Meaning, Nature, Consequences of Racism

Check out this awesome post by Ace.

“Jeremiah Wright: Blacks’ Brains Are Just Wired Differently”

As Ace points out, this is the meaning of racism.  The races are different in a way that matters.  Their brains are different.  Of course the brains of the “superior” race (whichever one that happens to be depends on who’s proposing this evil idealogy) are superior.  Superiority is defined by whatever standard the followers of the demagogue would accept.

“…Jews are vile schemers plotting to retard and undermine the Master Race.”

This is the nature of racism.  It demands that one judge others based on their membership in the right race, tribe, or collective.

The money quote is from Leonard Jeffries, a professor at City College of New York.  Does anyone remember this hateful, hate-mongering hater from the 1990’s?  He declared:

“…when asked what kind of world he world want to leave to his children, he answered: ‘A world in which there aren’t any white people’”

These are the consequence.  A race war.  Killing in the streets.  And since members of the non-master race aren’t farm animals, they will fight back.

Is this what you want Atlas Shrugs?  Gates of Vienna?

Obama: Muslim or Not?

Read this devastating article by Daniel Pipes about the man’s integrity.  I think it establishes beyond a doubt that he was born a muslim, practiced islam as a child, considered himself a muslim, and was considered a muslim.  The money quote is:

“…if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.”

Indeed.  It does matter (rationalizations by Bill Clinton notwithstanding) whether the president is a liar!

Mr. Pipes does not think it matters whether he was a muslim before he declared that he became a Christian.  I would agree if I believed that he was sincere about leaving islam.  But I have a question.

Why is there a death sentence on the head of every prominent muslim apostate, whereas the muslim world loves Obama?  Where are the fatwas calling for his head?

I don’t believe he really left islam.

Earth Day 28 Years Ago

So the Washington Policy Center wrote an article recently to bring to light predictions made at the first “earth day”. Surprise, surprise. It was full of gloom and doom.

“…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

For those born recently, he means civilization was to have ended in 1985.

But that wasn’t the money quote.  Oh no.  That was merely ironic amusement, to prepare you for the real quotation of dollarage:

“By being skeptical about routine portents of doom, we can stay focused on the real threats that face our planet, and on the reasonable and achievable actions we as a society can take to meet them.”

Really?  So we can safely–in 2008–be skeptical of claims of declining food production global cooling, and the end of civilization by 1985 (now that they have been proven laughably wrong)?  But we have to focus on the “real” threats such as _____*?  And we have to pretend that these threats, unlike those proclaimed in 1970, are “reasonable”?

And we have to take action “as a society” (collectivism backed by government fiat enforced at gunpoint)?

Heh.  Nice try.

Why Not Just Support Islamo-Nazis?!?

You would have to hate America in order to want Russia to sell nuclear fuel to Iran!

The money quote:

“The nuclear deal with Russia could help solve the Iranian nuclear threat…”

No doubt Chamberlain thought that an Alsace-Lorraine deal would help solve the German blitzkrieg threat!

Now write each of the following lines 500 times:

1. Russia is a murderous dictatorship
2. Iran is a murderous dictatorship
3. Let’s not do do deals with murderous dictatorships
4. Let’s not pretend that appeasing murderous dictatorships will solve anything

Anti-Jihad vs. Pro-Nazi II

This started as a response I was writing to a comment to my previous post by Alan143.  But as I wrote, I thought it would be better to make a separate post.  I will quote relevant parts of his comment:

“You’re unaware of the sheer volume of Muslim attacks on native Europeans nowadays…”

I can’t say I know the exact number, but I read enough on the Internet to get the picture that in every European country, every day there are multiple murders, rapes, and robberies perpetrated by young muslim men against native Europeans, and often against Jews.

“…these attacks are usually gloated over as explicitly RACIST attacks by their perpetrators, the muslim hotheads.”

Yes, the koran explicitly calls for murder, torture, and terrorism of infidels.

Do you suppose that non-muslims should renounce reason, in favor of mindless tribal collectivism and indiscriminate savagery?

“We cannot avoid at least low-level genocide in Europe, since it has already started years ago.”

Yes, it started a long time ago.  That’s why Europe must change its policies! 

“The question is how the natives might respond when their own leaders can no longer destroy their means of self-defence.”

I think we agree that if Europe continues down the path of refusing to address the myriad of issues that cause this problem, it will lead to “high-level” genocide of native Europeans and Jews.

But there is no difference between Europe’s population and Europe’s leaders.  We have the same issue here in the US.  In poll after poll, people say they hate Congress, but they also say they love their particular Congressman.  People want causes without effects, and effects without causes.  They believe in the precise set of ideals that have led to the massive problems they decry.  But they don’t change their beliefs.

People imagine that there is a big gap between the politicians and the populace.  “Somehow”, it would be all different if our gang were in charge.  Would it?  Why would anything be any different?

Until the population changes its beliefs, the government will not change.  And the frustrating thing is that you can’t change their beliefs.  You can write and talk to people.  In the long run, the truth has to win (so long as speech is not suppressed), but it is not instantaneous.

Changing the culture is a massive and slow undertaking.  It may not be possible before the muslim time bomb explodes, in which case things look very bleak for Europe.

But if you think that the collapse of your current government into open armed conflict in the streets is a good thing, then you are in for a rude surprise.

Right now, Europe continues to cling to pacifism, cradle-to-grave marxism, and mercy towards criminals (and intolerance towards politically incorrect opinions).  This course will lead to death in the long run.  Europe is it a crossroads.

Let me state that clearly for the record.  Europe can have either a soft-on-crime pacifist welfare state or it can solve the problems of muslims.

In the 1930’s, there was a social movement that promised cradle-to-grave security combined with white racism.  It was called “NAZI”.  I hope Europe doesn’t go in this direction, but if it does, it will give up trying to solve the problem in favor of adding to it.

Anti-Jihad vs. Pro-Nazi

It’s almost as if there is a fine line between (a) defending the West’s right to exist against the islamic jihad that is trying to destroy it and (b) advocating mass-murder of muslims living in the west.  I say “almost” because these are not similar things, but the more I read on the Internet the more confusion I see.

So today, a blogger called “Atlas Shrugs” wrote a long piece about the Gates of Vienna piece that I wrote about last week.  It particularly caught my eye because the very name of the blog claims to be related to the ideas of Ayn Rand.  I don’t know much about the ideas on this blog yet, but the analysis of GoV is flawed.  I am going to go through the Atlas post in some detail.

“So the blogs have their bowels in an uproar over El Ingles essay over at Gates of Vienna because he used the word genocide. He never  advocated for it,  mind you …. but  merely used the word…”

Ignore the pejorative tone, and what is Atlas saying?  The GoV piece does not “advocate” genocide, merely “uses the word.”  The GoV piece presents three (false) alternatives: “induce” muslims to leave, force them to leave, or kill them en masse.  One does not need to be a genius to see that race war and genocide is where this inevitably goes.  These are false alternatives.  I presented a different approach last week.

It is disingenuous as hell to make the distinction that Atlas is trying to make here.

Next, Atlas moves to the topic that Pajamas Media has chosen to disassociate with Gates of Vienna.

“The argument, in and of itself, is an act of submission.  Once again free speech is kicked in the teeth so as not to offend.  And each time the West cedes a freedom…”

But even worse is that I wouldn’t expect a typical “liberal” (i.e. fascist) viewpoint to come from someone calling himself “Atlas Shrugs”.  Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this (as GoV themselves acknowledge in one of their recent posts).  And, obviously, it is not “the West” that is “ceding a freedom.”  This is a private decision made by private parties.

There is a moral issue here.  Do we want to impose martial law, and bloody racial civil war?  Do we want a “cure” that is as bad (or worse) than the disease?

Then Atlas moves on to a non-sequitor:

“…genocide on the part of Europeans … is the most impossible of all unlikely outcomes …”

The issue is not whether this is likely.  The issue is whether GoV proposed this.  To reiterate, GoV said that Europe must bribe the muslims to leave, force them to leave, or kill them all.  In their own tripple-bind false-atlernative, genocide is the only possible outcome.

Next, out of left field:

“First off, the Muslims are not the Jews.

“The Jewish genocide of the second World War was possible because the Jews were (and still are)  too civilized.”

Huh?  I guess this means that the Jews didn’t deserve it, and the muslims do?  It’s hard to parse, but I can’t think of any other meaning to this bit of non-sequitor placed in this context.  Maybe it means that it was easily to murder the Jews, but it will be harder to murder the muslims??  I give up on this one.

How many non-sequitors can you count in the next bit?

“The question of Muslim genocide is an intellectually dishonest question. The Europeans have already surrendered …. under the guise of multiculturalism. But what it really is, is fear.  The Brits are giving Muslims with multiple wives, multiple benefits. Their Home Secretary proclaimed the ban of the term Islamic terror, in exchange for “anti-islamic terror“. [emphasis in original]

It starts out saying a certain question is intellectually dishonest, but doesn’t say which question.  Does Atlas mean to question if GoV is poposing genocide?  Or does he mean to propose genocide?  Or does he mean to ask if genocide is feasible (or likely)?

Normally, each sentence in a paragraph is supposed to build on the previous one to support a common theme.  But in this case, each sentence jumps off to its own new realm!  We go from:

1. Intellectual dishonesty to ask an unspecified question
2. Europe has surrendered, and this is what multiculturalism means
3. It’s all about the fear
4. The Brittish welfare state has sunk to new depths
5. The Brits have tried to impose politically-correct language usage

The whole mess does not add up to one coherent thought–or paragraph–and it continues with more in that vein!

Next, Atlas does not “advocate” violence.  He says:

“if / when there is bloodshed…”

The article concludes with two more paragraphs that explain that islam is waging a jihad against us, and the stakes are our freedom and our lives.  No kidding, you don’t say?

But in the context of GoV’s call for mass murder, Atlas’ article looks like a defense of that thesis.

I want to make a few things perfectly clear, so you will know where I stand:

1. muslims are waging a jihad against the West
2. they want us dead because of who we are and what we stand for (life and happiness)
3. the tortoise beat the hare, and islam will beat us if we don’t fight to win
4. we need to destroy the ability of the islamic nations to wage war against us
5. repealing welfare and enforcing laws would be a great start to cleaning up our own homelands

I did not write this essay to argue for surrender, submisson, or political correctness.  I wrote this because I think there is an anti-mind faction out there that seemingly offers an alternative to political correctness.  That faction is naziism.  White racism does not address black or muslim racism–it’s just more racism, collectivism, tribalism, altruism, and bloody civil warfare.

Iran Holds Brittish Hostages

Read the full article at the Times Online.  If this is true, wouldn’t this be an act of war?

Of course, even “warmongers” like Bush, Cheney, and McCain can’t go there because that would raise questions about the Godfather of the modern GOP: Ronald Reagan.  Reagan failed to respond to Iran’s act of war (and breach of the Geneva Convention and every other rule of etiquette and morality) when they stormed our embassy and took our diplomats as hostages.

But then, if Iran’s active involvement in helping our enemies in Iraq did not constitute an act of war, and its constant threats to wipe our ally Israel off the map did not constitute an act of war, then I suppose this isn’t either.

If it’s not an act of war, then what is it?  A bumper sticker slogan?

Intelligent Design Expelled with an F

I recently wrote about Ben Stein’s screed.  I wasn’t the only one to write about it.  Dr. Keith Lockitch at the Ayn Rand Institute also had something to say.  The money quote is:

“Intelligent design advocates will do anything to advance their views–except science.”

That would put them in with the marxists and global warmenists.

Psychologizing Genocide

So here’s the sequence of events:

1. Gates of Vienna posted an “essay” carefully introducing the idea that Europe should murder all muslims
2. Charles at LGF exposed it to some sunlight
3. Shrink Wrapped “psychoanalyzed” it

Rational analysis of this is pretty simple.  Starting a program of mass-murder will lead to massive death and destruction for everyone.  Duh!  And besides that, a fascist dictatorship is one of the most horrible social systems ever devised.

Here is a quick blueprint of the solution.  First, Europe should repeal its numerous and vast programs of welfare, largesse, handouts, subsidies, and other incentives to non-productive people.  A welfare check makes it much easier to sit around all day and plan and carry out violence at night.

Second, they should repeal the laws that criminalize acts that do not harm any victim (e.g. working more than 35 hours in France).  This will let their police focus on catching the violent criminals in their midst.  And it will easier for people to see the issues clearly.

Third, they should punish these criminals harshly.

Finally, they should tattoo the foreheads of any criminals who were foreign nationals, and deport them.

This regimen would force the muslims who live in Europe to choose whether they wanted jihad or peace and prosperity.  It would divide them, and many would choose to become true Europeans.

Come to think of it, this would be a great set of steps for the US to take also!

I don’t know how much more needs to be said.

Now I want to address Shrink Wrapped’s “psychoanlytic attempt to understand” this.

Ayn Rand defined “psychologizing” as an attempt to use psychology to evade and “explain” the underlying moral issue.

OK, where to start with Shrink Wrapped…?

Societies under stress tend to regress in predictable and dangerous ways.

This would be like saying “hospitals under illness tend to…”

Huh?!?

This isn’t psychology (or medicine).  It’s a facade of psychology or medicine to cover a gross generalization.  I can think of a number of societies that were “under stress” (whatever that means, exactly) that responded in quite different ways.  England’s Magna Carta wasn’t quite the same thing as the French Revolution, or the American Revolution for that matter.

[regression is] …a retreat form more civilized to less civilized behavior…

Civilized is a fuzzy word, that obscures key concept: morality.  The difference between a murderous lynch mob and a civilized society is the subordination of might to right, and of action to morality.

Once you realize this, you don’t continue down the path of treating society as a psychiatric patient.  In some societies, a majority of members know that there are rules which govern behavior.  In others, such as nazi germany, a majority did not (or evaded their knowledge because they hoped for illicit personal gain).

Since rational people don’t think of themselves as mere cogs in a collective-racial-tribal machine, they don’t react to enemies or criminals by trying to establish a racist-collectivist-tribalist dictatorship.  Since they think of themselves as individuals, and value their minds and their liberties, they don’t try to establish a socialist dictatorship.

The bottom line is that anyone who wants to resurrect the third reich is a wannabe-thug.  Psychoanalysis is neither necessary to deal with this person, nor helpful.

 

P.S.  If the islamzation of Europe seems like an intractable problem, that’s because of the multicultural idealogy that dominates Europe right now.  Before Europeans can tackle islamization, they first have to admit there is a problem.  I don’t know how to make them see it, other than to write online and encourage others to write online.  This is a war of ideas!

Islamic Barbarism

So the kingdom of saudi arabia is about to cut the head off a barber from Turkey.  Why, you might ask?  Western Resistance has written about this travesty.

The barber “swore at allah”.

What’s interesting to me is that this brutality is not the random, individual act of an out-of-control thug.  It is not done in an emotional state.  It is supported by islamic scholars (such as they are) and islamic jurisprudence (such as it is).  It is institutionalized.

Two quotes paint a picture of an insane way of life:

… Mr Bogday had an argument with an Egyptian neighbor, who ran a tailor’s shop. Following this row, Mr Bogday was accused by the Egyptian of blaspheming … The Egyptian tailor, meanwhile, has disappeared and did not enter any testimony at the trial. However, his original desposition stands and was the basis of the court case.

[The World Coalition said] “On occasion, their sentence depends solely on confessions obtained under constraint, torture or subterfuge. Trials take place in secret and the accused and their families are not informed of the accusations against them or the evolution of the procedures concerning them.”

It is only a temporarily illusion that a murderous dictatorship like saudi arabia could be an “ally” of the United States.  What could we hope to achieve by such a fiction?