Beullogeo's

Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Who Hates the Tea Party and Why

For more than a year media pundits and celebrities and an army of lesser-known left-leaning editorialists and bloggers have ridiculed and dehumanized Tea Party protesters as "teabaggers" and "racists". With the recent surge in anti-White sentiment openly expressed in the "liberal" media it must be dawning on more and more Tea Partiers that the problems with their country go beyond taxes, healthcare, or socialism.

In Teabaggers Vs. Immigration Rally: A Tale of Two Americas - huffingtonpost.com, Miguel Guadalupe writes:

At the immigration rally, you saw a wide spectrum of races and ethnicities. Those attending were mostly Latino, but the rally also welcomed the participation of Whites, Asians, and Blacks who support a path to citizenship, reuniting families, and providing opportunities to students and veterans.

At the Teabagger rally, the monochromatic masses were spitting and yelling racial and homophobic slurs at Black, Latino, and openly gay congressional reps.

At the immigrations rally, the participants were expressing hope - hope that reform would reunite them with their families. Hope that they would be given the opportunity to fully contribute to society, and the hope that their sacrifices, including the sacrifices of those who have served in the military or have lost their lives defending this country, will not be in vain.

At the Teabagger rally, the participants were expressing fear - fear of a socialist nation, fear of some type of take over of individual rights, fear of some conspiracy involving the democratically elected President and a democratically elected representative majority. They punctuated their expression of fear with threats of violence.

I highlight these opposing images because soon enough, these two groups will collide. The national debate on immigration reform will come soon, and if the Teabaggers act as they have against health care reform, we can expect more vitriol, fear mongering, harassment and acts of violence. These so-called "Americans" will feel even less restrained against people they consider to be "foreign" or "illegal," deserving even less respect than they gave to our elected officials.

In Whose Country Is It? - NYTimes.com, Charles Blow writes:

The far-right extremists have gone into conniptions.

The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.

It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Hence their anger and frustration, which is playing out in ways large and small. There is the current spattering of threats and violence, but there also is the run on guns and the explosive growth of nefarious antigovernment and anti-immigrant groups. In fact, according to a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office, and antigovernment “patriot” groups more than tripled over that period.

Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated ... than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite, less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

In The Rage Is Not About Health Care - NYTimes.com, Frank Rich writes:

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

In Too much tea party racism - Salon.com, Joan Walsh writes:

The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches.

These views well reflect the increasingly obvious race-based double standard propounded in the media for more than a decade now: non-White aliens good, White natives evil.

The psychological device they're using in the battle over healthcare is the same one that's been used against anyone opposed to immigration. They call Whites "racist" for objecting to anything we don't believe is in our best interests, trying to guilt-trip us and implying that we're somehow morally or mentally defective. As we can see from the full-throated anti-White reaction to even the largely deracinated Tea Partiers, whether we think or speak in explicitly racial terms is irrelevant. Our "anti-racist" antagonists are hyper-sensitive to race and any conflict with their own racial interests, or as in the case of Joan Walsh, act as a self-righteous proxy for such interests. White leaders perversely reject and profess distaste for our group interests even as we see an increasing number of non-White leaders who openly and unabashedly advocate in favor of theirs.

White fears are justified. We had a country of our own and still want one, organized to our tastes and run for our benefit. What sane group of people does not? In 1965 we were told that the changes to the immigration laws would not alter the ethnic makeup of our country. Anyone who foresaw that it would was smeared as an insane "racist". Today it's clear that immigration has in fact radically changed the ethnic makeup of the country. Now we're told it's irrepressible, irrevocable, and the country is no longer ours. Anyone angered by this situation or the duplicity used to produce it is smeared as an insane "racist".

We are being displaced and dispossessed by genocidal levels of immigration and concomitant inter-racial transfers of wealth and power. This is foisted on us by liars and hypocrites whose deceptions, self-interests, and disdain for us becomes more transparent every day. They control all the major channels of education and discourse, and thus shape the terms of debate, defining and denigrating practically anything we have to say about any of this as "hate". Their moralizing invokes injustices decades or centuries past, while they disregard and even celebrate the injustices being done to Whites right here, right now. They project onto us and decry their own malign motives and guilty deeds, shamelessly broadcasting a never-ending stream of race-based vitriol and fear mongering from myriad well-funded, high-profile sources, attacking us for peaceably expressing legitimate political interests. We have accommodated and appeased them for too long. For decades we have demonstrated our good faith, which they have taken advantage of and not reciprocated. The harder they try now to scapegoat us and the louder they insinuate that our calls for self-determination portend violence, the more they reveal their malevolent intent.

(Snide image discourtesy of the New York Times.)

Thursday, 25 March 2010

Violence and Politics

0 comments Posted by VA at 08:20

Steny Hoyer: Members are at risk - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the majority whip, said Democrats and Republicans should continue to speak out on these threats. “Silence gives consent,” Clyburn said.

But Minority Leader John Boehner already has condemned threats of violence — and sought to explain why people are so angry.

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let's do it the right way."

Whites are angry exactly because we have already tried "the right way". We called congress, wrote letters, went to town hall meetings, organized and attended Tea Party protests - and all of it got us nowhere. We know we're getting screwed - whether by immigration, bailouts, or healthcare. We know the politicians know we object. We have been misled into believing that the politicians are driven by votes. It's beginning to dawn on us that the leadership of both parties dance to a different tune.

Why shouldn't we be angry? We can see that when blacks and browns speak out and march the media and politicians behave differently. The anger and threats of non-Whites are invariably regarded as a righteousness response to injustice. They are seen as good, hard-working people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Rather than condemning non-Whites the media actively calls on politicians to serve them. And the politicians fall over themselves to respond.

Meanwhile we law-abiding, tax-paying, White citizens can see that media and politicians regard us as lazy, greedy, and evil. Our concerns aren't treated as legitimate political interests but are instead derided and dismissed as "racism" motivated by "hate". They not only don't care about our lives or families, they don't think we should either.

"Silence gives consent" works both ways. The media and politicians don't condemn the violent threats that have shut down speeches by Minutemen, Tom Tancredo, or Ann Coulter. They didn't even notice the American Renaissance conference being suppressed by death threats, right there in Washington.

"Silence gives consent" applies just as well to the displacement, dispossession, and discrimination against the native White population. Active participation in our genocide is worse than silence.

The truth is that political power springs from violence. This is clear even in US history - from Lexington and Concord right through to the military offensives in Afghanistan. Politics are driven by those who are willing to commit and condone violence to get what they want. Those who shy away get dominated and crushed. Most of our White leaders are craven traitors. Our non-White enemies are liars and hypocrites. Our condemnation is best aimed at them, not at those of us who oppose them. That's the American way.

(Image source.)

Tuesday, 23 March 2010

The financial aspect of global conquest

0 comments Posted by VA at 06:22

"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."

- M Amschel Rothschild,
patriarch of the Rothschild Family.

The Rothschild dynasty are the bankers of the international elite. In little over two centuries, the family have amassed half of the wealth of the entire Earth. Clearly they are an important part of the network which we have come to know as the Illuminati (an imperfect label, but one which will suffice for the purpose of naming a network which in truth is multi-faceted and by its nature defies any one label).

There is a very real internationalist agenda, which, if it is to succeed, must see the end of sovereignty for every nation, replaced with the complete interdependency of every part of the world. To paraphrase Amschel Rothschild, all one needs to do to control a nation politically, is to control it financially. The takeover of the world by those who seek to create a single government to rule the masses as serfs on a global plantation is happening right now, and the majority of the media-loving people are blissfully unaware of their impending slavery. To prevent the ordinary people from seeing that this agenda is being fulfilled, war and other diversions are kept in the public eye. As people line up to oppose contrived enemies, the real war against humanity is taking place with barely a murmur of resistance.

There is a common mistake amongst people researching the destruction of freedom worldwide. That mistake is to regard the Rothschild banking cartel as the power behind globalisation. The Rothschilds are a part of the system of internationalism, but only a part. They are assigned the task of financially securing every nation in the world in a web of debt from which they will become unable to escape. This is a vital job, without which the creation of a single global authority would be much more difficult. It is important that we are aware of the machinations of the bankers, but we need to keep their role in perspective.

The progress of the drive to a Single Global Authority is deliberately hidden and confused by the media and propaganda networks which focus attention upon 'enemies' created and/or manipulated for public consumption. However well the agenda is hidden, the success of the Rothschilds cartel at capturing banks worldwide (and specifically national central banks), provides a good indicator of the overall success of the project.

In 2001, there were only seven nations in the world with central banks which were not overtly controlled by the internationalist banking cartel. The seven nations which had not succumbed to the Rothschild dynasty were Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and the Sudan. In 2004 the globalist mafia's military apparatus, the Armed Forces of the USA and UK, oversaw the establishment of a Rothschild Central Bank in Iraq, having previously established one in Afghanistan. Having invaded and occupied both nations, the US-UK axis handed over financial power to the private banking cartel - both nations had previously had banks owned in the national interest by the State on behalf of the people. In 2006/7 the Wahda Bank of Libya began the process of privatisation. Originally included as one of the nations on the hit list of the Zionist War of Terror, Libya was quietly rehabilitated when it succumbed to the sabre rattling of the Zionist military and sold its central bank to the Rothschilds.

As of 2010, in the western hemisphere, only Cuba is still free of the Rothschilds' grip. In Africa only the Sudan has control of its own central bank.. In Asia, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Syria remain financially independent. It is no coincidence that the nations subject to Zionist propaganda and under constant military threat are the very nations which are not subject to the diktat of the internationalist in the form of their financial elite, the Rothschilds.

So, how successful have the internationalists been in their bid to financially take over every nation? Not every nation has a central bank, so ascertaining how far the tentacles of the Rothschild banking infrastructure reach is not a simple task. The poisonous vipers of the Rothschild dynasty have become the key economic presence in practically every nation in the world. When one considers that the International Monetary fund and Bank of International Settlements belong in the Rothschild stable, the dominance becomes almost absolute.

What are freedom loving peoples to make of this economic control grid? The professed ideologies of the nations with Rothschild central banks cover the entire left-right spectrum. The concepts of left-wing and right-wing are illusions concocted in the temples of Freemasonry to divide the people into rival camps - camps which they control. The truth of this can be seen by the fact that nations which are avowedly communist sit side by side with those which profess to be the ideological opposite. The left-right game focuses upon keeping the people preoccupied with matters of materialism. The presence of the same banking cartel in nations which are 'enemies' (at face value) betrays the reality that the political classes are mere puppets dancing to the tune of the same financiers, who themselves are little more than instruments in the force for One World Government.

We should now be awakening to the fact that politicians are bought and sold as readily as whores in the red light district, or for that matter as the many Scientists who will generate whatever data is desired to support the Global Warming lie and the resulting call for Global Governance. We need to distance ourselves from people who play the political game and seek to reform the economic structure. We need to think beyond the banking system and to take positive action to disengage from the financial system wherever possible.

The ideal economic system for a free nation is one which is built upon Social Credit and Distributism. This is a plausible and practical alternative economic system which considers the the well-being of the ordinary people and society of the utmost importance. In contrast to the sticking plaster measures of those who are stuck in the Party System (whether through ignorance, naivety or self-serving egomania and greed), the economics of Distributism do not require the election of political puppets for their implementation. A system which sees the exchange of goods and labour as a fluid and natural mechanism (rather than as a Usurious exploitative act of materialistic theft), is what is needed to break the power of the bankers, and to thereby loosen the grip of the international mafia enough for us to throw off their shackles permanently.

As I have said above, the system I speak of is an ideal which does not require a revolution or participation in the political process to achieve. What Distributism entails is a redistribution not of wealth, but of ownership. Wealth based on the accumulation of money is a trick played by the banking elite. Money is created at the stroke of a key, and pursuing wealth is as futile as pursuing the wind. Certainly the illusion of the lifestyles of the rich and famous is one which has been gullibly accepted by the downtrodden masses as something to envy. What is not addressed is the spiritual poverty, and outright evil, which accompanies the worship of material goods .

There are practical steps everyone can take which can lead to economic freedom. Of prime importance is the need to become debt free. For people with mortgages or other large economic commitments this is incredibly difficult. If one looks at a mountain with a view to reaching its summit, the enormity of it can be enough to put any attempt in the realm of fantasy. However, if one makes the objective the conquering of the foothills, then that will be a reasonable goal and one which is not so daunting as to be unachievable. Such must be our thinking - we must view our debts not as a mountain which we cannot overcome, but as a series of hills and inclines which can be overcome one at a time, until we stand above them breathing the clean air of financial freedom.

It is all well and good speaking of economic freedom, but for many people the trap of the materialist system is such that the concept is almost incomprehensible. We need to think and act in practical and achievable ways. As I have said above, dispensing with the burden of debt is a must. This requires a change in thinking. We must ask ourselves whether we really need the material goods which enslave us within the bankers web. We can certainly take steps to walk away from the stranglehold of finance. We must stop using credit cards (unless fortunate enough to be able to pay them off immediately and not pay any interest). Most importantly we must train ourselves to see reality beyond the blinkers placed upon us by the media which manifest in the desire to accumulate luxuries.

We will never achieve financial freedom if we attempt to do so by taking part in the present economic system. The grip of the One World Order over virtually every economy in the world is something we have to address. We cannot hope to compete with them in a game of their own making. This is where alternative economics come into play.

In Berkshire and Lewes (England), from Bayern to Westfalen (Germany) and indeed in many places across the globe, the phenomenon of local currencies is growing as people come to present banking system is simply a fraudulent mechanism for extracting money from the workforce and concentrating the real wealth of the nation in the hands of the banking mafia. Money is created out of thin air in the Fractional Reserve System, thus meaning banks take no risk whatsoever when giving out loans. However, when the banks decide to contract the economy and call in the phantom loans, those who are unable to meet the loans must pay with real goods, properties and/or businesses which are seized by the banks. The local currencies are not built upon Fractional Reserve, thus the weapon of inflation-deflation cannot be used against the public. Community banking takes the Rothschilds and their ilk out of commerce. Without usury, they have no power.

In North Dakota (USA) the State Bank is responsible for issuing currency. Unlike the other 49 States, North Dakota is not tied to the Federal Reserve and as a result the State is flourishing, whilst the rest of the USA is in economic meltdown. The fact that an entire State is functioning very well without the 'help' of the Rothschild's cartel proves that economic freedom at a national level only requires throwing the usurers out of any position of power. If North Dakota can do it, every nation in the world can do it.

Breaking free from the present system is not the stuff of fantasy. From the examples above we can see that economic freedom is not an issue of wishful thinking, but is attainable - and is in many places, for many people, a fact. We are held in our financial servitude through media manipulation. Every time we watch a current affairs programme on the Television or read a 'newspaper' we are confronted with fear mongering, and with pressure to consume more luxuries. We are conditioned to believe that economics is the reserve of an elite who are intellectually superior to ourselves, and that we should not even think of there being an alternative to the status quo. This is simply a lie. It should come as no surprise that Reuters, (which supplies the majority of the world's news) is owned by the Rothschilds. No serious criticism of the Rothschilds or of the banking system will ever be allowed by the media for as long they control it. The wall of silence regarding these matters is a calculated weapon of the internationalists. People who delude themselves into thinking that by reading a variety of newspapers or watching a selection of news sources, they are getting to see the big picture free from media bias, need to think again. The entire mass media is in the pockets of the Rothschilds. A good first step in the march to freedom is to turn off your TV, and leave it off.

We have the power to take back control of our finances. We need to actively participate in local currencies, Credit Unions and Labour Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). We need to stop supporting our oppressors by disconnecting ourselves from their financial web. Once we have built the momentum, the economics of usurious materialism will collapse and a new system of mutual support and social justice will fall into place. By building the post-materialist society now, we can outflank the Rothschilds and make all their efforts at financial conquest futile. Denied the lifeblood of economic control, the entire structure of the One World Order will disintegrate.

Come what may, there is going to be a New World Order. If we procrastinate and allow peddlers of doom such as Alex Jones to keep us in a state of fear and inaction (besides buying their 'resistance' merchandise!), the New World Order that we will see will be a tyranny of materialism, ownership of the masses by the self-chosen elite, unimaginable brutality and a total destruction of all that makes us human. If we take action to free ourselves and all those who we can educate to break themselves free, the New World Order will be a world of free and homogeneous nations, where culture and spirituality are celebrated and commerce is put in its correct place as a function of society, not its purpose. The choice is ours. We have the power.

Tyranny will come if we allow it to by our failure to take action now and build an alternative to the house of cards. A house of cards it may be, but if left unopposed it will turn into a despotic militarised regime which will crush all opposition and literally exterminate those who do not fall into line and accept the tyranny as compliant serfs. We don't have time to debate this issue. We have to act - and act NOW. Let us take Amschel Rothschild's words to heart, and let it be us that control our own money, and all that stems from it.

Monday, 22 March 2010

Sidebar Link Update

0 comments Posted by VA at 22:22

White
White News Now, added.
American Third Position, added.
American Nationalist Union, added.
ANU News, added.
East Coast White Unity, added.
Keystone United, added.
American Dissident Voices Internet Radio, added.
SUPERHUMAN, added.
ourgazetteer.org, added.
Dixie Republic, added.
Midwest Free Press, added.
Metapedia, added.
Diversity is Chaos, added.
Fjordman, moved from Nuggets.
Vanishing American, inactive.
Why LA Sucks, inactive.
Rusty Mason, offline.
Bedlam Nation, offline.
White Warrior Women, offline.

Europe
Front National » Le site officiel du Front National, added.
Paul Weston, added.
Shield Wall, added.
The Home of the Green Arrow and Friends, link updated.
Hibernia Girl, offline.

Australia (new)
M4 Monologue, added.
Jessica's Conservative Australia, added.
The Australian Protectionist Party, added.

Africa
My South Africa Sucks!, added.
South Africa Sucks, offline.
SouthAfricaTheTruth, offline.

Media
Mediaite, added.

Right
Joe Sobran, added.
Alternative Right, added.

Jewish Influence
Antisemitica, added.
Jew or Not Jew, added.

Immigration
MigrationWatchUK, added.

Jihad
Documenting the Global Jihad — jihadica, added.
All Things Counter Terrorism, added.

Economics
Washington's Blog, added.
Frédéric Bastiat, added.
HousingPANIC, inactive.

Nuggets of Something
Global Guerrillas, added.

Friday, 19 March 2010

Monitoring Genocidal Immigration and Anti-White Discrimination

0 comments Posted by VA at 09:00

2010 U.S. Census Sample Form:

8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

* No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
* Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
* Yes, Puerto Rican
* Yes, Cuban
* Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin — Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

9. What is Person 1’s race? Mark one or more boxes.

* White
* Black, African Am., or Negro
* American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.
* Asian Indian
* Chinese
* Filipino
* Japanese
* Korean
* Vietnamese
* Native Hawaiian
* Guamanian or Chamorro
* Samoan
* Other Pacific Islander - Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.
* Other Asian - Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.
* Some other race - Print race.

Explanations provided by census.gov:

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.

What is Person 1's race?

Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

Celebratory media reporting on the predicted demise of the White majority - Minority births on track to outnumber white births | ajc.com:

Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In fact, demographers say this year could be the "tipping point" when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.

The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years. Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.

Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation's 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent. But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.

That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two. The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S. And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.

Multiracial no longer boxed in by the Census - USATODAY.com:

When Barack Obama was elected the nation's first black president in 2008, some academics and political analysts suggested the watershed event could represent the dawning of a post-racial era in a land that has struggled over race relations for four centuries.

At the same time, growing ethnic and racial diversity fueled by record immigration and rates of interracial marriages have made the USA's demographics far more complex. By 2050, there will be no racial or ethnic majority as the share of non-Hispanic whites slips below 50%, according to Census projections.

"It's showing that tomorrow's children and their children will in fact be multiracial, leading to a potential post-racial society," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution.

"The issue isn't just multirace," says Census historian Margo Anderson, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "It's the blurring of the very traditional black vs. white. Categories that held until about 1980 are shifting in large numbers. … The clarity is breaking down."

The image above comes from Rise in Minorities Is Led by Children, Census Finds - New York Times.

Disparate Impact provides the legal justification to "monitor compliance", "assess fairness", and "monitor racial disparities", discriminating in favor of "protected classes":

Under Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, plaintiffs may sue employers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. Employers who intentionally discriminate are obvious candidates for a lawsuit, but the courts also allow plaintiffs to prove liability if the employer has treated classes of people differently using apparently neutral employment policies. The disparate impact theory of liability will succeed if the plaintiff can prove that these employment policies had the effect of excluding persons who are members of Title VII's protected classes. Once disparate impact is established, the employer must justify the continued use of the procedure or procedures causing the adverse impact as a "business necessity."

This legal theory has the effect of excluding Whites.

The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide:

What is genocide?

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide (article 2) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…” including:

1. (a) Killing members of the group;
2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All such acts are violations of human rights, and may also be crimes against humanity or war crimes, depending on the context in which they were committed. The Convention confirms that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law which parties to the Convention undertake “to prevent and to punish” (article 1). Because it is a part of international customary law the Convention is considered applicable in all countries, irrespective of whether they have signed or ratified it.

The Convention further states the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Mass immigration and anti-White legal theories of "protected classes" are genocidal. Whether the intent was initially anti-discrimination or not is irrelevant. The result, made plain by census monitoring, is the physical destruction of the native White population.

Go Ogle - the debilitating impact of voyeurism

0 comments Posted by VA at 08:16

Voyeurism is regarded as a fetish. It conjures images of masturbating old men, peering from the corner of the curtain to catch a glimpse of a young woman in the street. This description is appropriate for that particular type of voyeur, but it hides the reality of voyeurism. Voyeurism is not limited to a few deviants who like to spy on their neighbours, but is rather a behaviour which has become so commonplace as to be the norm.

Western society has been corrupted by alien influences and degenerates from within for many years. With the advent of television, the decline of culture and morality accelerated. With the internet, that decline has become such that it can be felt to worsen on a near continuous basis.

So what has voyeurism to do with the decline of the West? Is the relationship one of cause, or one of effect? The relationship is in fact both - voyeurism is a result of the decline of Europe, and acts as an accelerant of that decline. The same can be said for other parts of the world which have succumbed to the media age, but analysis of the entire world is far beyond the scope of this article.

Voyeurism is the act of obtaining gratification by observation. It is much more than a non-productive sexual activity. Voyeurs include all those who watch sport on the television but do not actively play. To that end, even people who regularly attend football matches (or any other sport), but do not participate on the field, are voyeurs. They satisfy their need to feel that they belong to the tribe by diverting what is a natural and vital instinct, into watching a game - and in some cases into literally violently opposing those who pledge allegiance to a different team. Football hooligans are obeying a natural drive to defend the tribe - but such is the degeneracy of the West, that rather than defending their families and their people, they commit acts of violence against their kinsmen who wear different colours and have different chants. Can there be anything more ridiculous than a man in a Leeds United shirt kicking unconscious a man in a Manchester United shirt? Yet these oafs take pride in such destructive actions against their compatriots.

Not all sports fans are hooligans, but, with the exception of those who play the sport in question, they are voyeurs. To hear a typical football fan speak after a match, one would be forgiven for thinking that the individual boasting of how 'we won' had actively contributed to the team effort to kick a ball into the opposing goal more often than the other team - rather than in actuality screaming abuse at players in different shirts whilst shouting at the players he idolises. To witness the anger and tears gushed forth by football fans when the favoured team doesn't manage to kick the ball in the desired manner, one would fear for the mental well-being of the individual who doesn't understand the difference between trivial games designed as entertainment, and matters of importance.

The internet has greatly exaggerated sexual voyeurism, and the availability of the most bizarre pornography imaginable (and unimaginable!) Before the arrival of the internet, being 'into' Scat meant having an appreciation for a type of singing found in Jazz music! The easy availability of all manner of pornography has undermined the sanctity of a stable and meaningful monogamous relationship. Whereas the traditional society was built upon marriage with each partner remaining celibate until after the wedding ceremony, and faithful thereafter until the couple were separated by death, the era of mass pornography has introduced the mass of society to un-natural sexual practices which can be explored without taking part. Sadly, this perversion of the mind does lead to a desire to experience the bizarre acts witnessed on the screen. Just as how during the televising of cricket or tennis, the urge to play manifests in a healthy game amongst friends, so with pornography, curiosity manifests in anonymous acts of degeneracy far from the bosom of the family. The diseases thus caught, and the destruction of the bond of monogamy invariably take their toll.

The promotion of promiscuity and perversion are not confined to seedy shops and websites. By far the greater source of the family-destroying material is the television. Politically correct soap operas such as Eastenders and Coronation Street only show perverts in a positive light, with any objectors being painted as bigots, haters, and insane. School children are especially vulnerable to the drive to reduce society to a collection of valueless individuals. In school, children voyeuristically absorb the social conditioning of the indoctrination system which provides no education whatsoever. They are not allowed to question their 'teachers' or to have a different opinion to that which is ordained by the Establishment. They are told that internationalism is desirable, that man made global warming is true, that 9/11 was carried out by Sin-Laden Obama, sorry, Osama Bin Laden, and that it is the child's duty to experiment with many different sexual partners of every race, age, sex, and sexual proclivity. Marriage and family are presented as outmoded and oppressive institutions. Denied the ability to question the lies of the 'education' system, children are reduced to observers of a bizarre cult, which is replicated on the television and due to its pervasive nature, becomes accepted as normal reality.

The music industry has become a driving force for the destruction of society. Britney Spears' 'If You Seek Amy' (F U C K Me), Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face' (Poke Her Face), Beyonce's 'Video Phone', to mention but a few, promote promiscuity to impressionable children. Children are further sexualised by modern Disney films which present 'adult' themes to children, implanting ideas into the subconscious which the child should not be exposed to. Advertising hoardings in the street assault the passer by with imagery which works its way into the mind - corrupting the natural healthy mind with decadent individualist materialism. Again, these media instruments are viewed voyeuristically.

The news media present crime and violence in a sensational manner, which breaks down the horror and revulsion which a healthy individual feels when confronted by the unacceptable. In exactly the same way as people have become desensitised to murder, rape and torture by horror films, so people become desensitised to the crimes of the State which are presented on the news. Before television, a government which stole from the people, enacted policies which they expressly promised not to (such as being pro-immigration, committing wars of aggression against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc), would have provoked mass action, even to the point of revolution. Now, the TV screens corruption and Zionism around the clock, with barely a whimper of indignation.

Voyeurism is a state of mind where the individual observes but does not participate. It creates a desire which must eventually be acted upon. The football fan who is frustrated by not having a real input and thereby is powerless to make his team win, may express this frustration with violence. The child who is lied to by the school system but is prevented from getting his or her point across may become 'anti-social', finding power in rebellion. This rebellion is pre-channelled into hostility to authority which mistakenly becomes hostility to the family. Not being in a position to even fully appreciate the fact that the family is the safe haven from the anti-human society created by the (pseudo-) libertine materialist Establishment, the child unwittingly follows the programming of the media and the indoctrination of the school and becomes promiscuous and immoral - exactly as the Establishment wish.

The West is in a trance. We are sleep-walking our way to oblivion. We have become so used to passively absorbing the diseased programming of the Establishment, that even though we may be aware that something is wrong, the same programming has led us into false rebellions which serve to protect the enemy. All is not lost however. By studying how subliminal control is placed in our homes and streets, we can awaken our minds to the point where subliminals no longer work. By making the effort to participate in sports rather than observing them, we can achieve some personal control, which can then be used as a self-esteem builder which will enable us to shake off the shackles of despondency. Sport is but one option - the individual must fond what he or she enjoys and can use to self-actualise.

Turning off the television and radio, not reading the mass media, listening to wholesome music (maybe to instrumental music), home-schooling our children, participating in the community rather than vegetating in front of the media box - these are just some of the ways we can remove the hypnotic power which keeps our minds enslaved. We cannot avoid all advertising, but we can limit what we are exposed to by not inviting the media into our homes and voluntarily exposing ourselves to their poison.

We are voyeurs. Maybe not sexual voyeurs, but voyeurs nonetheless. This is the key to our psychological enslavement. We are asleep to our peril, but we can easily awaken. Once awake we can never be beaten down. Freed from the oppression of media manipulation we will see the liars and their lies with fresh eyes. Then, they will flee like rats back into the sewers. All we need to defeat our enemies to to wake up and sense our own strength - and see their power for the illusion it is. It really is that simple.

Tuesday, 16 March 2010

Sailer on Sherman

0 comments Posted by VA at 20:17

In "Depression v. Nervous Breakdown", Sailer writes:

I noticed this when I was reading up on the Civil War and got to the formidable Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's psychological collapse in late 1861, in-between his strong performances at the battles of First Bull Run in 1861 and Shiloh in 1862. While organizing behind the lines for the next year's campaigns, he had to be relieved of command so he could recuperate at home. Sherman later joked, "Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."

The Wikipedia page on Sherman uses the old-fashioned term "nervous breakdown" and blames "the concerns of command." In contrast, James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom sometimes uses the more modern term "depression," and at one point suggests that Sherman was depressed by his vision of the logic of Total War.

Or was he suffering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder over Bull Run?

Maybe Sherman was depressed because he realized Total War would someday result in the rise to power of pushy, hostile jews and the subsequent colonization of the entire White world by unarmed Amerindian, African, and Asian peasants. Then again, it isn't likely Sherman would have ever recovered and continued to kill his cousins if he realized that.

General Grant's Infamy:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the "Department of the Tennessee," an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.