing this on the stage.
Unfortunately, I can't find the entire text.

'George Washington, George Washington,
We honor you today
George Washington, George Washington,
Father of the USA'

When my youngest, now fifteen, came home from school as a first-grader after Washington's birthday, I asked him what he learned about our first President. He replied "He owned slaves".

I did not make that up.

There it is - a man is remembered for a fault, the guilt for which can certainly be, at least in part, mitigated by the facts that he was born into a particular time period, that he is not known to have been cruel to those in bondage, and that he also freed his slaves after his death. We must also note that he did not have the legal authority to free the slaves who were the property of his wife, the amount of which were considerable."

In Sweden however, our dilemma would be considered small potatoes in comparison. There, the national and cultural heritage are both denied and demonized; this in a nation with no real colonial history to provide a source for blame and zero slavery for a thousand years. Yes, I get the irony - How can something that is purported not to exist be also ridiculed and severely criticized? Well, the Left never lets logical thought  dictate its actions. If they did, after all, they would no longer be Leftists.

The following are excerpts from the recent comments by Swedish politicians and academic made around Sweden's national Day. Conspicuously absent are any references either to anything that would cause ethnic Swedes to be proud of their heritage and any mention of the enormous crime problem with its ever-increasing Muslim immigrant community. Swedes can't even have one day to be proud to be Swedish.

Bolding is mine:

"In the case of Sweden, there are many past examples of a type of dislike and critique of being Swedish. The former leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, expressed this at a conference, stating that she could ‘not think of anything resembling Swedish culture.’ And that this further ‘makes Swedes jealous of immigrants who have a culture, identity and a history which unite them.’ This, ‘whilst Swedes only have midsummer celebration and such ridiculous things.’

The current prime minister of Sweden, Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party (‘Conservatives’ in Sweden), stated in 2006 that ‘the only feature of Swedish culture is barbarism, whilst everything else is thanks to immigration’.

On National Day the media did not make us wait for this criticism. On the early morning news, Channel 4 launched a ‘discussion’, on the topic ‘What is Swedishness? Is there such a thing?’. There were three participants in the discussion — None of whom viewed themselves as ‘ Swedish’. The TV show’s host asked whether if they felt the day meant anything special to them, resulting in their bursting into laughter. One of them, Qaizar Mahmood, said that he ‘wished it might mean something, but it really didn’t.’ Mahmood then went on to describe Swedishness as an onion, made out of different layers. One of these layers, was ‘the passivity (read cowardice) of the Swedes, which was shown during WWII,’ when Sweden did not take a stand against the Germans. [ But the Nazis enjoyed tremendous moral support from Muslims] He continued, asserting that ‘There are new layers constantly added to this onion, but if you peel these off, there is no core of Swedishness or of being a Swede.’ In other words, there is nothing to celebrate as there is nothing or no one who is Swedish in the end.

This line of thinking finds expression in every source of journalism during this day. The journalist Jan Anders Olsson called for using the National Day as a ground for fighting ‘hate-crimes’. ‘The terms ‘Swede’ and ‘Swedishness’ in principle now refer to everyone,’ he argued. Therefore, ‘the National Day serves the function to remind us that all who hold a Swedish citizenship are de facto Swedes’. Christian Fernandez and Anders Hellström, researchers at Malmö University, called for making the National Day the ‘Day of Citizenship’. They meant we need to construct and celebrate an ‘Us’ which rejects the current, narrow understanding of ‘Swedishness’. In a chronicle in one of Sweden’s major evening papers,Aftonbladet, Elisabeth Höglund criticised the use of Sweden’s national anthem. Höglund meant the song expressed imperialism and brutal colonialism [What is she talking about?] , as the song illustrates 17th century Sweden. She therefore meant that the anthem should be ‘re-written’, so that it would more correctly reflect ‘contemporary Sweden’.

This madness did not stop with journalists and academics; it also came from a more official level. I suppose The Royal Family of Sweden simply does not have much choice but to follow the political line of the establishment. For them to appear in the media celebrating being Swedish is no longer acceptable. At the National Day, parts of the Royal Family instead visited multicultural Malmö in the South of Sweden, where around 40% of the habitants are ‘non-Swedish’. In a highly covered presentation at the city’s Opera, Swedish Crown Prince Daniel welcomed the 300 so-called ‘New Swedes’ who were invited as guests. He introduced his speech stating that ‘being Swedish does not refer to skin or hair colour, nor accents’. To be Swedish, ‘is to share a place on the earth and to share a commonality and responsibility’. In the city which has recently seen an unprecedented murder-wave in Scandinavia, the Prince of course also emphasised how ‘Sweden has been enriched socially and culturally through immigration’.

In summary, the Swedish establishment, together with its branches in the media and academia, propagates a view of the country which ferociously attacks the notions of ethnic Swedes and of Swedishness. The day the population is supposed to celebrate this otherwise fantastic country, has been hijacked to serve as a political tool."

There is more in the link.

- Another example of Year Zero, the complete erasing of a people's past to prepare them for a new Leftist Dawn.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Societal Collapse Medley

I had trouble choosing from among three notable examples of the ongoing internal collapse of our society and culture, so I will post on all three. (Revised- I added a fourth)

1. In New Jersey, a woman who was hit by a baseball by an 11 year-old Little Leaguer is suing, not the League mind you (Although that would be bad enough), but the player, who is now 13. The kid, a catcher, was warming up his pitcher in a bullpen when an errant throw hit the woman. The kid indicated that he wasn't engaging in horseplay and that he immediately ran over to her and asked if she was OK. I spent countless hours coaching youth baseball games in my township and I have never heard of such a shameless act by any person who had attended a game.

2.Gay activists at a Gay Pride event at the White House (I could be done with my societal collapse on that part alone), not content with celebrating their dysfunction in an edifice that should be a place of dignity, took photos of themselves giving the middle finger at and in front of portraits of Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush. I am reminded of the actions of conquering Muslims who made barbaric acts of iconoclasm into an art form. In addition to tearing up religious imagery, raping nuns, and such, the earlier invaders were remarkably more rustic in manner. When the conquered he Sassanid Persian Empire, they tore jewels off of embroidered fabrics and, thinking that the perfumes they had taken were spices, poured them into soups while they feasted in their new abodes. The new barbarians, a coalition of radical gays, Leftists, anti-white racists, atheists, and those Muslims who desire to bring Sharia and the rule of a restored Caliphate to the US, have instituted  new Volkerwanderung.  The difference here is that most of them did not have to cross any borders to enter the country.

As with the enervated and oppressed citizens of the late Western Roman Empire, we mostly sit on our hands while the sacking of our society, culture, and nation is ongoing.

3. This is a follow up to an earlier post (below);

The above post was about a NYC school Principal that forbade students from singing "God Bless the USA at an end-of-year ceremony. The Principal in this case is not described as a Leftist but as a Jehovah's Witness. In the post, I stated that those who had organized the event should just go with the original plan, let the kids sing the song, and let the principal howl. Well, they did me one better - they organized an event off of school property and let the kids sing. A group of vicious, cowardly adult bullies, though, shouted down the poor children while they sung. Included in this disgusting display were shouts of "Burn in Hell" that were directed at the kids and presumably the parents and others who came to share to children's happiness, which was of course torn from them.

One problem with having an orderly society is that too many people take advantage of the fact that fear of prosecution and lawsuits prevent an appropriate punch in the face from being administered to those deserving of such corrective action.

4. The Obama campaign is suggesting that couples who are getting married have their guests make a contribution to to the election campaign in lieu of giving the newlyweds a gift.

Big Brother/Everyone's Father that Obama wants to be, he can't even leave people alone during the most important event in their lives. This one brings to mind the mean-spirited and shameful (But thankfully long gone) practice of an aristocrat forcing the bride of a peasant to submit to intercourse with him on her wedding day. His elitism is so extreme that he really does not care that the gifts are meant to help get the couple started financially and materially.

I also find it hard to believe that his campaign is that hard up for cash.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

"White Privilege" Video Aired by U. of Minnesota-Duluth

Hat tip to The Blaze.

White privilege is a concept similar to that of Obama's old favorite "Critical Race Theory". Along with college courses in "Whiteness Studies", these ideas are advanced with the intention of keeping the fires of racism alive in our minds. The ultimate goal is to keep whites both in a state of perpetual "White guilt" and to keep them on the defensive at all times. Colleges around the nation have been pushing this agenda for quite some time. The University of Delaware recently made Whiteness Studies mandatory for all students. There, whites have to endure all sorts of abuse and accusations from fellow students while the professors smugly demonize all cultures and societies created by whites.

What one is supposed to believe is that, no matter how far we have come, whites are born into a privileged state even today. This can only be remedied by subjecting them to a state of bondage in which they would be required to keep their mouths shut and acquiesce to whatever demands are made, be it more affirmative action, dumbed-down curriculums and standardized testing (For schools and for jobs), higher taxes to pay for more programs, rabid historical revisionism that paints the worst possible picture of any notable whites, what have you.

On a playing field in which White Privilege has been put forth as an assumed truth, whites are not to be allowed to complain about anything let alone make any complaints about how they believe that they are being treated. To paraphrase the advocates of White Privilege - "You have nothing to complain about. You're white, therefore, you can only be the beneficiary of the racist system that was created by the nation's founders. You need to accept any and all changes that we want. Only when we decide that your position is no longer one of privilege will you have the right to speak your mind. Until then, you need to be brushed aside and do what we tell you to do."

-From the above link:

"The University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD) is now sponsoring an ad-campaign designed to achieve “racial justice” by raising awareness of “white privilege.”

The project disseminates its message, that “society was setup for us [whites]“ and as such is ”unfair,” through an aggressive campaign of online videos, billboards, and lectures. The ads feature a number of Caucasians confessing their guilt for the supposed “privilege” that comes along with their fair features.[...]

“You give me better jobs, better pay, better treatment, and a better chance – all because of the color of my skin,” reads one poster that features a close shot of a Caucasian male.

The Un-Fair campaign also held a series of lectures and events on campus last semester. One included a presentation by Tim Wise, author of Dear White America. In his book, Wise confesses a “longstanding fantasy” where he turns to a man with a “God Bless the USA” button and asks him, “why can’t you just get over it?”

"For all y’all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.

And for y’all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, …

Whatever the case, and whatever your economic station, know this . . .

You need to drink up.

And quickly.

And heavily.

Because your time is limited.[...]

And in the pantheon of American history, old white people have pretty much always been the bad guys, the keepers of the hegemonic and reactionary flame, the folks unwilling to share the category of American with others on equal terms.

Fine, keep it up. It doesn’t matter.

Because you’re on the endangered list.

And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving."

The video can also be accessed on the linked article.

The ad is the brainchild of Tim Wise, a longtime "anti-White" white person. Along with other (this time) volunteer modern-day Sonderkommandos wearing inscribed anti-white messages on their faces while speaking about how wrongfully privileged whites are, Wise intends both to frighten whites into perpetual subservience and silence and to whip non-whites into an anti-white frenzy of jealousy and hatred. The white volunteers who shamelessly attack other whites make this ad all the more appalling.

This ad comes amid a slew of claims from others essentially stating that anything that is challenged by whites or conservatives is racism. Here are three examples from the past two days:

We have been faced with this agenda for a long time, but the campaign has been strongly stepped up of late. I personally believe that the new offensive is occurring now due to the difficulties that the Obama campaign is experiencing.

In a typical "Year Zero" mentality, nothing honorable or good for humanity that was accomplished by whites is mentioned or allowed into the conversation. The ban on the global slave trade (Although blacks are still enslaved in more than one region in Africa), an horrific civil war fought almost entirely about slavery (Sorry, but the historical evidence is too strong to deny that one), the fact that mainly white Church bodies were almost the only groups condemning slavery, the desegregation of the American South, the acceptance of vast amounts of refugees from third-world nations, or any other virtuous action can not be entered into the debate.

One's work ethic, the willingness to postpone life decisions such as marriage and children, frugality in spending in order to at some point accumulate any property, or moral compass can not be cited in defense of what you have or are working to have. You have (or will obtain) what you have exclusively by virtue of your aristocratic white birth, and nothing else.

We must fight back with the truth, and in a determined fashion. I for one worked too hard, at too many backbreaking jobs, and put off too many purchases to be fooled into feeling guilty.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Revised: School Bus Aide Endures Unbelievable Verbal Abuse

Added 6/21/12-

The aide/monitor has received a tremendous amount of support.


I can't believe that the aide did not insist that the driver stop the bus to stop this from continuing and to take the names of the students right then and there..

Here are some of the quotes from the article in THEBLAZE:

“Fat ass.”

“Oh my God, you’re so fat.”

“You take up like the whole entire seat.”

“Put those glasses back on. I can’t stand looking at your face.”

You have refluxes [Reflexes?] of an elephant,” another child can be heard saying.

“She‘s going to pick out which kid she’s going to rape next,” another quipped.

“She’s going to die of diabetes, because she’s so damn fat,” said another.

The video, which appears to have been taken by one of the participating students, goes on and on for several minutes.

We once required that our kids show deference and respect to our elders.

If my son had been on the bus and had not put a stop to this (forget about participating in the abuse) I would have been infuriated with him for his cowardice and lack of empathy.

The video has to be seen to be believed.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Syrian Christians Flee by the Thousands

Hat tip to Jihad Watch.

A few days ago, Christians were told that they had six days to leave the city of Qusayr. Thousands have decided that it is better to leave than to find out what happens if they defy the order. Here is the media-hyped Arab Spring in action.

"The Christian minority in Syria is facing a growing threat and thousands are being forced to flee their homes as they face harassment and discrimination from radial Islamist factions of the opposition.

At least 9,000 Christians from the western Syrian city of Qusayr were forced to seek refuge after an ultimatum from a local military chief of the armed opposition, Abdel Salam Harba, Fides news agency reports."

Snipers have legitimate tactical and strategic purposes, in the New Syria this includes shooting those who belong to oppressed minorities.

"In the latest outburst of violence a Christian man was shot dead by a sniper in Qusayr, which neighbors the restive city of Homs."

Remember when Obama said that the call to prayer that is proclaimed from minarets was "the most beautiful sound"? I wonder if he thinks that this minaret-issued order is also a beautiful thing.

"There have been reports last week that some mosques in the city have announced from the minarets: "Christians must leave Qusayr within six days, which expires this Friday.

Two Catholic priests who fled Qusayr confirmed to the news agency that they heard the ultimatum "with their own ears" repeated from the minarets.

"The situation is unsustainable in the area and exposed to total lawlessness," Fides sources on the ground say. They also fear that the fate of Christians in Qusayr could soon affect the 10,000 believers who live in other villages in the area.

The areas controlled by the opposition are witnessing the rise of radical forms of Sunni Islam with the extremists not willing to live in peace with the Christians. Many of these gangs and armed groups operate independently of the Free Syrian Army, which rejects such kinds of discrimination against minorities."

Don't forget that the Christians have to be blamed in some way for their plight.

"Apart from religious rifts, the violence against the Christian community may also be fueled by the fact that they have openly expressed support to the regime. Bashar Assad, as well as his late father, Hafez Assad, guaranteed secular rule in Syria, protecting Christians from discrimination and guaranteeing their rights".

Churches that have stood for hundreds (If not more) years are fair game when Islamic tolerance is unleashed.

"On Wednesday, an armed group broke into and desecrated the Greek-catholic church of St. Elias in Qusayr.

"It is the first time in the ongoing conflict that such an episode has occurred in which sacred symbols are deliberately hit," a local source told Fides.

A Christian population of 10% means that there are far too many Kaffirs in the new tolerant Syria.

Christians make up about 10 per cent of the country’s population with most belonging to the denomination of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Those who are descended from some of the earliest Christians and Christian communities are being killed, raped, abducted, and literally  run out of town. The day when the Middle and Near East are completely devoid of Christians may very well arrive in our lifetime.

I know that many individual Christians are speaking out about this tragedy and that the Pope occasionally expresses his concern, but these are not enough. Christians need to put aside their doctrinal differences and confront this head on. The Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant worlds need to come together to address this issue and come up with an operational plan that can be implemented as soon as possible. Words have proven themselves useless in this case. It is time for real action

Monday, June 18, 2012

British Social Workers Move to Take Baby From EDL Mom

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

A British Mom-to-be with an admittedly checkered past is facing moves by Social Services to take custody of her baby when it is born. Although the bureaucrats have noted their concerns with her less-than-model past, they seem to be far more focused on her affiliations with groups such as the English Defence League. The father, a British Army soldier just returned from Afghanistan, has been ruled out as a potential custodial parent by Social Services because he is an active duty soldier. This appears to be to be a very lame excuse made to ensure that neither he nor Mom can bring up the child with any sense of British identity. Thanks for fighting for us, Soldier. We'll be taking the baby and will make sure that he/she is raised as a good Multiculturalist.

In a Multiculturalist society, everyone gets to practice and advocate their culture except for those who are descended from the people who made the society what it is. These people are supposed to meekly accept that they are to be made insignificant, impotent and eventually brushed aside.

The English Defence League has been repeatedly labeled by the Leftist press in Britain as a racist group. It's leader Tommy Robinson, has successfully defended his group, often befuddling smug interviewers with his clear answers and thinking when they try their best to make him and his group look as badly as possible.

The EDL's demonstrations have been portrayed as violent, but from what I have seen and read, the vast majority of the violence at these events has been initiated by Unite Against Fascism (UAF), a group of Leftist thugs who regularly employ violence.Violent Muslims also consider the EDL and Tommy as favorite targets, and Tommy has been attacked on several occasions, including one savage episode a few months back in which he was beaten severely and hospitalized. The press tends to leave out the actions of the UAF and Muslims and generally places the blame squarely at the feet of the EDL.

The EDL has purged its ranks of racists on more than one occasion. They are, though, gravely concerned with the Islamization of the UK and the looming spectre of a loss of identity of its nation and people. Their platform is one of reasonable immigration, the necessity for newcomers to integrate, and prohibitions on the implementation of Sharia Law in their nation. I have listened to Tommy's speeches and interviews on numerous occasions and have found him to be honest and sincere. I saw one video in which he spared no profanity when ordering a Nazi-saluting (Presumably a UAF troublemaker) to put his arm down and leave the demonstration.

Here is the link to the EDL. For the moment, drop what the press has said about them and see what they say about themselves:

-From the link at top:

"Durham County Council has told Toni McLeod she would pose a “risk of ­significant harm” to the baby. Social workers fear the child would become radicalised with EDL views and want it put up for adoption immediately.

Mrs McLeod, who is 35 weeks pregnant, is a former leading member of the EDL, in which she was notorious as “English Angel”. The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner.

However, her cause has been taken up by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who, despite his loathing for the EDL, raised it in the Commons. He contrasts her treatment with that of the extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his ­children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him.

He said: “It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like.

“I am very strongly opposed to the EDL, which I believe to be a racist organisation, but I do not think we should remove all of the children of the people who go on their demonstrations, however misguided they may be.”

Mrs McLeod has posted racist abuse on social networking sites but denies being racist. She claims she is no longer active with the EDL and has never been charged with violence against children.

Social workers have told her husband Martyn he would be unable to care for his child because he is a full-time soldier just back from Afghanistan."........

This is real potential trouble. When the government gets into the business of barring parents from possibly exposing their kids to verboten political views, that entity has crossed the line and is clearly engaged in a "long train of abuses". Note that the views of a political group that stands for the crime of British/English identity are the primary cause for this action. Compounding this is the fact that the same bureaucrats are routinely letting violent and hate-espousing Muslims in Britain continue having custody of their children. I am not aware of British Social Services going after those who advocate Islamic rule in Britain (And there are many of those) nor have I read of the same civil servants taking much action against those who subject their daughters to female genital mutilation or commit gang rapes against indigenous British girls.

This is clearly designed to frighten others away from even considering taking a stand for the identity of their nation and the freedoms bequeathed to them by their ancestors. Those who have been affiliated with any targeted groups will get the picture - if you want to keep your kids, abandon any ties that you may have or had with any group that expresses concern with the submerging of British identity.

This is a really good way to get the rank-and-file soldiery more than slightly steamed at the government that they protect with their lives.

-Excerpts from a post by Paul Weston in Gates of Vienna below:

"Multicultural Britain is becoming an ever more sinister country in which to live. I am pretty much immune to the totalitarian ideology of multiculturalism, but having said that, even I must confess to being shocked that the British state can now kidnap babies and children simply because their parents question the dictatorial and wholly unnatural orthodoxy of the ruling elites.

All in all,
[she is] not the best qualifications for motherhood, but these are not the reasons behind the state sanctioned child-snatching. Ms McLeod has been presumed guilty of a far more serious crime than simply living her life as a result of liberalism’s catastrophic progressive policies.

Ms McLeod you see, is deemed a racist — and quite possibly a fascist to boot — both of which are ranked nowadays as the ultimate evil by the promoters of multiculturalism, who are trying desperately to hold together Britain’s rapidly fragmenting and fantastical multicultural Utopia.

Snatching children from parents who hold “inappropriate” political views is nothing new, although it normally requires a fully totalitarian state such as Nazi Germany or Communist Russia in order to be effected. I hope I am not alone in recognising how deeply sinister and frightening multicultural Britain has become when it seeks to emulate the ideology of such dictatorships.

Polls conducted in the 1960s and ’70s suggest the overwhelming majority of British citizens were opposed to mass immigration. Recent polls in Britain and Europe suggest the indigenous citizens have a very rational fear of Islam, despite the ruling elite’s dictatorial attempts to portray this violent and supremacist political ideology as a fuzzy and moderate religion of peace.

Multicultural Britain is now at a very dangerous crossroads. The liberal/left have implemented the wholly unnatural act of diluting the cohesive native population with an imported population which comes from a society completely at odds with the religion, tradition and culture of Great Britain. This alien society is then actively encouraged to retain its barbaric culture rather than assimilate.

Not content with simply causing social division and facilitating religious terrorism, the liberal/left then engage in persecuting and criminalising any member of the native population who dares question their perverse and treacherous ideology. The problem here is that there are tens-of-millions of people who do question their ideology, so multiculturally Apartheid Britain is set to become increasingly dictatorial as our liberal elites move to quash the dissidents.

The sheer insanity of multiculturalism throws up any number of contradictions and ironies. Ms McLeod’s partner and father of the soon-to-be-snatched-baby is a serving soldier in Afghanistan. The state will reward him with a campaign medal for doing his bit in fighting Islamism abroad, whilst the self-same state will steal his child because the mother is fighting Islamism at home. If this is not insane then I don’t know what is."