Building Our Movement: Publicity and Activism

(The following comment was posted and then later deleted from the CHRONICLES magazine website. Why? It was made in reference to reader comments following an article by Thomas Fleming discussing an “American” Muslim who recently beheaded his wife, another lovely cultural import of which Fleming presumably disapproves. I re-post it here (I also re-posted it at CHRONICLES, just so readers can see truth for a little while longer, until it gets re-deleted) because it is generally relevant to any discussion of white survival, including its political aspects.

I encourage race patriots to visit the CHRONICLES website, billed as (hahahahehe) Your Home for Traditional Conservatism (perhaps such a billing is true, however; it would certainly explain a lot re why so little has in fact been conserved by ‘conservatives’). Flood that site with race-realist commentary. Make the ‘conservatives’ know that there are real conservatives out there, and that we are watching the fakers.

I would appreciate if any comments of support for what I have written below were also posted on the CHRONICLES site. Thank you. AP)

Ahh, but which Christianity (I’m speaking ideologically, not theologically) do we want? Paleos are always referencing religion whenever discussing what to do about the Muslims in our midst. But the real problem is not religion, but race. As one writer above puts it, the Muslims in Europe are not especially pious, unlike perhaps many in the Middle East. Muslims use their religion as a cover for quite earthly pursuits (rather like the Jews, come to think of it). And, of course, they (again like the Jews) use the West’s hard-won achievement of intra-Christian ecumenical tolerance to subvert both the conditions of tolerance, as well as any reinstantiation of Christianaity.

Two points. First, Muslims are a direct threat to the survival of the West (by now every serious conservative understands this, but as recently as a decade ago, only Sam Francis, AMERICAN RENAISSANCE, and a few other persons and publications would discuss the survival of the West, understood properly (ie racially; as the specific civilization of whites AND ONLY whites)). But while they may constitute the most currently antagonistic, as well as traditional, enemy, they are still but one among many. EVERY non-white on planet Earth is at best a competitor, at worst an enemy, of the white race (and therefore, the West). Mexicans pose the greatest demographic threat to us white Americans, despite being the least antagonistic as well as dangerous race; high-IQ, demographically preponderant Asians pose the largest, longterm geostrategic threat; blacks are the most savage race, and therefore pose the most personal threat to whites on a daily basis; and the Muslims, again, pose the greatest threat of terrorism and direct civilizational confrontation.

The common denominator? ALL non-whites are potential enemies of ALL whites. ALL whites must therefore (well, skipping a few links in the causal chain) put aside their idiotic national and sectarian differences, and promote GLOBAL WHITE NATIONALISM as the only key to Western survival. Anything less than such PAN-EUROPEAN GENETIC COLLECTIVISM is simply spittin’ in the wind, a (deliberate?) waste of time and precious resources.

Which brings me to the second point. Exactly what good, politically, is Christianity? Without dredging up the fascinating debates about whether a) there exists any spiritual realm; or b) if we answer ‘yes’ to a), Christianity is true; or c) Christianity should be considered ‘Western’ at all (is it merely an alien Semitic import?), paleoconservatives are still faced with the problems that, first, the non-white culture war against the West is prosecuted against the SECULAR (racial/cultural/historical) aspects of the West, not Christianity per se (yes, Christianity is persecuted, but with the exception of various aggressively secular Jews, it is not done so by adherents of other religions; the modern ‘culture wars’ are intraracial, pitting pious whites against profane ones, atheists, feminists, sodomites, and their assorted ilk), and second, Christianity, at least in its contemporary guises, is very much one with the anti-Occidentalists, at least wrt the aforementioned secular Occident (and, indeed, much of ‘mainstream’ Christianity today is at one even with the cultural Marxists it is supposed to oppose, differing with the freaks only wrt the existence of God, the value of Christian ‘community’, and in some cases abortion).

Christianity (of all theological dispensations) today is hostile to the survival or re-empowerment of the racial aspect of Western civilization, and only the conservative elements within Christianity seek to preserve even the West’s mere cultural and moral heritage (on the unproven, no, ridiculous assumption that there exists no necessary link between race/biology and culture, in either its aesthetic or anthropological senses).

So why do paleos always retreat to religion? Religion is NOT the answer to civilizational survival. Christianity is either irrelevant or hostile to white preservation. White preservation, however, is necessary to Western survival. The proper path is to return to race, the traditional white supremacy that has always characterized relations between whites and others. And politically, that means ignoring (secondary) Christian concerns, while always emphasizing (primary) racial ones.

Interesting comments Ian, certainly posting in internet forums whenever a relevant issue arises is a good idea.

For instance, articles attributing academic underachievement, or lack of NAM’s in the professions, invite comments citing literature by Linda Gottfredson on the implications of group differences in cognitive ability (her publications are available on her faculty page listed below). http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/index.html

As this contradicts what people are raised to believe, people can respond in a hostile fashion. But the facts aren’t on their side.

For instance, I recently posted on Tim Wise’s Red Room site and mentioned psychometric research. A poster quickly responded that this was “utterly deceptive pseudoscience”. I responded by citing academic research and the guy had nothing further to say:

“”Utterly deceptive pseudo-science.”

I’ve gone back & read over the Bell Curve, the Snyderman/Rothman survey of academic opinion vs media coverage, Dan Seligman’s ‘A Question of Intelligence’ & a book with competing views by Leon Kamin & Hans Eyesenck. I don’t think it’s as deceptive as you’re suggesting.

There are some interesting physical correlates. See Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2007), 30:135-154 Cambridge University Press:

“Overall, we conclude that modern neuroimaging techniques are beginning to articulate a biology of intelligence. We propose that the P-FIT provides a parsimonious account for many of the empirical observations, to date, which relate individual differences in intelligence test scores to variations in brain structure and function.”

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=2E0FAE4D… 62ECC1DEF8ED3885C4379E1.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1305780

Also, EEG studies show increased neural efficiency in the cortex of ‘brighter’ individuals:

“In the field of physiological study of human intelligence, strong evidence of a more efficient operation (i.e., less activation) of the brain in brighter individuals (the neural efficiency hypothesis) can be found”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?ob=ArticleURL&udi=B6SYV-4GNCG7K-1…

There has been some interesting recent research by Ian Deary investigating why more intelligent people tend to have greater longevity. Aside from the obvious (they avoid risks/eat healthier food etc) Deary suggests there could be some overall fitness factor, as basic reaction time predicts longevity even better than IQ tests. Gottfredson and Miller also suggest this idea of an overall fitness factor with their recent paper showing a strong correlation between intelligence and semen quality.

recentlyhttp://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/Deary (2008) Nature essay why do intelligent people live longer.pdf

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2008semen.pdf

There is also circumstantial evidence from twin studies & transracial adoption studies.

“Heritability estimtes for intelligence quotient (IQ) range from 0.50 to 0.80. This makes IQ a suitable target for attempts to identify the specific genes involved.” Chorney et al, Role of the cholinergic muscarinic 2 receptor (CHRM@) gene in cognition. Molecular Psychiatry (2003) 8. 10-13.

“A substantial body of literature from twin, family and adoption studies documents significant genetic effects on human intelligence. Heritability estimates range from 40 to 80% and meta-analyses suggest an overall heritability of around 50%” Dick et al, (2006) “Association of CHRM2 with IQ: Converging Evidence for Genes Influencing Intelligence.” Behavioral Genetics.

“Multivariate genetic analyses indicate that general intelligence is highly heritable, and that the overlap in the cognitive processes is twice as great as the overall phenotypic overlap, with genetic correlations averaging around .80.” Plomin et al (2004) “A functional polymorphism in the succinate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase genes is associated with cognitive ability,” Molecular Psychology 9, 582-586. http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Note that Cochran and Harpending’s thesis about Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is subject to a cheap, simple experimental test: see whether heterozygotes for the diseases have higher IQ’s than their non-carrier siblings. Yet, years later, the study still hasn’t been done because it’s too non-PC.

Dealing with possible differences in group averages (not in terms of individuals) is a moral challenge. The Bell Curve & Seligman suggest that the best response is to treat people as individuals. Peter Singer has also written about this kind of issue.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Left-Politics-Evolution-Cooperation/dp/0…”

Here are some papers that address common discussions on disparities in education, employment, housing, health care, wealth, and the criminal justice system. etc.

Essentially, rather than blaming institutional bias, group differences in intelligence can explain the disparities:

1. IQ, like all behavioural traits is significantly hereditable. Black children adopted by white families mature to have IQs that are consistent with their biological peers and are not higher, due to their rearing; Asian children adopted by white families mature to have IQs that are consistent with their biological peers and which are higher than their adoptive parents.

[see Rushton, J.P. and Jensen, A.R. (2005). Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294.] [also see Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.]

http://members.cox.net/bvv/h2b.pdf

1. Income disparities.

See London School of Economics Dr Satoshi Kanazawa’s paper: “The myth of racial discrimination in pay in the United States.” Managerial and decision economics, 26 (5), 2005).

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/MDE2005.pdf

1. Health disparities.

Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., Pattie, A., & Gale, C. R. (2008). More intelligent, more dependable children live longer: a 55-year longitudinal sudy of a representaitive sample of the Scottish nation. Psychological Science, 19, 874-880.

Deary, I. J., & Der, G. (2005). Reaction time, age, and cognitive ability longitudinal findings from age 16 to 63 years in representative population samples. Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 12, 187-215.

http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/Deary (2005) Aging Neuropsychology Cognition rt age 20 07.pdf

1. Academic disparities.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/iq-academic-achievement.php

‘Contrary to “culture” theory, the ethnic academic gaps are almost identical for transracially adopted children, and to the extent they are different they go in the opposite direction predicted by culture theory.

[1] Clark, E. A., & Hanisee, J. (1982). Intellectual and adaptive performance of Asian children in adoptive American settings. Developmental Psychology, 18, 595-599.

Frydman, M., & Lynn, R. (1989). The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1323-1325.

Winick, M., Meyer, K. K., & Harris, R. C. (1975). Malnutrition and environmental enrichment by early adoption. Science, 190, 1173-1175.”

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004064.html

Finally, it is quite clear that most liberals pride themselves on accepting the theory of evolution over creationism. However, there is a paradox that David Friedman has pointed out. They like Darwin but not the implications of his theory.

This is another thing you can mention if people start getting annoyed with you pointing out group differences:

“People who say they are against teaching the theory of evolution are very likely to be Christian fundamentalists. But people who are against taking seriously the implications of evolution, strongly enough to want to attack those who disagree, including those who teach those implications, are quite likely to be on the left….

The denial of male/female differences is the most striking example of left wing hostility to the implications of Darwinian evolution, but not the only one. The reasons to expect differences among racial groups as conventionally defined are weaker, since males of all races play the same role in reproduction, as do females of all races. But we know that members of such groups differ in the distribution of observable physical characteristics—that, after all, is the main way we recognize them. That is pretty strong evidence that their ancestors adapted to at least somewhat different environments.

There is no a priori reason to suppose that the optimal physical characteristics were different in those different environments but the optimal mental characteristics were the same. And yet, when differing outcomes by racial groups are observed, it is assumed without discussion that they must be entirely due to differential treatment by race. That might turn out to be true, but there is no good reason to expect it. Here again, anyone who argues the opposite is likely to find himself the target of ferocious attacks, mainly from people on the left.

Next consider the whole nature/nurture debate, in which the left has, for half a century or more, mostly taken a strong pro-nurture position. It is hard to see how humans could have evolved intelligence if intelligence is not heritable.

Finally, consider the question of how maleable human nature is or isn’t. It is not logically impossible that we evolved as general purpose computers, with all details determined by the program, not the hardware. But it does not seem likely, given the obvious advantages of hardwiring in whatever rules worked in the environment where we evolved. Nor does it seem plausible given that most of our evolutionary history predates human rationality, making it likely that humans retain quite a lot of pre-human traits.”

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-is-against-evolution.html

The problem with the existing alternative parties I’ve looked at is, each party has a specific ideology. I’m not aware of any big-tent party that’s based on a few issues. In order to succeed, we have to offer people a party that doesn’t exclude or alienate anyone who agrees with the main goals such as immigration restriction, an end to affirmative action, and the other big issues.

What I see in this area of the blogosphere is lots of people who are attached to ideology and who carry their intellectual feuds from one blog to the next. This is fun for the participants, but I hope we can design a party that refuses, yes refuses, to take positions on certain non-essential issues such as: feminism, the environment, Jews, Israel, abortion, school prayer, gay marriage, traditionalism and the like.

All worthy subjects, but they prevent alliances. FWIW, I take socially liberal positions on most of the above issues and am a strong Zionist. However, I will throw my issues under the bus or at least keep quiet about them, if others are willing to do the same, in exchange for a better chance at getting a few important things.

After we actually get our country back, we can argue about the gay pandas being able to pray in school, but I think that has to be discussed on our little blogs, not at Party meetings.

latte,

A good impulse, but your view of the matter may be distorted by the amount of time and energy you’ve devoted to debates in the pro-white community. If we are to appeal to the public, we must remember to focus on the issues that matter to white Americans as a whole, not the ones that matter to our little community.

The fact is that a moderate support of Israel is not controversial among most Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom have a favorable impression of the country (71%). Support for Israel is especially strong among Republicans (84%), from the ranks of whom the party we plan is likely to draw most of its members. So your favorability towards Israel is more likely to be an asset rather than a liability in building a party. Don’t worry what the anti-Semites who hang around pro-white websites think—they’re not the ones we have to convince, thank God! And we should always bear that in mind as we go forward: we’re not addressing ourselves to a small community of radicals, but to white America as a whole.

latte,

The other question is how serious you are about this party idea and what role you see yourself playing in it.

Ian, to answer your question about what I can actually do…very little beyond sharing my insights about what I want. I live behind enemy lines in the SF Bay Area, and if I discussed textbooks with my local school board, I’d be lucky if the police showed up at my door to investigate me as a white supremacist, before certain people in the city government had their thug relatives explain things to me while I’m driving.

So, my contribution has to be virtual. I think this is a common situation. Maybe there’s a solution. It’s better for people like me to admit what they can’t do and try to work around it, than to pretend they want to do something in real life, and then not do it because they want to stay alive and employed.

I looked up the requirements for registering a new party, and it doesn’t seem feasible in California, for the time being. You have to get a certain percentage of write-in votes, or get hundreds of thousands of signatures. This may be possible in the inland areas of California, which is conservative and white, so maybe others should consider that, but not me, since I’m coastal.

Maybe people should brainstorm about online and other types of activism. Numbers USA is hugely successful. Are there any high-tech people here who have ideas about how to do something that way?

I think a white nationalist mass party could “agree to disagree” on lots of issues, with candidates in different constituencies offering different positions on lots of controversial issues, but acting together on a few core issues, when they get elected to the same body. Disagree on same-sex marriage, if you like…but unite on immigration reform!

The Democrats and Republicans do this. But minor parties tend to adopt very thorough platforms, and then expect all their candidates to adhere to them. One reason they are “minor” parties, I suppose.

Immigration reform, some sort of Ward Connerly-style “civil rights” initiatives, law-and-order stuff and some protection for American jobs and industries should do it.

The “protectionism” may not sit well with some conservatives…but that’s tough! Conservatives have been “defending the white interest” since 1965 - and where we have wound up is HERE - with our society poised to get flushed down the crapper!

latte,

Creating a website has to be the first step, I think. It isn’t the time to go door to door collecting signatures. What we need to settle on is a set of written principles for the party. When the time comes to go knocking on doors, you won’t necessarily be the one to do it. So how do you feel about writing up a set of principles that we can discuss?

You may say, why don’t you write that up, Ian? But the fact is that I’m the only one who’s ever done anything concrete in the way of pro-white activism. Other people need to get involved, or the whole thing goes nowhere.

I’ve started a thread in the forum about forming a new party here. We should probably discuss it over there to keep things tidy.

Ian; Let’s discuss a very important road block to building an effective movement. Anyone who is not self employed, is risking losing their ability to support themselves and their family as the word “white” is the 21st century version of heretic. It’s just a thought but what do you think of using “front” men . Those supporters who may be retired or otherwise not vulnerable, to the revenge and wrath the politically correct crowd will heap on anyone who dares to use the dreaded word “white”. I have attempted to start a small group of like minded whites who have suffered discrimination and are ready to take the first steps to forming a group. Unfortunately, I have made contact with 2 like minded individuals but I will be moving to another area of the country. These small groups are not risky if people are careful. But forming small groups is in my opinion, a slow method of building a movement.

We must have some individuals who are can be more vocal, and thus attract more supporters more quickly and not fear revealing their identity to the PC crowd.

Another area ,ironically , that could assist the growth of our movement is to learn techniques used by the so-called “civil rights activists”. Despite, my personal hatred of people like Sharpton , Jesse Jackson and others of that ilk, I must give the devil his due. These racial hustlers get results especially Jesse Jackson. I don’t suggest we stoop to copying race hustlers. But we can look at their methods which obtained results and use those tactics which would suit the philosophy of the white rights movement.

Someone mentioned Linda Gottredson , professor at Univ of Delaware. Her work is scientific and has resisted strong efforts to discredit it. She would seem to be someone the PC /race hustler crowd would want to silence as she is a major source of scientific evidence on IQ differences. She also has written extensively on how the race industry is able to ignore scientific facts , water down tests to obtain the PC racial proportions . Other than having tenure, how does she continue to publish extensively on IQ differences and not be silenced? It would be instructive to our movement.

Michael Levin, in contrast has not published anything in at least a decade . So obvious the race hustler/PC crowd have silenced him.

One final area, which you have indirectly alluded to is how, supporters of this movement who are very busy working to pay the taxes which support the very parasites who are bashing whites can use their limited time to assist the movement. You mentioned the Fax method used by Roy Beck’s immigration organization which I have used many times . It seems to be very effective. You did say it is quite expensive. Is there some similar method which wouldn’t be as expensive?

Keep up the good work!!

To Concerned and Ian,

You two might be interested in these two organizations if you are looking to attract high IQ Gen Xers and Gen Yers rather than aging Paleo-Chronicles subscribers (I am a Gen Yer):

Youth for Western Civilization

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12462690189

Union of Nationalists, Conservatives and Romantics

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29560939616&ref=share

Thanks, UJ:

I have sent Y4WC a nice email and I hope to establish contact with them. Since they are located close to where I work and where Ian lives, we can meet and generate courses of action. The ball is in their court.

MJ

The party I imagined already exists: American National Party. americannationalparty.com

“The American National Party is an American political party designed with the interests of European Americans in mind. We represent European Americans, and, accordingly, our target demographic is European Americans.”

The Undiscovered Jew, The Union of Nationalists, Conservatives and Romantics is like a dream to me. These are my three main beliefs in life. But are they Pro-White? I mean, do they allow only White people on the forum? Great group anyway. The first one seems good too. Thanks for the information.

Yes, latte, but since the ANP looks like a dud, we should keep working. See here.

I don’t agree that the ANP looks like a “dud,” but I have two main reservations about it:

1. Any party that has a chance of succeeding in the U.S. ought not to be so closely linked to a foreign political party (the BNP). They should at least change the name.

2. It is commendable that they have decided to be explicitly pro-white (or at least explicitly pro-European-American). Still, I tend to doubt that an explicitly pro-European-American party could ever gain power in this country. Whites are currently at 65% of the population. The window of opportunity for an explicitly pro-white party to gain power in this country is rapidly closing. A more realistic goal is probably to form explicitly pro-white organizations (that are not parties) with the goals of a) exerting political influence and b) changing the culture to break the politically correct mind lock, let’s say, that whites are currently trapped in.

Still, I think that the American National Party is likely a step forward relative to the other choices that have been available up to now.

Dúnadan, they appear to be white as far as I could tell on their facebook page.

Ian

I kind of agree with you that relying on white’s racial loyalty is not a good idea because in my opinion the instinct exists but is weak when you go beyond a white person’t specific white sub-national-ethnic group.

I believe you are better off appealing to white’s self interest, especially economic self interest.

A pro-white party sounds less effective than using Youtube-Internet videos to reach a large number of whites and educate them.

Focus on statistics on legal immigration rather than illegal immigration. NumbersUSA and FAIR already deal with illegal immigration. You should focus on legal immigration to fill a niche.

What if instead of a party, you ran videos about how legal immigrants consume welfare and how we are paying for organizations like La Raza from taxpayer money, etc?

If we cut off welfare to legal immigrants, or just generally made them feel unwelcome, legal immigrants many would leave because the cost of living in the US is high.

Inform whites about how poll numbers show a sizable minority of legal Muslim immigrants support terrorism, how many legal Mexicans do not feel loyal to the United States.

Use poll numbers and data to make your point on Youtube or similar venues.

You will reach far more people if you make a hit video on legal immigration. I’d rather you spend X amount of money on videos than on a political party that can’t win elections. Also, political parties tend to attract fringe types with too much time on their hands rather than high IQ professionals.

The problem that our movement faces is that the doctrines of multiculturalism have so dominated our society that most people are incapable of even entertaining the simple idea that whites have common interests and a right to exist as a race. Most white Americans blindly accept the idea that all races are equal despite the obvious indicators (such as black domination of sports and white domination of science)that the races are biologically different. My own sister in law began screaming at me and threw me out of my brother’s house a few days ago when I made the “mistake” of stating that blacks had lower IQs as a race than whites and that you could sink trillions of dollars into the Washington DC schools without significantly increasing their miserable test scores. I told her the only way to increase the scores would to bring in white or North Asian students.

Now a race realist would see my statement as just a simple statement of fact as would anyone who has read The Bell Curve by Charles Murray. You get similar reactions to that of my sister-in-law’s if you bring up the issue of black crime and the obvious campaign by the media and the government to obscure the extent of black criminality. The problem we have is that the fifty years of multicultural indoctrination is creating a problem of cognitive dissonance. The solution to this problem starts with understanding that you can’t “get there (white solidarity and the white American Renaissance) from here (current multi-cultural America)”. We need to prepare the waters first before attempting this crossing. Fortunately the way is simple and each one of us has an important part to play that is within our means to accomplish. Each of us make the effort to challenge the current orthodoxy on a personal level starting with our friends, family and neighbors.

If you have lived a reasonably respectable and productive life your words and thoughts will matter to the people nearest you. Don’t expect that your truth telling will be rewarded immediately but you will have the satisfaction of telling the truth as you see it. IF you have thought through your beliefs and can provide examples and facts to back them up you will be much better able to hold your position in any conversation. Note that I did not mention the workplace as free speech there is still punished severely as you well know. The has not quite reached into the backyard BBQ yet though it seems Obama’s cronies are working on that now. (watch those college students) You will find that many whites know in the back of their minds that they are being fed a pack of lies and many will be receptive to what you have to say.

Just saying a “forbidden” thing has great power because it helps break through the social taboos and opens the way for the expansion of the argument. We must take a lesson from the pages of the Cultural Marxist play book and start waging a cultural guerrilla war against them. Now this may seem like a small thing to you but anyone who has ever farmed or even raised a small vegetable garden knows that the single most important thing for gaining success is to prepare the soil. Whites may still be at least a decade away from being able to create a White nationalist party like the BNP. What we can do is start preparing the soil by exposing more and more people to our thoughts.

This is my first visit to this site. Interesting. When observing the cultural upheavals that have occurred in this country of the past decades, I am reminded of a quote by Thomas Jefferson, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”. At its foundation our current difficulties are based in large part on our own cultural and societal ethics, such as , “help others”. perform “good deeds”, and so on. Our democracy originally was intended to be based overwhelmingly on not only free enterprise, being industrious, but also to be concerned about your neighbors, voluntarily help the less fortunate, and to be free of Tyranny forever. Unfortunately, these ethnic, ethical and very real distinctions that seperate us from those from other cultures and backgrounds that have not been raised to “contribute”, but only to “receive”, parenthetically and unfortunately have been used to bring about our own demise, as a culture and as a force for good within and without the confines of our own country. When we began to move away from strict interpretation of our Constitution, that perversion affected our most endearing and important “traits” as a culture, and as a chesive people. To find meaning not clearly stated within the Constitution to turn this society from an “endeavor-based” one to an “entitlement” one, allowed those that do not share our cultural heritage of hard work, respect for authority, and commitment to our country, to pry open the doors of justice in the quest to obtain “social equality”, (a myth in and of itself), which supposed equality was to be provided to all without sacrifice, has now become nothing more that a codeword for getting “something for nothing”. True to form, the liberals, have determined that they can acheive such equality through legislation, which again opens up the flood gates of governmental hand-outs and destroys the integrity of those it assists ever more so by degrading them into nothing more than “puppets” reaching for crumbs freely given when instead, if they had been taught to work hard, acheive, make something of their life, their place in society would be much more secure and not subject to the whims of the politicians that have arranged the game merely to obtain votes, power and money. It has been forecast that there is Revolution in the air within this country. And not the one predicted by the biased major News Medias that only give half of a story, that the minorities and the liberal cause has engaged in revolutionary thinking to succeed, but, I believe a revolution to return this country to the form and eminence it once had and sustained for over Two Hundred years. If our mutual concerns and efforts can combine, if we as a productive race can overcome and return to the “less government is best” rationale, we may be able to rid ourselves of the unheard of “open border” policies encouraged by the current liberal/socialistic ideologues that now clutter our Senate and House, and lastly, as had our Forefathers, fashion a realistic construct of Democracy free from the burden of having to “hold the hand” of those who will not work, to one where the success of all of its people is determined on the basis that hard work improves ourselves, our lives and our furture. Wouldn’t that be nice if these “entitlement” theorists and legislators started waking up to this most basic fact before its too late. I close with a final thought, “Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that the son of a mineworker can become the head of the mine, that a child of farmworkers can become the president of a great nation. It is what we make out of what we have, not what we are given, that separates one person from another.”, from Nelson Mandella.

Welcome, FG.

It’s always struck me how, as whites get more and more generous (we’re way beyond “fairness” at this point, what with affirmative action and all) the minorities get angrier and angrier.

Thanks for writing. If I may make a request: Use paragraphs. The posting format isn’t kind to people who want to break by [tab]ulating, so you kind of have to use a pair of [enter]s.

What’s the prospect of getting someone to create a web portal linking all related pro-white sites? To get anywhere we need a sense of support. I have seen plenty of disconnected blogs and lone wolves out there, that need to be pulled in.