The Obamanation of Desolation
The appearance of John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback, California's "purpose-driven" church marks the ultimate ascent of Rick Warren to the Gantry-in-Chief of the P.T. Barnum Church of America. Warren's success is living proof of Barnum's oft-quoted observation that there is a sucker born every minute. In the event, Obama's imitation of Christianity was so poor that even John McCain—the very model of a Christian divorcé--looked good by comparison. Obama could barely bring himself to stutter out the Scriptural passages he had memorized as his answer to the scripted questions.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please note: While no topic is off the table, the discussions on this website are conducted with the courtesy and sweet reason expected in an after-dinner conversation among friends or the debates of colleagues at a Socratic seminar. Irrational tirades, stream-of-conscience fantasies, personal abuse including ethnic slurs, and the impudent familiarities engaged in by juvenile bloggers are not tolerated. Violators will see their posts either put into moderation or deleted. Frequent violators will be blocked permanently.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama needs to establish church-cred, if he is ever going to win the votes of the people he hates and fears. I mean White People. It is true that the majority of Obama supporters are White People, but most of them fall into the category of self-hating Whites otherwise known as liberals. A liberal, as I never tire of quoting (from Robert Frost), is someone who would not take his own side in an argument. Rich liberals naturally support high taxes and extravagant government expenditures on the poor, preferably the undeserving poor. A male liberal—we can hardly call such creatures men—favors women’s rights; heterosexual liberals favor “Gay” “marriage,” and European-American liberals prefer all cultures to that of Europe. And, if these idiots condescend to note their skin color, they hate it or at least they think they do.
Mr. Obama may or may not like the White liberals who burn incense to his TV images that fill up the evening news broadcasts, but he knows he cannot stand the illiberal Whites who do not hate themselves. Obama spent two decades attending Trinity United Church of Christ and claimed its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as his friend and mentor before discovering that Wright was an anti-White bigot. He even borrowed his book title “The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright’s sermons. Every time I hear that phrase—so redolent of the old stereotype of half-educated blacks who insert pretentious words into their conversation--I imagine how Johnny Lee, aka Algonquin J. Calhoun, would deliver it. Like all the stars of the Amos ‘N Andy television show, Lee was a fine comic actor, and it is some kind of weird racism that has sent immortal comics like Tim Moore (Kingfish) and Spencer Williams (Andy) down the memory hole. The NAACP’s persecution of Amos ‘N Andy does prove one thing, and that is that black liberals (including Barack Obama) hate themselves as much as white liberals do. What is left for them to love? Not much.
Jeremiah Wright not only hates Whites, he does not even pretend he doesn't. Imagine the SPLC in a parallel case, if it found out that Pat Buchanan regarded the comparatively mild David Duke as his mentor. The DNC and the media can tell any lies they like, but they cannot change the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate hates Whites, including the members of his mother's family who showed him every kindness. Compared with the average self-proclaimed white bigot who says he loves his ancestors, Obama is one sick and sorry excuse for a human being.
The Wright story does have its lighter side. It is Obama’s membership in Wright’s “church” that has justified his claim to be a Christian, and his claim to be a Christian is his best evidence that he was never a Muslim. No one has called him on this, so far as I know, even Christians who are fully aware that the United Church of Christ has nothing to do with the historical Christian faith taught by the apostles. Some Christians have questioned Obama’s credentials as a Christian because of his support for abortion and infanticide, but in the UCC a woman’s right to kill her children is part of the creed, perhaps the only article of faith (apart from support for “Gay” “marriage”) from which no dissent is permitted. When the UCC says “God is still speaking,” they do not bother to explain why their “God” has been contradicting himself so much. I used to think black people had more sense than to put any stock in the post-Christian conventicles that joined together in the great anti-Church known as the United Church of Christ, but in joining the Middle Class upwardly mobile Blacks have apparently become as gullible as their white counterparts.
If membership in the UCC is the best argument Obama has for refuting the claim he is a Muslim, he would have to explain how the leader of the Nation of Islam came to speak at his “church.” But, I suppose, better Louis Farrakhan than Jeremiah Wright or Rick Warren. No, I do not think Barack Obama worships Allah or any other “god” he cannot see in his own mirror. In the solipsistic universe he makes up from speech to speech, press conference to press conference, there is no god but Barack and Obama is his prophet.
How did we ever reach the point where an Obama could be the presidential candidate of a major party? A political unknown in Illinois until the Republicans, in one of their frequent fits of self-destructive frenzy, decided to run Allan Keyes against Obama. That is how this Marxist nonentity entered the Senate, where he did nothing for a year or so and then decided that he was that any boy in America who could refuse to grow up and become president. And, although he made Hilary Clinton appear to be a conservative or at least a pragmatist, people still voted for him. Who are they?
I understand why blacks vote for a black candidate, though by the same token Germans should revere the memory of Adolf Hitler and Georgians would have a statue of Stalin in his home town. (Oops.) I can also understand why public school teachers, social workers, and other welfare-dependents vote for a politicians who will certainly increase their income and power. But setting aside race-loyalty, greed, and the libido dominandi, how could anyone else hold his nose long enough to vote for anyone who talks in that smarmy adenoidal voice? When Obama gets on his pulpit, it sounds almost like he is swallowing his words in a sea of phlegm. He does not so much speak as (to quote what Alexander Wolcott once said of a theater audience) strum his catarrh. His self-righteous public persona should grate on the sensibilities of normal people--like nails on a chalkboard or the voice of Mariah Carey. And yet, some otherwise normal people voted for him in the primaries and will vote for him again in the general election. Why or rather how?
A few months ago I had a white driver in Texas, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama. When I politely asked him why, he explained, anyone will be better than Bush. That is not an easy argument to refute—except in the case of Obama and McCain. The one great comfort of this campaign is that we know the outcome: Whoever wins will turn out to be the worst president in American history. What I wanted to ask him, though, was how could a working white guy vote for a man who so obviously hates him and his people. The driver was, admittedly, not one of those gun-toting religious bigots Obama is so afraid of, but an Obama administration, backed by a Democratic Congress, will certainly do everything possible to enhance the opportunities of everyone who is not white while forcing white taxpayers—and, let us be honest, we do pay most of the taxes because we have most of the money—to fund what might be described as Operation White Out.
Here is an allegedly true story going round the Internet. “Overheard in New York City:
Thug #1: Yo, I can't wait for Obama to win the election, yo! He gonna make white people illegal!
Thug #2 (stopping dead in his tracks): You one ignorant m-f, ain't you?”
The first thug, though something of a dreamer, does at least reflect something of the hopes that are entertained in the event of an Obama victory.
The racial logic of the Obama campaign is far from new; it is as old as Affirmative Action programs that ask white parents to take privileges away from their own children to give special assistance to the children of strangers, so long as the strangers belong to a different race. It is one thing to argue that we should practice charity toward the poor or even that we should be selectively more charitable, for one reason or another, to this or that group of poor people, but quite another to ask me to put the needs of my own children—along with those of my nieces and nephews, grandchildren and cousins, neighbors and friends—behind the needs of other people. However you describe Affirmative Action and minority set-asides, they represent a deliberate and systematic policy of discrimination against people like me in favor of people not like me simply because they are not like me. Such disgusting and immoral policies are worse than any form of racism I have encountered because they teach us to hate precisely those whom we are most supposed to love.
An electorate that accepted the Affirmative Action policies imposed on it by the political class had already made a national suicide pact. American Whites simply cannot wait to be marginalized, and in the media they are already reserving places in the internment camps—for you and me and also for them. One of the big news stories this summer was the revised date by which the Whites will be a minority in the United States. News readers and columnists could barely contain their glee and actually took some time off from extolling Obama. On ABC Charley Gibson and the gang were like small children at a birthday party, unable to decide which to eat first—the cake or the ice cream. Oh boy, you could hear their minds turning over, “We’re going to be aliens in our own country.”
At this point, ordinarily, I would say something about the problem of white backlash being worse than the anti-white racism of Obama. But there is no backlash to speak or complain about. Bubba has got better things to worry about than his second-class status. There's the new truck, American Idol, and, if he is really ambitious, a meth lab. I expected, at least, to see NOBAMA signs—a GOP effort whose creators insist is not racist-- cropping up around town, but I have yet to see even one. When I made my first Nobama joke, even before Nobama.com was put up, it was greeted with unease or rather dis-ease, since we are all dying of a surfeit of sensitivity. It may hardly matter at this point who wins the election, because America is already an Obama-Nation (this pun courtesy of the “Christian” “Right”).
Yes, I know. Describing the Obama campaign as an expression of anti-White racism proves I am a bigot. Somebody, call the Southern Poverty Law Center so they can advance me in their rankings. Bigotry these days has nothing to do with the way you treat people or even with what you actually say. Bigotry is what they say you are thinking when the play your speech backward at half speed. As I have said long ago and many times, we have only two choices in America: The first is a society that is legally color-blind, that is, a political and judicial system that does not discriminate on the basis of race though it cannot, on the other hand, prevent people from following their personal whims in private life. This is what I have always advocated, and it may be one of many possible dreams arising from the classical liberal fantasy that must be dear to the hearts of Americans. The other choice is a society that discriminates on the basis of race. If that is the choice--and it is in fact the choice Obama is forcing on us--we are in something of a bind.
The Obamanation is a racist nation that will leave white Americans few honorable options. They can, of course, emigrate, an option that gets more attractive every day. If they stay, they will have to resist the temptation to turn liberal and sign on to the suicide pact. If they refuse to sell out, all too many will lose their souls in a poisonous hatred that may drag them down as low as Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright. In resisting the campaign to "make white people illegal," as every sensible person of any color should, we should not make the mistake of blaming black people for the suicide we continue to inflict on ourselves. We white males are the problem, not blacks, women, homosexuals, or Mexicans. We--at least the liberal part of "we"-- turned away from our religion and our civilization; we made war on property and marriage; we rejected Haydn and Sophocles in favor of John Cage and Kate Chopin. We have emasculated ourselves, pithed our brains, destroyed our vision and hearing, and now, all that is left, is to vote for a candidate whose rhetoric at least is telling us to fling our worthless carcasses off the cliff. I blush even to hint at this but John McCain is now the only alternative to suicide.
98 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Politeuma · Obamanation of Desolation
- Conservative Heritage Times » Thomas Fleming Tells it Like it Is About Obama!
- Beska droppar » I valet och kvalet
- Abortion and Riverboat Gambling « Floyd’s
- Barely A Blog » ‘The Obamanation of Desolation’
Entries(RSS)
I believe Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has made the definitive argument for an Obama vote: a vote for McCain is an endorsement of the Bush administration. We Californians won't face a dilemma. We can vote third party in full knowledge that our vote won't change the outcome (a silver lining coming soon to you inhabitants of the rest of the country!).
A vote for McCain may well be a serious mistake, one that I do not intend to make, but a vote for Obama is nothing less than a suicidal gesture whose only excuse can be insanity, stupidity, or youthful indiscretion.
As of now I plan to vote for Bob Barr. I figure that if we (constitutionalists) are going to loose, better to loose quickly with Obama than slowly with McCain. Maybe I'll still be young enough to take part in the aftermath.
Am I wrong? Is Fleming suggesting paleos get drunk and vote for McCain? Our recent hero Ron Paul would not agree. What should we then do?
No, I am not suggesting we vote for McCain, though I can understand why people are tempted in this case. What I am seeing is that of the two alternatives that exist--there is no third party candidate to attract any attention this time--to vote for one is to support our destruction while to vote for the other will only contribute to the steady destruction of what is left of our country. I don't, by the way, have any political heroes and if I were inclined to hero-worship, Dr. Paul--as decent as he is--would not cause me to bend the knee. I rarely vote and am beginning to consider the whole democratic apparatus as a form of collaboration with the enemy, but this election is sort of a reply of Clinton v. Dole, except that Clinton was an intelligent pragmatist and Dole an often witty conservative who sold out. Obama is as much worse than Clinton as McCain is worse than Dole the Albanian lobbyist. The old expression "between a rock and a hard place" comes to mind, but the rock is Mt. Everest and the hard place is Hell.
This is one of the best, most profoundly well written articles I've ever read. It is exactly hits the mark. I also was quite depressed to read of the 2042 date for the advent of white minority status, and also an article on Zogby's "First Global" generation. The future (in this world, at least) seems hopeless. I am teaching my daughters German for academic purposes, but perhaps for emigration purposes as well. Although Germany seems every bit as suicidal as the U.S. Maybe Icelandic is the answer?
I agree with Mr. Rutowicz' sentiments about this essay.
"If they refuse to sell out, all too many will lose their souls in a poisonous hatred that may drag them down as low as Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright."
This is very true. Christians must constantly pray for their enemies while fighting against them. Daily repentance, a good beer, and a little humor often help to chase away depression and hatred.
I've made up a campaign button that says "Stick it to Whitey: Obama '08". I plan to wear it on my back-pack and walk arould the local university at lunch time in order to annoy all the Obamunists.
Great essay. No beating around the bush here.
I know Dr. Fleming doesn't agree, but I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party nominee. Unfortunately, in our rigged system, running third party is not about actually getting elected. The third party candidate who actually thinks he can win, other than a few rare exceptions, is naive. Third party candidates run to raise awareness, advance an agenda and give decent people a choice.
If a gun were held to my head, I would probably take a bullet. If a gun was held to a family member's head, I would reluctantly vote for McCain. I don't buy the scenario that conservatives and conservatism will be better served by the election of Obama. The election of Obama will mean we have already lost.
It is not up to me to tell Dr. Red how to vote. Obviously any vote against the party-state is a vote of no-confidence and can have a good effect. What I have told him in the past is that neither Baldwin nor previous Constitution Party candidates have the necessary clarity and coherence to invite principled support. On great advantage the Libertarians have had is that their approach to politics grows out of a set of principles. Unfortunately, their first principles are either wrong or of such a secondary nature that they serve to distort rather than to clarify issues. Having said that, I would only discourage you or anyone from choosing a particular third party candidate if I had a better alternative, which, alas, I do not.
Your closing sentence is all too correct. Another way of putting it is that some conservatives expect a President Obama either to radicalize conservative opposition or to discredit the Left. But that is like a German Jew saying, "Go ahead, let Hitler take over. He'll discredit anti-Semitism for ever." The price, in both instances, is too high, but in the case of Obama, the fact that he can even come close means that a very large proportion of the American people are not sane enough even to look out for their own interests.
"We white males are the problem....." That is the fundamental truth that "conservatives" and "white nationalists" will not acknowledge.
Dr. Flemming, if you decide to leave the country don't bother coming to Canada. We are already (in some ways) where the USA is heading. Why just the other day I was in the bank where my wife works and looking around at all the brochures and posters, I was unable to find a picture of a white anglo saxon man pictured on any of them. Not only is this way of thinking government imposed here but the commercial sector has also embraced it completely. Dr. Flemming .... if you become to down hearted you can always take a bus ride to a good viking fish boil and sing your way back to town! Not a permanent cure, but a good diversion.
I'm not a supporter of Obama in the sense that I think he would make a good president. He might; more likely, he won't. However, I'm sure that McCain would be a catastrophe.
Forced to choose between certain doom and probable doom, I'll take the latter.
After eight years of Bush-Cheney, our situation in America is so desperate that our best hope is to roll the dice with Obama, hoping that he's neither a corporate tool nor a Black Panther in Armani.
Hence, Obama.
May God have mercy on us.
The esteemed TJF writes: "I rarely vote and am beginning to consider the whole democratic apparatus as a form of collaboration with the enemy...." But doesn't that type of resignation compound the problem?
I fully agree that we must either choose to be citizens under the blind rule of law (in your example, a judicial system that will not discriminate on the basis of color) or victims/perpetrators of racism --- in effect, subjects of the whims of a ruling elite or a popular majority.
It is one thing to observe present-day events and demonstrate how the many shortcomings of our popular democracy undermine the moral fabric of this nation. It is quite another to adopt a nearly fatalistic view of the future of this nation and suggest that white emigration might be our proper solution. Might there be another approach? Shouldn't we seek the lesser of the two evils through the ballot box while reinforcing in our private lives the learning and values that have given us the ability to be critical of what, at least today, remains one of the freest, wealthiest and most powerful countries on earth?
"Chuck Baldwin"!.........Run Chuck run!
Scott Palmer @14
"Forced to choose between certain doom and probable doom, I’ll take the latter."
You've just revealed yourself to be a coward, sir. You are saying in effect, my best chance is in the safety of the herd. The brave man would say I will choose the option for which I will be doomed, but principled.
Dr. Fleming,
I'll vote (Baldwin of course), but as I see it there are other far more important things to focus on, which you'd agree.
A nativist backlash could still arise. It's certainly in the background, and I suspect a major source of McCain's popularity. Nobama is a good idea - I hadn't yet heard that.
Self hating liberals remind of white South African Marxists who had to be replaced in South Africa because of ethnicity after bringing the ANC to power.
---
With all due respect, this is an impossible dream.
Nevertheless, your willingness to speak honestly is admirable in this nonEurocentric leviathan.
Please take a look at the the Conservative Exodus Project website and sign out pledge. (Click on my name above.) It is a pledge to either not vote or vote third party. We don't name a specific third party or a specific candidate so more can sign.
TJF: Your closing sentence is all too correct. Another way of putting it is that some conservatives expect a President Obama either to radicalize conservative opposition or to discredit the Left. But that is like a German Jew saying, “Go ahead, let Hitler take over. He’ll discredit anti-Semitism for ever.” The price, in both instances, is too high, but in the case of Obama, the fact that he can even come close means that a very large proportion of the American people are not sane enough even to look out for their own interests.
Actually Juan McLame is more dangerous than Obama because with Obama Republicans will oppose him for partisan political gain. They will however support McLame liberal agenda. And yeah since both McCain and Obama are pro-abortion it is like having Hitler take over except Hitler did not manage to kill 50 million people. We should never compromise with evil. I am starting to think I was a mistake to get involved in the Soviet and Nazi fight because Stalin killed even more people. Never choose what appears to be the lesser of two evils because the lesser might actually do more damage.
I have been reading Chronicles articles for the past few months and I must admit that I have been duly impressed by what I have read. Thomas Flemming may be correct that we are in a tight place between Obama's affirmative-action, sodomite, Christian-hating lobby versus McCain's pro-Israel, neocon, confront Russia and the world with a sinking dollar and thin, overstretched army lobby. That is no choice since it is, metaphorically, a vote for Stalin or Hitler. Meanwhile, our Constitutional rights in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments dissolve quietly into that good night, as the Imperial Presidency simultaneously grows, Congress emasculates itself, and all without a word of protest from our stupid, fourth estate. Maybe I should embrace Christian quietism, simply acknowledge that I live in a tyranny and there is not a thing I can do about it, pay my taxes quietly, pray for the magistrate and look forward to the New Jerusalem.
Yours truly in Christ,
Nathan Friend
I plan on voting 3rd Party but hope Obama wins over McCain. McCain is simply much more dangerous than Obama. There is no substantive difference between the two on any issue of importance, immigration, trade, federal spending, multiculturalism, etc. McCain however constantly trades on his Vietnam "Hero" status to fool people into thinking he's a 21st century Teddy Roosevelt, when he's simply the dream candidate of the Global Elite.
The average American will quickly desert Obama if he's too overt in selling this country out. Even Joe Sixpack will be upset if a half-black President named Obama tries to force "Amnesty" down our throat. But if "Patriotic War Hero" John McCain, supported byl all the Republican Party hacks, pushes "Amnesty" - it will pass. The real danger is not the obvious enemy, but someone with all the right credentials and background who betrays his own.
Not to spoil anyone's party by introducing a silver lining, but there exists here a long-overdue opportunity to use a President Obamcain to discredit the office itself, or at least to knock it down a few pegs. The best (political) advice so far has come from, of all people, Michelle Malkin. After the old white guy clinched his party's nomination, to the groans of its rank-and-file, she wrote a scathing column (Feb. 7) asking, essentially, have you forgotten all the other offices?
The old white guy will probably beat the young colored fellow for two reasons. OWG's party owns the office unless they throw it away; in every election more folks vote against YCF's party than for it, so he has to pray for his opponent's self-destruction. Also, YCF's main albatross is not that black people like him, but that college kids love him. Ask Presidents McCarthy, McGovern, Anderson, Hart, Dean and Paul what that does to your candidacy.
Scott @ 14:
The national situation, while certainly not good, isn't anywhere near as bad as it has been. If you're old enough, you may perhaps remember the late 70s/early 80s, where there was real fear, and in intelligent circles to boot, that the US would either be invaded and occupied by Soviet troops or be devastated by a nuclear war.
Our current challenge is a little different; that of maintaining (perhaps "re-establishing" would be a better word) the viability of traditional culture in what used to be our own country, in the face of an expanding State/Corporate apparatus allied with alien elements. Simple recognition that those of us who still try to adhere to traditional Christian and American principles are no longer running the show is an important first step in dealing with the problem.
In terms of practical steps to address the problem, voting in a Presidential election is not going to help matters much, no matter who you vote for. The path of central-government spending (thanks to the perfidious Boomers and their immediate predecessors) is largely locked in and will not be changed no matter who gets in. There are minor stylistic and rhetorical differences between Obama and McCain, but the overall policy thrusts of the two are very similar. Both of them believe in maintaining an elephantine central government. Both of them will try to maintain the worldwide Empire (despite Obama's flightier rhetoric), and both of them will go three sides 'round the barn to maintain the domestic Empire of entitlements, "civil rights" and reduced restraints on personal behavior that make up the current social/political regime. What has been described on other sites as a "Benedict option"---withdrawing from the dominant culture to the maximum extent feasible---may be the de facto best tactic for survival at this point, at least until the current regime collapses of its own weight.
If any of you have better ideas, let me know. What the heck, I could be wrong.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Matt,
The resignation you lament, far from compounding the problem, is precisely what is needed to ever resolve it. Why? Because if you have any optimism at all about our vote having positive effects then you do not understand the situation you are in. And understanding of one's predicament is essential to getting out of it.
I don't believe Dr. Fleming sees white emigration as a plausible solution for most of us. His comment seems to be a partly facetious, partly serious suggestion - one that we must unbelievably understand the reasoning behind given the condition we have fallen into.
As for your solution, I don't see why voting must be a part of it. It will get you nowhere and won't do anybody any good. As Dr. Fleming has suggested in various ways at various times, we're better off spending our time studying ancient Greece and Rome, learning some European languages, studying Christianity, and - if we feel the need to think politically - read (besides the ancients) men such as Jefferson and Calhoun. Then we can give ourselves and those we care about a glimmer of hope. Fretting over a modern American political contest is not only pointless; it is playing the enemy's game on the enemy's turf with the rules and language all designed to obliterate your good intentions.
Instead of worrying about McCain and Obama, why not buy one of Dr. Fleming's courses and learn something about your civilization's origins? Or if you have to learn about America, read some of the books on Clyde Wilson's lewrockwell list.
#25 Matt
Do you have a link to Dr. Wilson's reading list?
Shut legal immgration down to the lowest possible level. This would be 0. Deport all illegal aliens. Deport the asian and muslim fifth columns. This would be a start in the reclamation of America.
I want to make it clear that I do not presume to give anyone advice on what to do in the world we live in. I have many friends in the US who live in pleasant communities, surrounded by kinfolk and friends. Emigration would be foolish, perhaps wicked. There are others who find themselves in less enviable situations and may well consider emigration. I could never leave completely because of family connections, but I could choose to spend half the year outside a country that is not only committing suicide but extremely boring. Our choices seem to come down to McDonalds or Starbucks, that is, between cheap vulgarity and pretentious vulgarity. One can always choose not to watch TV, listen to pop music, read best-sellers, or eat out except out of necessity or at places you know--and for the most part this is what I do. But that is in itself a form of exile, and decent people inevitably become aliens, if they reside in Sodom.
I would suggest, however, not that people don't vote but that they take a serious look at the principle and practice of mass democracy. Within coherent communities, political institutions are always based to some extent on consent, and it does not matter whether the system is monarchical, oligarchical, or democratic. Tyrannies learn how to manufacture consent and to manipulate it. To take part in such a system, without a clear understanding of what it is, is to collaborate with one's oppressors. I vote from time to time when a candidate seems to present a decent alternative--I don't ask for perfection, only an alternative. But a wise man chooses not to be a fool for anyone. This is neither cynicism nor despair. Some good can often be done in the political arena, and God bless those who try to do it. But there are other, far more important arenas of life where we can do good, and if political interests cause us to neglect our families, friends and the duty to cultivate ourselves, then it would be better to abandon politics entirely. Read Tacitus. Like most of us in this discussion, he was a disgruntled republican, dissatisfied with even good emperors. However, he also expresses a good deal of disapproval of the Stoic extremists who deliberately insulted Vespasian--far from being a bad rulers-and had to commit suicide. Tacitus seems to suggest that for all their undoubted nobility, the Stoic senators were playing a game they could not win, unlike the younger Cato who had half a chance of preventing Caesar from establishing his permanent dictatorship. Cato lost, fighting a good fight with desperate odds. But what did Helvidius Priscus hope to accomplish? It is up to every man to decide whether he lives in 50. BC or 70 AD, but a wise man knows that his life is too precious to throw away in futile resistance.
Anyone who feared a Soviet invasion in 1980 was not paying attention. Although a staunch Cold Warrior and living in the isolation of a South Carolina village without TV or newspapers, I knew the USSR was a paper tiger for several reasons. First, in principle, no state based on entirely false principles can long survive; second, intelligent visitors to Eastern Europe, e.g., Thomas Molnar, were telling me that Hungarian and Polish intellectuals were openly mocking Marxism. No evil empire is invincible, not the USSR and not the USSA.
To Horace Grady. Of course you are right, but the fact that there can even be a debate on this issue--a debate we have been losing for over 30 years, is a good indication of how badly off we are. Before we can close the border, we would have to close the newspapers and TV stations, but before we do that, we would have to shut down the universities and public school systems, and before we could shut down the schools, we would have to have a serious and dedicated minority of Americans with their heads straight. "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse, the man was lost, for want of a man the kingdom was lost--all for the want of a horseshoe nail."
Dr. Wilson
If you have ever spent any time reading American Renassaince you would know that there has been very serious criticism of White Males.
However, it is not just about White Males. Post-1965 non-whites-such as the wealthy hindu community-are active players in the racial and economic dispossession of European Americans. They now have the political power to perpetuate post-1965 immigration policy.
Resistance to racial and economic dispossession will provoke a counter-resistance.
It is infantile to think that electing Chuck Baldwin president of the United States will make everything alright. The problem is so deep. It will take a massive revolt from the bottom.
We may have come very close the termination of post-1965 policy the weeks afte 9/11. The Hindu and Muslim "Americans" were very concerned that the post-1965 immigration was comming to a rapid end. This is why they began to make threats of political reataliation in the mass media. I can give you several examples of this.
I highly recommend that you all read philosoper Judith Jarvis Thompson's essay in defense of affirmative action. It is the classic liberal defense of affirmative action which openly recognizes and justifies discrimination against European Americans because it serves a greater social good.Some of you may know that Thompson is a very well known analytic philosopher. One of the points Thompson makes is that the existence of scarce resources in the US requires a rationing of these scarce resources on the basis of race...to achieve the greater good of social justice. This touches upon the color blind affirmative action dilema TJF raised. Supporters of affirmative action understand the fact of resource scarcity. Despite this, they extend affirmative action to both post-1965 hispanics and asians. Resource scarcity-there are quite a few of them around ,pick your favorite-makes a color blind society impossible. I mean if there was massive amount of these resources to go around, what would be the point of having affirmative action? There would be no need for it. Liberal and corporate supporters of affirmative action are playing with fire.The interaction affirmative action and post-1965 immigration policy increases the level of gasoline in the basement.
There will also be very strong reisistance to the termination of affirmative action. Now, if resources in the US were in great abundance, the termination of affirmative action wouldn't be a big deal. Plenty of resources to go around and everyone one will be happy. Of course this is the magical thinking point of view.
I believe a line has been crossed in the US. And as a consequence, I think we have entered a very dangerous situation. Is this what the Liberals wanted all along or a they just very sick people who have no idea what they have done?
The expansion of affirmative action to post-1965 non-whites action grows out of in ideology which at its core contains an intense hatred of European Americans. You all now that affirmative action was hatched in the head of Richard Nixon and Ehrlichman? Right?
@31Horace Grady
Dr. Wilson
However, it is not just about White Males. Post-1965 non-whites-such as the wealthy hindu community-are active players in the racial and economic dispossession of European Americans. They now have the political power to perpetuate post-1965 immigration policy.
We may have come very close the termination of post-1965 policy the weeks afte 9/11. The Hindu and Muslim “Americans” were very concerned that the post-1965 immigration was comming to a rapid end. This is why they began to make threats of political reataliation in the mass media. I can give you several examples of this.
I agree with what you are saying, but could you please give a few links supporting the Hindu subversion?
Fleming: "Jeremiah Wright not only hates Whites, he does not even pretend he doesn’t. Imagine the SPLC in a parallel case, if it found out that Pat Buchanan regarded the comparatively mild David Duke as his mentor. The DNC and the media can tell any lies they like, but they cannot change the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate hates Whites, including the members of his mother’s family who showed him every kindness. Compared with the average self-proclaimed white bigot who says he loves his ancestors, Obama is one sick and sorry excuse for a human being."
Great quote. I don't blame Obama for identifying with his black ancestors. The product of black-white procreation will look more black, so it is natural for the child to so identify. (For example, I recently read that the likelihood of a white blue-eyed parent and a black parent to produce a child with blue eyes is less than one in a thousand. Such can also be said for hair texture, noses, etc.) So, it is quite natural for Obama to over-identify with his black kin. Regardless, Obama is hostile towards me and my ancestry, so I naturally cannot support him.
Both Obama and McCain are terrible. Because somebody criticizes one, he does not necessarily endorse the other. If one is anti-Scylla, must he be pro-Charybdis?
'I suppose, better Louis Farrakhan than Jeremiah Wright or Rick Warren'
Could Dr Fleming explain his objections to Rick Warren? I don't see where Pastor Warren deviates from Christianity to the extent that a black-supremecist violent Muslim is nearer the Truth.
Operation White Out, very well put. Too bad Georgia didnt get into NATO, I for one would be cheering for the Russians. At least there you know who owns you, instead of this ruse of democracy our society is stuffing down my throat.
Ronduck
Sure. Right after 9/11-two weeks maybe-on the front page of the New York Times there was an article about how the Pakistani "American" community was mobilizing to a possible shutdown of immigration in response to 9/11. There was a massive amount of anger directed towards muslims and south asians immediately after 9/11. No big secret. A represntative from a major Pakistani "American" organizatin was quoted as saying in the NYT -this was issued as a threat to White America by the way-that if immgration was shut down, the Pakistani "American" community would politically retaliate.
It also happened on two occasions on the Lou Dobbs show a little over four years ago. Instance number1)Dobbs was doing a segment on the H-1B visa program. He had on as a guest a multimillioniare Hindu "American" who was a spokesman for a large and politically powerfull Hindu "American" organization. This guy didn't pull any punches with Dobbs. HEesaid point blank to Dobbs:"If the H-1 B and L-1 B visa programs are shut down, there will be retaliation". These were his exact words. Instance number two:Lou Dobbs was doing a segment on the outsourcing of American jobs. There was a video clip of White American Engineers and computer programmers busting into a meeting in NYC of hindu "Americans" who were plotting with CEOs to export American jobs to India. Dobbs had on as a guest one the hindu "Americans" at this cabal. He was a young,agressive and wealthy hindu "American" . He, like his fellow countrymen who was on a week earlier issued a direct treat to European Americans that if there was a shut down of the program to export American jobs to India, the Indian "American" community would retaliate. Nice isn't it?
I'll try and track down the exact dates of these shows so I can obtain transcripts. At the time I was watching these shows, I was shaving and giving a bed bath to my brother who was afflicted with the same neurological disease that a famous German American who played for the New York Yankees came down with. My late brother was also a victim of the H-1B visa program. Some White American families have had to take the full blow of post-1965 immgration policy.
The people you call liberals really don't believe in anything, those androgenous metrosexuals you mention categorize on the basis of "cool/notcool." If you wish to do research on this for some reason the blog "the stuff white people like", that site being perhaps the best compilation of this phenomenon.
Dr. Fleming, along with Dr. Wilson, should be heeded by everyone who reads Chronicles.
If I vote, it will be only to write in someone such as Daffy Duck or Bugs Bunny. American elections are low comedy indeed.
My thought for the day: Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fear of death is the beginning of slavery.
Very briefly. To my friend Mike Hill, amen! And I entirely agree that rejection of Tweedledum does not entail acceptance of Tweedledee. Further, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
I've read a fair amount of Judith J Thompson, always a good index to what doctrinaire liberals (that is, extreme-leftists) believe. In saying I am fond of the old-liberal dream of equality, I did not mean to suggest that it was practical today, of universal significance, or of a high priority, only that in the American context of 1865-1965 it provided a juridical reference point by which people were able to come to some agreement. Different peoples organize their social hierarchies in different ways, and it is ethnocentric, for example, to condemn slavery in the Roman Empire as an unmitigated evil, or Anglo-American patriarchy. I would go farther in saying that the tit-for-tat arguments so often used by conservatives who condemn "reverse discrimination" may only confuse the question at hand--Humpty Dumpty's "Who's to be master?"--and weaken the resolve of those who might otherwise be better prepared to resist enslavement.
That said, there is some dignity and humanity in efforts to accord citizens roughly comparable civil rights, and since this approach is part of our tradition, I cannot entirely part with it without experiencing a sense of loss. On the other hand, there is a more serious question, and that is, "In a republic, who is a citizen?" The answer, clearly, is not everyone who happens to reside within the boundaries. The authors of Dred Scott had set of criteria--quite reasonable and honest--while judges post-1865 had another. Today, one thought-experiment that can be useful is to decide in the abstract who a citizen might be. I don't think race and ethnicity, without a good deal of revolutionary bloodshed, could be restored as criteria even theoretically, but economic independence from the government might be a start. That would eliminate people on welfare but also government employees like public school teachers, bureaucrats, and politicians. One small step for man...
Nobody has the power to do it to us. We can only do it to ourselves. Not their strength but our weakness is the problem. A large part of that weakness is characteristic American ignorance of the past, carelessness for the real (as opposed to imaginary) future, and intellectual, cultural, and religious shallowness.
GOM #26. My southern reading list is http://www.lewrockwell.com/Columnists/Clyde Wilson. Or it can be reached through http://www.lsinstitute.org. It needs updating.
"I understand why blacks vote for a black candidate, though by the same token Germans should revere the memory of Adolf Hitler and Georgians would have a statue of Stalin in his home town. (Oops.)"
Also comparable is the bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky that was restored to the courtyard of Moscow police headquarters in 2005, during Putin's presidency. (Oops.)
Clyde Wilson
You hit the nail right on head. European Americans have internalized their own oppression. However, I am going to make the assumption that there is a limit to this. When the misery index is high enough, they just might revolt against their racial and economic dispossession. The price for internalizing the oppression might not be hig enough right now. I think the oppression is internalized becsue it is percieved as adaptive. That is to say, it has something to do with fear of loosing a job and not being able to support ones family. That would be an immediate death sentence for most White Males. However, their economic dispossession will continue apace. Then there will no longer be any incentive to internalize the oppression
Were it not for the new suburbs of Weddington and Waxhal..and the life supporting central air conditioning that comes with these monstrocities called McMansions ...post-1965 immigration would have been shut down thirty..twenty...ten years. Do the thought experiment. If you accept this as being obvious, you can start to see clearly what the contours of the revolt will look like. The safety valve may be shut sooner than you think. If it does shut tight very soon, we thank the environmentalist form for their hard work at protecting open space,farm land and endangered species
Maybe it will happen, but in the 25 years I spent discussing the Revolt of the Middle with Sam Francis and also with Don Warren, I never saw a flicker of what they were predicting. Not since the hardhat upsurgence for Wallance have the men from MARS tried to seize the initiative, and the sons today have a lot less fire than their fathers had. Even if the border were sealed today and some effort were made to repatriate some illegals, much damage to the psyche has already been done. Let us just tot up a few of the obvious changes between, say, 1968 and 2008: the teaching of history and literature is controlled by anti-Western anti-American Anti-Christian leftists, the pop culture that informs the minds and character of so many young Americans has crawled into the gutter and every day seems to crawl deeper, Americans under 30 destroy their minds and rot their souls on the internet, instant-messaging, and video games. We accept the murder of born children as an act somewhere between laudable and unfortunately necessary. We are in many many respects well beyond Huxley's Brave New World, and there is at this point no end to the devolution in sight. The only bright spots are what a few decent people are doing here and there. For the rest, America today is a cross between Brave New World and Philip K. Dick's nightmare, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, from which the vastly inferior and less insightful Bladerunner (a wonderful movie, lest I be misunderstood) was made.
The reason why an Obama presidency could be a devastating blow, perhaps a death blow to our future--rather than an opportunity for people to wise up--is the symbolic effect of empowering not just the Left but the anti-White/anti-European left. I had to swallow hard to accept the fact that the trailer-trash Billy J. Blythe could be our President. Even the name Obama is too much for our fragile national identity to endure, much less the reality. I don't pretend to know the future, and I hope it turns out as Horace Grady and others predict--though their scenario, too, could become a nightmare--but as Clyde Wilson taught me in 1980, when I was tempted to vote for Carter in order to hasten the process of national discontentment, it is never right to support evil in the hope of some positive benefit down the road. Ailinon ailinon eipe to d'eu nikato!
On Dzerzhinsky, it may be worth noting that the great public statue of "Iron Felix" has not been restored, only a smaller bust in police headquarters. Perhaps it is loyalty to the founder of the Cheka or a mark of the respect to the Poles. (I suppose I have to say that is a joke).
Barack Obama has the potetnial-great potetnial-to issue the death blow. It will start with repressive anti-hate speech legislation. By the way, I think its safe to say he hates his late white mother. There may very be some weird psychodynamics being played out over the next four years.
The Bush administration was very concerned about a revolt takng place right after 9/11. However, Rudi Giulliani stabilized the situation when he told everyone to go to Braodway play and to continue worshipping the Yankees and Derick Jeeter.
True story. December 24 2006 at a Christmas party in Weddington a middle class White Guy-married with kids-came up to me and said "Hey are you a Yankee fan or a Met fan". This seems to be the only way White guys can relate to each other these days. We talked for awhile. His wife came over and one thing led to another. They said that they had just fled the Silicon Valley area. They couldn't afford the housing prices...property taxes. ..and they said emphatically that they and their children were traumatized by the large number of asians in the area ..especially the fact that their Euro-Ameriacan children were a racial minority in a school system that was majority Asian. They said they felt like foreigners in their own country.... couldn't get the hell out of the Silicon Valley area fast enough.
I have no idea where or how goverment planners in the weddington/waxhal area get the the water to the White Refugees to the Charlotte suburbs. To me it seems to be a miracle. Don't give up on the possibility of a big revolt.
There are defintitely discrepancies in the minds of Euro-Americans.There have been several major poles of european Americans about the view of the future of the United States. The polls clearly show that they understand that something has gone terribly wrong in America. A majority of them are fearfull that their children don't have a future in America. When polls are taken of hispanic/asian and muslims, the result is just the opposite.
The fallacy in the argument that Obama will cause a reaction is that it is based on the assumption that most people are moved by ideas rather than the reality (and the perception) of power. Thus the reality of an Obama presidency would most likely increase support for not only more “anti-white racism” but also the destruction of what little remains of those standards, habits and traditions that are associated with “dead white males.”
Obama has benefited by the new ethos of political correctness that might be described by the practice of judging (in the most inverted manner possible) an individual by the merits and demerits attributed to their ancestral group or other status conferred by membership in a victimological (or oppressor) category. The success of the Obama campaign suggests that the ethos of political correctness has already triumphed.
>John Rutowicz: The future (in this world, at least)
>seems hopeless. I am teaching my daughters German
>for academic purposes, but perhaps for emigration
>purposes as well. Although Germany seems every bit as
> suicidal as the U.S. Maybe Icelandic is the answer?
Teach them Russian.
It was great seeing the Russian response to the parade foreign sodomites tried to put on in Moscow last year.
BOTH Obama and McCain will lead to amnesty, both of them will lead to more wars, both of them will lead to more spending and more debt thus more sickness of the dollar. Both are tools of the global elite. So, why prolong the misery of the collapse of the USA? Let's get it done quickly, vote for McCain. Why? Because he is the WORST candidate. Then, when things get so bad, so quickly, maybe THEN we can get crackin' on the new Jeffersonian revolution!!! Ron Paul's face will grace the new rebel flag.
#41 Dr. Wilson
Thank you.
Perhaps this old dog can learn a trick or two.
"but quite another to ask me to put the needs of my own children . . . behind the needs of other people"
But of course the people who push these programs aren't putting the needs of their children behind those of others, their children are hardly affected. Anti-racism is righteousness imposed on the classes below them which, just coincidentally, helps to eliminate them as a political threat. And so . . .
"Bubba has got better things to worry about . . ."
As I say, divide and conquer class warfare. This sort of antipathy is part of the problem. "Bubba" (particularly if you're using the usual meaning of that term - lower class whites who don't live in liberal states or areas like Maine or Oregon) isn't the problem. He didn't come up with affirmative action or open borders, nor did he come up with Obama. Obama is a product of the Universities, in more ways than one. Any real influence by "Bubba" is barred except the gun, can you blame him for not wanting to kill and die for things that should never have been an issue in the first place? Your white driver will be among the very few such who will vote for Obama, something that can't be said in enclaves of privilege in places like Austin.
"a society that is legally color-blind"
France tried that. Didn't work.
I fear Mr. Smith has not quite followed the argument or, for reasons I do not understand , wishes to misrepresent it. The point I have made in speaking of the logic of affirmative action is not that a protected elite class does or does not believe what it says but that the ethical arguments it uses are widely accepted to the point that it is not safe to contradict them. Obviously, since the days of Aristotle and Herodotus, we have known that tyrants champion the rights of the weak in order to prevent more competent people from challenging their authority. After a certain age, only a fool would think that Kennedys and Rockefellers are sincere champions of the poor. But that is not the subject at hand, and a little closer attention to the argument would produce a more coherent discussion.
On the question of Bubba, you are inventing classism and then attributing it to another without any justification. Bubba's daddy and granddaddy were good men whom I knew and hunted and fished with. In the current generation, however, Bubba is too often a deracinated TV-watching sports fan. It is not a question of blaming anyone, and I cannot imagine where the notion of not "wanting to kill and die" entered into the question. Bubba has been stripped of his identity by public schools and the media. In a crisis he might turn and prove, in Hank Jr.'s memorable words, that "country folks can survive," but that remains to be seen.
Finally, I think I have already answered the question about "legally color blind" in saying it was the product of the old-liberal tradition that informed so much in our political traditions. As an non-liberal even in the 19th century sense, I cannot fairly be accused of harboring liberal illusions. Still, as part of a soft national compromise, we agreed to certain lies for a hundred years, like the lie that democracy works or the lie that North and South fought for equally good motives or the lie that America was a civilized country. These were useful illusions or myths, and though they were obstacles to the deeper self-examination we needed and still need, they helped us get along from day to day. We do not need to mourn their passing any more than we should wax nostalgic about the 1950's, but we might at least be clear-headed to know that life was pleasanter in 1958 than 2008 and that the fiction of the rule of law made it somewhat easier to survive. The decent old hypocrisy, which included the rules of civility, had its merits, as I was explaining a few days ago, and I am not altogether pleased to see what happens when we let the beast of the natural man out of the bottle.