Clear Thinking Family, Race, Religion, Culture, Politics

October 18, 2016

Proof the U.S. Election is being Rigged by the Democrats

Filed under: Government — Editor @ 10:59 am

The Hillary campaign has been hiring thugs to disrupt Donald Trump’s rallies. Here’s the proof:


Oh, and Hillary’s operatives are also committing massive voter fraud.

And these are the criminals the Media is rooting for. It makes me want to throw up.

October 11, 2016

National Post Becomes Completely Unhinged over Donald Trump

Filed under: Media — Editor @ 10:37 am

I’ve tried to be generous about the extreme pro-Hillary Clinton anti-Donald Trump slant in the Canadian media, but this does it for me. The National Post has gone totally insane

National Post website Oct. 11, 2016

National Post website Oct. 11, 2016

The first five “stories” on the front page of the National Post website today are all violently anti-Trump. You don’t even have to read them to get the message: Trump is evil, a slimeball, the new Hitler. But that’s not all. The rest of the page is the same.

I won’t put in the links to this disgusting piece of opinion propaganda. Here are the other headlines:

  • Mark Burnett allegedly threatened $5M lawsuit if anyone leaks Apprentice footage. So Clinton donors offered to pay legal fees
  • Paul Ryan abandons Trump to focus on Congressional races as Mike Pence renews support
  • Warren Buffett scolds Donald Trump on taxes, discloses 2015 return data despite being under audit
  • Trump plays caudillo in threatening to investigate Clinton
  • ‘It’s not the locker room, it’s you’ mother f___er’: Trevor Noah says Trump’s comments ‘glorify’ rape
  • Thank you and goodbye Donald Trump

Yes, that’s right; there are eleven (11) anti-Trump screeds on one page, eleven!

What’s the cause of this? I wrote a letter to the editor the other day suggesting the fact that all the top editors on the National Post are women had skewed their view of the Republican candidate. Maybe there’s some other reason.

Maybe the Post, like the Mop and Flail and the Toronto Black Hole are all in the tank for the Progressive, globalist, elites who own them.

Whatever the cause, this is the end of Canadian journalism. Objectivity has been thrown out the window just as if we were all living in the Soviet Union. Perhaps we are, and just don’t know it.

October 10, 2016

The Solution to Canada’s Aboriginal Problem: Give them a Country

Filed under: Nation State,Race — Editor @ 9:15 am

Canada’s aboriginals have been a problem for Canada since the first French settlers were attacked by the Iroquois. The solution is staring us in the face. Since we took their land, we need to give it back to them; and not just a sliver, a lot of it.

Champlain fighting with the Irquois 1609

Champlain fighting with the Iroquois 1609


Let’s start with first principles. Peoples, that is, ethnic groups, or sub-racial groups, are happiest when they live in their own country. The reverse of this is that ethnic groups are unhappiest, and most likely to indulge in communal violence and civil war, when they are forced to live with and alongside other ethnic groups. There are any number of examples around the world of how this plays out, and is playing out, in the Middle East and elsewhere.

It is certainly true in Canada where the French and English have had an uneasy relationship since the Defeat of Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham in 1759. Besides differing on the Riel rebellion, Quebeckers rioted against constription in 1918 and again in 1942. In 1995 Quebec came within a whisker of leaving Canada through a referendum (49.4% yes, 50.6% no).

It was also true in relations between European settlers and the native aboriginals. Iroquois warriors attacked French settlers in the 1600’s and subsequently Metis (bi-racial) aboriginals were involved in the First and aboriginals in the Second Riel rebellion in Western Canada. Indeed, the RCMP, originally the North West Mounted Police, were formed primarily to curb American rum runners from selling alcohol to Canadian aboriginals.

Since then problems of violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, missing women, alcoholism, drug addiction, diabetes, unemployment and suicide have been endemic in the native community. There are many causes of these problems, but certainly losing more than 90 percent of their land must have something to do with it.

So what is the solution? My idea is to give the “First Nations” enough land, resources and infrastructure to create a viable modern nation. Although native peoples only make up 4.3 percent of the Canadian population, I suggest they be given back a quarter of the country; a giant swath of territory from Labrador around James and Hudson Bay to the oil sands of Northern Alberta and beyond, into the North West Territories. This would give Canada’s aboriginals Quebec’s hydro-electric resources, Manitoba’s salt water port of Churchill and Alberta oil sands; ample space and resources for 1.4 Million people.

What would it give the rest of us, besides peace and tranquility?

First and foremost it would end the possibility of a Third Riel Rebellion, such as is described in the book, Uprising by Douglas Bland. The fact is that if Canada’s natives ever wanted to seriously disrupt this country, they could easily cut all our electricity transmission lines, major rail lines, oil pipelines, gas pipelines and roads. Read the book and your hair will literally rise on your head.

Secondly, it would put the natives on the side of more development, rather than less. They would want an expansion of both the oil sands and northern hydro, and they would welcome more ice-free days in their port.

Thirdly it would empty many Canadian prisons of their aboriginal inmates. In future they would have to be housed and looked after by this new northern nation. It needs a name, so I’ll call it Abronord, for Aboriginal North. Abronord would also be responsible for aboriginals who had drifted into Canada’s inner cities looking for warmth and welfare. Because of the immense revenues available to Abronord, the social services ministry of the new nation would be able to match or exceed the benefits available in Canada.

Fourthly—and this is particularly important for Canadians—it would establish racial origin as the basis not only for Abronord, but for Canada too. Members of the Alt-Right who currently are casting about for the means to re-Europeanize Canada should welcome an idea which would establish a principle they could rely upon.

Of course all this would mean repudiating existing concepts of Multiculturalism and Charter Rights, but this isn’t a flaw, it’s a feature. The whole idea of First Nations is based on race, so by agreeing in effect to recreating a First Nation, we would also be acknowledging our own need for a nation of European Canadians.

Everybody wins, yes? Let’s try it.

October 9, 2016

The War on Canada

Filed under: Environmentalism,Nation State,Progressivism — Editor @ 8:45 am

Imagine Canada is at war with an adversary that has some power, but not enough to simply invade. It tries to destroy us incrementally, as Britain tried to destroy Nazi Germany. What would it do?

Prime Minister Trudeau, Sept. 21, 2016.

Prime Minister Trudeau

Well, the lifeblood of any economy, especially a wartime economy, is energy. What an attacking country would do would be to destroy Canada’s energy infrastructure, just as British and American bombers tried (successfully) to destroy Germany’s. At first this wouldn’t be effective as Germany’s energy sources were spread out, but eventually, incrementally, the refineries would be bombed, the pipelines ruptured, the hydro dams blasted and the synthetic fuel plants burnt.

The Germany economy would grind to a halt. Tanks would be stopped for lack of diesel fuel. Submarines would be docked. The war would be over. This is the lesson of history.

Now, back to Canada. The Liberal tax on carbon, announced by Prime Minister Trudeau is aimed at cutting back the use of fuel. It is aimed at reducing national production. Liberals say ‘oh, yes, but we’ll replace fossil fuel with green energy.’ Unfortunately, even if that were possible, and it isn’t as we’ve just seen in South Australia, it would reduce Canadian productivity by adding cost to one aspect of manufacturing: energy.

Reducing productivy in wartime is what strategic bombing was all about. Reducing it in peacetime is, frankly, unprecidented. Never before in history has a Western government set out to actually make the lives of its citizens worse than they were before. Never before has a government tried to destroy one of the major industries in the economy. It doesn’t matter what the rationale is for this action; what matters is the result. The result will be less food, less housing, more social disruption, more crime, more chaos.

But attacking energy is only half of it. The Trudeau government, and the Conservative government before it, have attacked Canadian industry in another way. Free trade has had the effect of closing major Canadian industries and blocking the creation of others. Free Trade has had the same effect, exactly, as if those industries were bombed from the air. They’re shut down; their employees are out of work.

But even that’s not the end of it. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have been busy importing immigrants in large numbers to replace Canadians who do have jobs. This includes high tech jobs involving special permits and low tech jobs for Canadians with lower educational standards. High or low, it doesn’t matter. You’re fired.

So, to summarize, what do we have here? We have a conserted, multi-year, multi-party attempt to destroy existing Canadian industries, to hobble those that remain and to replace workers with jobs with foreigners.

If this isn’t a war on Canada, I don’t know what is.

October 7, 2016

Zionists vs Cosmopolitans; the Nationalist Argument in Judaism

Filed under: Jews,Nation State — Editor @ 12:47 pm

There is on the right of the Alt-Right a group of white nationalists, who I’ll call the browns, who blame all the problems of Europeans, and whites generally, on the Jews. Certainly there’s a lot of blame to go around, but these critics routinely forget to make the distinction between Zionists and Cosmopolitan Jews. I believe this is a big mistake because it lumps our friends in with our enemies. 

Israeli border fence with Egypt

Israeli border fence with Egypt. This is what ethnic nationalism looks like in practice.

Sometimes I wish critics of the Jews would read a little Jewish history. Specifically they should take a look at the dispute in the Jewish community after publication of the book Der Judenstaat  by Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism. He argued Jews would always be discriminated against until they founded a Jewish state of their own.

Herzl was witness to mass rallies in Paris following the Dreyfus trial, where many chanted “Death to the Jews!” Herzl came to reject his early ideas regarding Jewish emancipation and assimilation and to believe that the Jews must remove themselves from Europe and create their own state

His appeal in 1896 was by no means universally accepted. Many Reform and Orthodox Jews rejected Zionism’s basic premise of creating a Jewish state in Palestine and having Jews either emigrate to it or, at the very least, view it as “central” to their Jewish identity.

The reason Orthodox Jews rejected Zionism was they felt Israel should be created by Divine intervention. Because it required human effort, they considered Zionism a false messianic movement. Reform Jews, especially in the United States, rejected Zionism for an entirely different reason; because they believed in the principles of the Enlightenment and universal human rights. For example, writing in the Washington Report, Allan C. Brownfeld, notes:

On March 4, 1919 Julius Kahn, a Jewish congressman from San Fransisco, delivered to President Woodrow Wilson a statement endorsed by 299 prominent Jewish Americans denouncing the Zionists for attempting to segregate Jews and reverse the historic trend toward emancipation. It objected to the creation of a distinctly Jewish state in Palestine because such a political entity would be contrary “to the principles of democracy.”

On April 20, 1922, Rabbi David Philipson, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, rejected the characterization of Palestine “as the national home of the Jewish people.” He insisted that, “No land can be spoken of as the national home of the Jewish people, as Jews are nationals of many lands.”

So, to be clear, Zionists believed that Jews were essentially a racial grouping while Reform Jews believed Jews were a religious community. In truth, both were correct. Because members of Jewish religious communities in Europe married within their group, they became racially distinct from the Europeans they lived amongst. This also made discrimination easier for outsiders because they developed language, dress and racial features that set them apart. They were also, annoyingly to their neighbours, very successful businessmen.

Fast forward to 1948 when the Zionists were successful at creating the state of Israel at much cost in lives and effort. The book Exodus by Leon Uris puts this history in fictional but highly readable form. Two years later, Israel passed the Law of Return, giving Jews anywhere in the world, the right to live in Israel and gain Israeli citizenship.  Fifteen years after that, in 1965, the Johnson administration passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, sponsored by Philip Hart, the grandson of Irish immigrants and Emanuel Celler, whose paternal grandparents and maternal grandmother were Jewish. Celler had been a passionate advocate for eliminating the national origin quotas as a basis for immigration restriction since 1924. The 1965 act did exactly that; opening America’s doors to a flood of third world immigrants which has increased ever since.

So we see a profound difference. Jewish nationalists created a Jewish state and told Jews everywhere they could come and live there. Meanwhile in America, a Jewish descendant managed to overthrow the national origins provisions of the immigration act, doing the exact opposite for the United States.

This is the profound, fundamental and total difference between Zionists and what I call Cosmopolitan Jews. Zionists, true Zionists, not only believe in the idea of an ethnic state, they actually live there, in Israel. They walk the walk. Cosmos, on the other hand, believe in globalism, free trade, open borders and universal human rights. They may talk the talk, but they don’t live it. Their form of Jewishness is to deny there is any racial component to being Jewish.

Here is where the problem lies. Because they oppose the idea of the nation state, and especially ethnic nation states, they also oppose any move by white Americans and Canadians to restrict third world immigration. Cosmopolitan Jews like billionaire Georg Soros spend millions trying to discredit ethnic and nationalist parties in Europe and America. He is currently trying to discredit Donald Trump.

To many on the Alt Right, pressure from Jewish owned newspapers, film studios and television networks against Trump is reason enough to tar all Jews with the brush of conspiracy and duplicity. Clearly, I believe this is wrongheaded, politically and morally. To win the gigantic social struggle for white sovereignty we need to be able to distinguish our friends from our enemies. Israelis like Caroline Glick and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are Jewish nationalists who not only agree with white ethnic nationalists, but they put their agreements with people like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Mihály Orbán into practice.

Have a look at what Glick has to say about Soros in a column called “Soros’ Campaign of Global Chaos.”

Then there are Soros’s actions on behalf of illegal immigration. From the US to Europe to Israel, Soros has implemented a worldwide push to use immigration to undermine the national identity and demographic composition of Western democracies. The leaked emails show that his groups have interfered in European elections to get politicians elected who support open border policies for immigrants from the Arab world and to financially and otherwise support journalists who report sympathetically on immigrants.

Soros’s groups are on the ground enabling illegal immigrants to enter the US and Europe. They have sought to influence US Supreme Court rulings on illegal immigration from Mexico. They have worked with Muslim and other groups to demonize Americans and Europeans who oppose open borders.

In Israel as well, Soros opposes government efforts to end the flow of illegal immigration from Africa through the border with Egypt.

The notion at the heart of the push for the legalization of unfettered immigration is that states should not be able to protect their national identities. If it is racist for Greeks to protect their national identity by seeking to block the entrance of millions of Syrians to their territory, then it is racist for Greece – or France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden the US or Poland – to exist.

Of course, this is what we on the Alt-Right say as well, if only we could write as well as Glick. The key is the phrase, “national identity and demographic composition.” That is the exact definition of ethnicity and the ethnic nation state. This is what I mean when I say Zionists are our allies.

The photo at the top of this post shows what ethnic nationalism looks like. Pictures of Mexicans crawling across the U.S. southern border is what universal internationalism looks like. Or to put it another way, Jewish political differences are now reflected in the real world in a way that would have amazed those early debaters in the 19th Century. We need, as Canadians and Americans, to honour Zionists for their foresight and castigate those Cosmopolitans for their failure to grasp the reality that race creates society, not the other way round.

We need, in short, to start criticizing the one group and applauding the other. They’re both Jewish, but they sure as Hell aren’t the same.

October 1, 2016

Niall Ferguson, Strangely Blind about Race

Filed under: Uncategorized — Editor @ 7:25 pm

Some times smart people are blind to obvious facts, especially if they aren’t politically correct. Here’s a doozie from Niall Ferguson, one of Britain’s most renowned historians, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University.

Blacks escaping Africa

Blacks escaping Africa

I was reading Niall’s work on Europe called “Civilization, the West and the Rest” with a great deal of interest. Why was the West better than the rest, why had it triumphed in the competition between the civilizations around the world? He has a number of answers: the geography of Europe, Judeo-Christian concepts of free will, property ownership.

All true of course, but I sensed something was missing. Humm, what could it be?

It took a while, but I found the answer on page 176 of the hardcover edition. After noting all the European scientists who had found cures or causes of a wide range of African diseases he had this warning:

Lurking within the real science was a pseudo-science, which asserted that mankind was not a single more or less homogeneous species but was subdivided and ranked from an Aryan ‘master race’ down to a black race unworthy of the designation homo sapiens.

Pseudo-science? The races are all the same? I wondered if that were so, why hadn’t Africans discovered the causes of the diseases which were plaguing the continent? Why hadn’t African missionaries and explorers headed off into the wilds of Europe? Why hadn’t African countries established trading ports in Europe as European countries had in Africa, India and China?

It was a puzzlement. But I continued on to page 177 and read what he had to say about Charles Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton, who began thinking of how science might improve humans, a concept he called ‘eugenics;’ the use of selective breeding to improve the gene pool. This was hardly a huge stretch as exactly the same concept is used in improving the breed of horses, cattle, pigs, wheat, fruit trees and pumpkins. Still it comes as a shock to Niall.

The crucial point to note is that a hundred years ago work like Galton’s was at the cutting edge of science. Racism was not some backward-looking reactionary ideology; the scientifically uneducated embraced it as enthusiastically as people today accept the theory of man-made global warming. It was only the second half of the 20th Century that eugenics and the related concept of ‘racial hygiene’ were finally discredited with the realization that genetic differences between the races are relatively small, and the variations within races quite large.

What a mouthful! What a concept! Niall is suggesting first that the differences between races is minor and secondly that you can’t average them and compare the averages. And yet, he’s just done so! He’s admitted Africa is a “dark continent” that has so little electricity, you can see how backward it is from space. He’s told us European science was key to eradicating African diseases, and yet he suggests that “differences between the races are relatively small” in a book about why Europeans succeeded where other big, rich civilizations–like the Chinese–did not.

What he’s overlooked is that the European, white, race, was spectacularly more successful than the Chinese, African, Asian or South American peoples. If the difference in genetics was so small, why was the difference in outcomes so large? Indeed, since eugenics is nothing more than breeding in other mammals, a scientific process which has been proven over millennia, how can he dismiss it and still be scientific?

Well, of course, he can’t.

This is what you get when modern historians steeped in political correctness set themselves to analyze cultural differences without observing the racial differences that caused them in the first place.

Have another look at the photo at the top of the post. Yes, those are Africans trying to escape the squalor of Africa by moving to Europe. They won’t though. You can’t escape yourself, no matter how far you travel, or how dangerous the journey. When you get there, you’re still who you were in the first place.

In this case, you’re still back in Africa.

One can only hope a new crop of historians will take a truly scientific look at why Europe succeeded; one that is unafraid of putting science ahead of politics.

September 25, 2016

Consensual Spanking, a Response to Cultural Marxism

Filed under: Progressivism,Society,Women — Editor @ 10:37 am

This may seem a stretch for many who don’t associate sex with politics. But politics is all about society and society is all about sex. So, what happens when a particular political philosophy skews sexual relations, making women into men and men into women?

All State Texas Spanking Party

Texas All State Spanking Party

There have always been sadists and masochists indulging in spanking; they show up in Greek and Roman pottery and frescos, in illustrations through the Middle Ages, in Victorian literature (and how) and today in the thriving BDSM and Kink lifestyles. Google “spanking” or “spanking parties,” or check out what’s available on Tumblr for kink fetishists, and you’ll get your eyes opened.

But something’s changed. What was a private obsession, a secret shared with often anonymous  partners, has started to go mainstream. It appears to have been gradual; a move from private clubs to paid public performances, from small scale spanking parties to large spanking clubs, like the Spanking Club of New York which has regular events, including a bi-annual mountain resort weekend in the Spring and Fall.

This, in turn, has morphed into multi-day spanking conventions, like the Texas All State Spanking Party and the Lone Star Spanking Party which book major hotels and have hundreds of participants.

All this is by way of introduction. What I’m describing, without positive or negative comment, is a trend towards greater participation in spanking as a lifestyle choice by both single and married individuals across the United States. In particular, I’m referring to greater participation by women, many of whom show they are willing to be disciplined by men in private, semi-private and public settings.

This means something and I think that something is that women are reacting in response to social pressures over the past fifty years that have feminized men and masculinized women. This is something of a rebellion against the women’s movement, against safe spaces, and micro-aggressions, against women being forced to “have it all” by working and homemaking. This is an attempt, I’m arguing, to find through infantalization a return to the patriarcial society abhored and deplored by Cultural Marxists.

In effect, in accepting a bare assed spanking, women are making a political statement. They are showing what they think of feminism.

Too far? Am I making a leap into psychological darkness? Maybe not. We know the Frankfurt school, and its followers, sought to end war by ending the patriarchy. To do this this, they suggested the family unit needed to be destroyed through sexual licence, homosexuality, women’s rights, birth control, state support and a variety of other ways. If male dominance could be removed from the family, they argued, then male control of nations—and national warmaking—could be ended as well.

God knows they’ve been remarkably successfull, first taking control of educational institutions, then the media and finally politics. Everything you hear today that is “politically correct” is being described that way by the sheep-like followers of Cultural Marxism. So, given this, how can we account for cosensual spanking? How can women, so marinated in feminism they prefer dildos to the real thing, how can they pull their skirts up and present their backsides to be smacked?

I suggest what’s happening is that the society preferred by feminists feels unnatural to many women, perhaps most when you get them to peel off layers of pc pandering. Down below, on some level, women want someone else to be in control of them, their lives and their families. Being spanked, allowing some man to spank them, is a way of rebalancing the norms they’re forced to accept in day-to-day life.

I’ll conclude that there is another actor in this drama; the internationalists who have through globalization and free trade, shipped millions of manufacturing jobs overseas. By removing jobs from middle class men they have destroyed the ability of these men to be the breadwinner in millions of families. Women, mostly in service jobs, have been forced to wear the pants in the family.

For years they’ve been told this is great, wonderful, empowering. Now, finally, they see it ain’t great at all. It sucks. No wonder they’re taking their pants down. No wonder they want to be spanked.

September 19, 2016

Britain Lied about the Reason for WWI

Filed under: Government,Nation State,WWI — Editor @ 4:05 pm

We will be remembering the terrible carnage of WWI soon, but we will not be remembering the cause. The reason is that the British government misled its people, and the Empire, about why it started. It lied and the lie lies buried because it’s so embarassing.

Treaty of London used in a propaganda poster

The 1839 Treaty of London used in a propaganda poster

You know the story; Britain declared war on Germany because the latter violated Belgian territory in its attack on France using the Schlieffen Plan. The official line was that Britain had guaranteed Belgian neutrality, along with other European countries, in the Treaty of London which ended the Dutch-Belgian civil war in 1839.

That war, in turn, was a product of the fallout of the Napoleonic wars when Protestant Holland wound up with Catholic provinces to the south. The south revolted, the north tried to impose its will and France marched in to protect it. The London conference which sorted out the mess started in 1838 and continued into 1839.

Most of the treaty has to do with the borders of the new country and the rights of citizens and businesses who wanted to move to the other side. There is nothing in it guaranteeing Belgian neutrality. What there is, is an injunction on Belgium to respect its own borders (notably with Holland). Here’s the section:

Article VII.

Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other States.

A similar treaty was signed on the same day with Holland and the guaranteeing powers. In other words, the powers were guaranteeing Holland that they would not allow Belgium to invade it, and guaranteeing Belgium they would not allow Holland to invade.

This is pretty simple to understand. The two sides had had a civil war and now the great powers were telling them the war was over. They would live within the borders described and that was that. If it meant anything else, it was an admonition to Holland not to try another Ten Days Campaign.

How do we jump from that document 75 years previous to a reason to declare war on Germany? Belgium had remained neutral. It had not invaded Holland or anyone else. Quite the contrary, it had been invaded by Germany, one of the signatories to the Treaty.

Clearly, and I mean this, clearly the document did not stipulate any obligation on any of the guaranteeing powers. The obligation was on Belgium, no one else.

When you stand in remembrance this Nov. 11, just remember this one fact: it was a put up job, completely unnecessary, a self-inflicted wound on European civilization by a nation that was envious of Germany as it had been a hundred years earlier of France.

Belgium had nothing to do with it.

September 11, 2016

What the American Response should have been to 9/11

Filed under: Islam,Nation State — Editor @ 8:32 am

The September 11, 2001 attack was a national tragedy, but not just for the dead and their families. It was a tragedy because America hit out at the wrong enemy.

The north face of Two World Trade Center (south tower) immediately after being struck by United Airlines

The north face of Two World Trade Center (south tower) immediately after being struck by United Airlines Flight 175

Yes Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were the direct cause of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. But they weren’t the reason it was attacked, any more than the first German soldiers into Poland were the reason for WWII. Osama was merely the commander of a tactical operation. Who was the actual leader? Who stood to gain from it? Who should America have taken down?

On this 15the Anniversary of that horrible day, let’s look at the facts and pin them to the wall. Here they are.

  • Islam tells its followers to kill unbelievers wherever they are found. Saudi Arabia is the home of islam and guards the two holy city of Islam.
  • Saudi Arabia promotes the most aggressive and fundamentalist version of Islam.
  • Osama bin Laden was a Saudi millionaire, son of the founder of the largest construction company in the Kingdom.
  • Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
  • A recently de-classified congressional report says “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government.”
  • Money was sent from the Saudi Royal family to the hijackers, among other alleged links.

Well, I could go on, but this is very clear and most of it was clear on the second or third day after the attack when the names and origins of the attackers were determined.

Instead of immediately seizing Saudi assets in the United States and detaining the members of the bin Laden family in the United States, the U.S. government flew them out of the country during the air shutdown.

Instead of declaring war on Saudi Arabia and bombing Mecca and Medina, the U.S. launched a kind of police action in—wait for it—Afghanistan, a poor, landlocked country in central Asia that hasn’t got the infrastructure, equipment or military capable of attacking anyone.

In the wake of the attack, Ann Coulter said, “”We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” She was right then, and she’s right today. America hit out at the wrong enemy.

That enemy is still there, still working to destroy America, still pushing its militaristic, expansionistic and exclusionary religion on the world. The guilty men have yet to be punished. It is time they were.

September 9, 2016

Race is just Family writ Large

Filed under: Multiculturalism,Race,Society — Editor @ 8:44 am

Discussing race is a dangerous, even toxic, topic. Any suggestion that one race should be preferred over another is considered heresy. So let’s discuss what race really is.

Yes, it's a family

Yes, it’s a family

It should be obvious that whatever else members of a race have in common, the basic linkage is genetic; that is, members are linked however remotely, by biology. Pointing out this distinction is now considered politically incorrect, socially unacceptable and possibly even illegal.

And yet, if you go from the general to the particular, from the macro to the micro, the whole picture changes.

The micro version of race is the family; a father, mother and their children. They are linked very closely genetically and this produces strong personal bonds. What mother doesn’t love her children? What father doesn’t want his sons and daughters to succeed in life? Well, it’s obvious.

So why does this change when we move back up the scale? Why shouldn’t the extended members of a family want to help each other, to offer student loans, put someone up for the night or drive a relative to a hospital? Isn’t this what families do? Don’t you feel a need, indeed, a desire, to help members of your family?

Isn’t it true that when a family member dies you feel the hurt personally? Don’t you go to weddings to celebrate family and to funerals to provide comfort and support? Sure it is. So why are these same feelings wrong when expressed over the whole family in the nation? Why is it wrong for European Canadians to support and encourage other European Canadians, just as they would if they were more closely related?

How have we so upended reality and morality to turn a virtue into a vice?

While you consider that question, let’s look at the science. William Donald Hamilton (W.D. Hamilton) is one of the most significant evolutionary theorists of the 20th Century. He argues there is a genetic basis for the existence of altruism; the fact that an individual may sacrifice itself for the good of its group. Frank Salter is an Australian academic who has popularized Hamilton’s work and expanded it, particularly in his book On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration. Salter says groups who share a greater percentage of their genes form what he calls “ethnies,” biological populations that share feelings for each other. Thus ethnic kinship becomes a natural extension of family kinship.

After laying the scientific groundwork for ethnic genetic interests, Salter discusses their ethical and political implications. He writes, “It is parents’ duty to care for their children. Do we have a similar duty to nurture our ethnies? . . . When ethnic competition is high, as is the case in competition between members of different races, failure to show ethnic loyalty is the genetic equivalent of betraying a child or a grandchild.” He argues that “it would be prudent for a population to defend its most precious collective interest—distinctive genes carried by the ethny—with the most powerful means at its disposal.” Yet to date, “no state yet developed has reliably kept its promise as an adaptive ethnic group strategy.”

This is going to be a very hard pill to swallow for left-wing progressives and cultural Marxists because it means there is an historical, biological and genetic reason for race consciousness and that reason is that members of a race or sub-race are actually members of our own family. Racial consciousness is thus no longer a mental construct, it is demonstrably part of human biology and you know what happens when laws and good intentions come up against human biology.

Perhaps the best example of this is prohibition where millions of Americans were turned into criminals by law when they refused to stop drinking alcohol, something the body enjoys. Eventually social progressives threw in the towel and repealed prohibition in 1933 through the 21st Amendment. Race mixing, or to use the modern word for it, multiculturalism, is equally an attempt to deny human nature. It flies in the face of genetics. It is, in short, anti-scientific and will fail, perhaps spectacularly.

Love of family, community, the ethnic nation: now, that is scientific!

The next time you hear someone describe white people in a negative way, ask them if they feel the same way about their parents and children? Ask them how and where they draw a difference between their family and the other European Canadians in Canada? Ask them to explain how illogical, unreasonable and uncaring they are.

Ethnic nations are the only solution to world peace and prosperity. In the same way you want to live in your own home with your own family, national families should live in their own homes, their own nations. And no nation should interfere in the affairs of another, just the same as your neighbours shouldn’t tell you want to do in your own home.

This should be our goal and our guide. It’s only natural.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress