“You Stole America from the Indians”

Advertisements

Lavrov vs. McCain: Is Russia an Enemy?

The founding fathers of the Munich Security Conference, said John McCain, would be “be alarmed by the turning away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism.”

McCain was followed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who called for a “post-West world order.” Russia has “immense potential” for that said Lavrov, “we’re open for that inasmuch as the U.S. is open.”

Now McCain is not wrong. Nationalism is an idea whose time has come again. Those “old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism” do seem everywhere ascendant. But that is a reality we must recognize and deal with. Deploring it will not make it go away.

But what are these “universal values” McCain is talking about?

Democracy? The free elections in India gave power to Hindu nationalists. In Palestine, Hamas. In Lebanon, Hezbollah. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, then overthrown in a military coup welcomed by the world’s oldest and greatest democracy. Have we forgotten it was a democratically elected government we helped to overthrow in Kiev?

Democracy is a bus you get off when it reaches your stop, says Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, autocrat of Ankara, a NATO ally.

Is freedom of religion a “universal value”?

Preach or proselytize for Christianity in much of the Islamic world and you are a candidate for martyrdom. Practice freedom of speech in Xi Jinping’s China and you can wind up in a cell.

As for the Western belief in the equality of all voluntary sexual relations, in some African and Muslim countries, homosexuals are beheaded and adulterers stoned to death.

In Nuristan Province in U.S.-liberated Afghanistan this month, an armed mob of 300 besieged a jail, shot three cops and dragged out an 18-year-old woman who had eloped with her lover to escape an arranged marriage. Beaten by relatives, the girl was shot by an older brother with a hunting rifle and by a younger brother with his AK-47.

Afghan family values.

Her lover was turned over to the husband. An “honor killing,” and, like suicide bombings, not uncommon in a world where many see such actions as commendable in the sight of Allah.

McCain calls himself an “unapologetic believer in the West” who refuses “to accept that our values are morally equivalent to those of our adversaries.”

Lavrov seemed to be saying this:

Reality requires us here in Munich to recognize that, in the new struggle for the world, Russia and the U.S. are natural allies not natural enemies. Though we may quarrel over Crimea and the Donbass, we are in the same boat. Either we sail together, or sink together.

Does the foreign minister not have a point?

Unlike the Cold War, Moscow does not command a world empire. Though a nuclear superpower still, she is a nation whose GDP is that of Spain and whose population of fewer than 150 million is shrinking. And Russia threatens no U.S. vital interest.

Where America is besieged by millions of illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico, Russia faces to her south 1.3 billion Chinese looking hungrily at resource-rich Siberia and Russia’s Far East.

The China that is pushing America and its allies out of the East and South China Seas is also building a new Silk Road through former Russian and Soviet provinces in Central Asia. With an estimated 16 million Muslims, Russia is threatened by the same terrorists, and is far closer to the Middle East, the source of Sunni terror.

Is Putin’s Russia an enemy, as McCain seems to believe?

Before we can answer that question, we need to know what the new world struggle is about, who the antagonists are, and what the threats are to us.

If we believe the struggle is for “global democracy” and “human rights,” then that may put Putin on the other side. But how then can we be allies of President el-Sissi of Egypt and Erdogan of Turkey, and the kings, emirs and sultans of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman?

But if the new world struggle is about defending ourselves and our civilization, Russia would appear to be not only a natural ally, but a more critical and powerful one than that crowd in Kiev.

In August 1914, Europe plunged into a 50-month bloodbath over an assassinated archduke. In 1939, Britain and France declared war to keep Poland from having to give up a Prussian port, Danzig, taken from Germany under the duress of a starvation blockade in 1919 and in clear violation of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the Danzigers’ right of self-determination. In the two wars, 50 million to 100 million died.

Today, the United States is confronting Russia, a huge and natural ally, over a peninsula that had belonged to her since the 18th century and is 5,000 miles from the United States.

“We have immense potential that has yet to be tapped into,” volunteered Lavrov. But to deal, we must have “mutual respect.”

Hopefully, President Trump will sound out the Russians, and tune out the Beltway hawks.

How I Saw the Light About Race (Part VIII)

K.T.P., Illinois:

I attended high school in Galesburg, Illinois, from 1966 to 1969. We weren’t “integrated” by government order since everyone, except those in Catholic school, went to the one public school, which was 10 percent black.

There was the usual black behavior—cutting into the front of the lunch line, running the halls like escaped chimps, and sexually harassing white girls.

Things escalated to the boiling point for whites when three soul brothers ganged up on the smallest kid in our class, beating him and breaking his nose.

I called a meeting of the white students at the local hangout, where I urged them to dress in white clothing to show our unity and our disgust with black behavior.

The next morning I was amazed at how the word had spread and how many kids were dressed in white. The blacks walked out of school, to our delight.

My awakening continued in college, where blacks rioted until the National Guard arrived. Whites stood cheering when the buses drove up

My racial awareness became complete as I studied the speeches and writings of Dr. Revilo Oliver and the monumental work by Mr. Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority. I have never looked at race the same since.

 

Ms. P:

Blacks have clearly devolved from a God-fearing generation that was for the most part eager to fit in, exercise their freedom, and develop their talents. The current generation seems to have been spoiled by handouts, bred to hate, inspired by violence, and made to want to destroy any semblance of human accord.

I worked as a New York City guidance counselor from 1989 through 2010, where I served elementary and junior high school children. Family dysfunction, sexual promiscuity, immoral and highly impulsive behavior, a general lack of respect for law and rules, and a flagrant unwillingness or inability to excel intellectually were always the proud hallmark of this new generation. My days were spent trying to help those suffering from the effects of a chaotic and often abusive home life, intervening or attempting to lessen the emotional and physical bruises caused by school violence (black on black), and dealing with explosive and verbally abusive parents or caretakers. My early years of respect, idealism, and even admiration for the black race seem to be long gone.

It is with serious doubts and skepticism about a peaceful future between the races that I look toward tomorrow. I have come face to face with the reality of our incompatibility, and I can only hope for the best for all of us.

 

C.S:

I had zero experience with blacks until I was 14, and I was optimistically curious about them, with no pre-judgments. Then my family moved to the city.

I was a Christian, mid-western farm girl, who effortlessly achieved straight As.  When I did finally meet blacks, I found them to be childish, unintelligent, inarticulate and often immoral and degenerate. That opinion has been confirmed over the decades.

My late husband Paul spent two years with the Peace Corps in Africa. There he witnessed carefree sex, unwed mothers, abandoned orphans, and American aid money intended for educating African kids being stolen by Africans to buy weapons and luxury cars. For a long while, he made endless excuses for blacks until finally he had to conclude, “They’ve still got the jungle blood in their veins.” He believed that within two or three generations, if left to themselves, Africans would revert to their ancestral lifestyle, since they were incapable of maintaining white man’s technology.

My own experience here at home has been similar. I have endured callous black health department bureaucrats, incompetent school officials and teachers, and more recently rude and often drunken black neighbors in my deteriorating neighborhood. These experiences have caused my continued awakening, and lately, as I have witnessed an influx of Hispanics, that awakening has only intensified.

 

Jesse:

No violent encounters with people of other races occurred during my childhood in a white, liberal college town in the Netherlands. Yet, as a teenager, I began to dislike the multicultural, anti-racist ideology I was raised under. Why? I became suspicious of the motives of those who professed it. It seemed to me they secretly believed the opposite of what they preached. Blacks and Arabs were spoken of in the way one tends to speak of retarded persons; whatever they do, they must be forgiven, because they cannot help it. By affecting this attitude, the anti-racists pay a huge compliment to themselves: “Look at me, I am a defender of the weak, I am an altruist!”

The anti-racists claim to be a new priesthood to which we all must submit unconditionally. And so I became skeptical before I even examined the issue itself. Since then, I have lived in big cities in various countries, and have seen the devastating consequences of multiculturalism and mass-immigration with my own eyes. But the seeds of my apostasy were sown by hypocrites in a white, liberal town.

 

[Editor’s Note: This is the final installment of a series. See also Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and Part VII.]

The Benefits of Leftist Violence

Between the attacks against Trump supporters, thuggish protests against Milo Yiannopoulos at college campuses, and the murder of police officers by black militants, political violence appears to be here to stay. Scenes of black-clad protesters smashing windows and ATMs is frightening to Americans, but it’s common in other countries. As someone who has lived abroad, let me say that political violence is normal—and it can be useful.

Continue reading

Is Secession a Solution to Cultural War?

As the culture war is about irreconcilable beliefs about God and man, right and wrong, good and evil, and is at root a religious war, it will be with us so long as men are free to act on their beliefs.

Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever, it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people.

After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” that Harry Truman said we were.

In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests.

One can only imagine how Iranians or Afghans would deal with unelected judges moving to de-Islamicize their nations. Heads would roll, literally.

Which bring us to the first culture war skirmish of the Trump era.

Taking sides with Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the president rescinded the Obama directive that gave transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools. President Donald Trump sent the issue back to the states and locales to decide.

While treated by the media and left as the civil rights cause of our era, the “bathroom debate” calls to mind Marx’s observation, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

Can anyone seriously contend that whether a 14-year-old boy, who thinks he is a girl, gets to use the girls’ bathroom is a civil rights issue comparable to whether African-Americans get the right to vote?

Remarkably, there was vigorous dissent, from DeVos, to returning this issue to where it belongs, with state and local officials.

After yielding on the bathroom question, she put out a statement declaring that every school in America has a “moral obligation” to protect children from bullying, and directed her Office of Civil Rights to investigate all claims of bullying or harassment “against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”

Now, bullying is bad behavior, and it may be horrible behavior.

But when did a Republican Party that believes in states rights decide this was a responsibility of a bureaucracy Ronald Reagan promised but failed to shut down? When did the GOP become nanny-staters?

Bullying is something every kid in public, parochial or private school has witnessed by graduation. While unfortunate, it is part of growing up.

But what kind of society, what kind of people have we become when we start to rely on federal bureaucrats to stop big kids from harassing and beating up smaller or weaker kids?

While the bathroom debate is a skirmish in the culture war, Trump’s solution — send the issue back to the states and the people there to work it out — may point the way to a truce — assuming Americans still want a truce.

For Trump’s solution is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, first advanced in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII — that social problems are best resolved by the smallest unit of society with the ability to resolve them.

In brief, bullying is a problem for parents, teachers, principals to deal with, and local cops and the school district if it becomes widespread.

This idea is consistent with the Republican idea of federalism — that the national government should undertake those duties — securing the borders, fighting the nation’s wars, creating a continental road and rail system — that states alone cannot do.

Indeed, the nationalization of decision-making, the imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions to social problems, the court orders emanating from the ideology of judges — to which there is no appeal — that is behind the culture wars that may yet bring an end to this experiment in democratic rule.

Those factors are also among the primary causes of the fever of secessionism that is spreading all across Europe, and is now visible here.

Consider California. Democrats hold every state office, both Senate seats, two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, 3 in 4 of the congressional seats. Hillary Clinton beat Trump 2-to-1 in California, with her margin in excess of 4 million votes.

Suddenly, California knows exactly how Marine Le Pen feels.

And as she wants to “Let France Be France,” and leave the EU, as Brits did with Brexit, a movement is afoot in California to secede from the United States and form a separate nation.

California seceding sounds like a cause that could bring San Francisco Democrats into a grand alliance with Breitbart.

A new federalism — a devolution of power and resources away from Washington and back to states, cities, towns and citizens, to let them resolve their problems their own way and according to their own principles — may be the price of retention of the American Union.

Let California be California; let red state America be red state America.

What Exactly Causes “White Guilt?”

When Adele was awarded the Record of the Year at the Grammys last week, she felt she had to apologize to Beyonce for having won it over her. After last year’s #Oscarssowhite campaign, blacks, who comprise 13% of the population, were given 30% of the acting nominations for the Academy Awards this year.

Adele must have been so afraid of sparking another Kanye West-Taylor Swift moment that she decided to preempt it by prostrating herself, beforehand, to Queen Bey.

And those Academy members must have been so horror-stricken by the negative publicity of the Oscarssowhite controversy that they made sure not thirteen percent, but thirty percent of this year’s acting nominees were black.

Whites are just absolutely terrified about appearing “racist” against blacks, in any way. It’s a crippling fear, to the point where whites will cower in the face of black demands. Yet there is no equivalent fear regarding the other races.

So why is it that no such fear of being accused of racism exists vis-a-vis yellow people or brown people? It’s not as if Amerindian or Asian features aren’t easily recognizable.

There’s a virtual boycott against Hispanics and Asians at the Oscars, but nobody seems to care. Hispanics and Asians are extremely underrepresented in professional football and basketball, yet nobody expresses concern. (Sport is, of course, the one area of American life where nobody seems to be agitating for proportional participation; Americans seem content to let pro sports remain a meritocracy.)

Nobody ever feels obliged to say, oh, some of my best friends are Hispanic. Or, some of my best friends are Asian. Nobody ever feels the need to prove that he regards Hispanics or Asians as intelligent, civilized human beings. These groups simply don’t provoke the same types of fears that blacks do.

It’s not that there aren’t any scary Hispanic gangs around. The Mexican Mafia is as vicious as any black street gang. And MS-13 may be scarier. But on an individual basis, Hispanics don’t strike fear into the hearts of white people.

And as far as Asians, well, why would whites be afraid of a group who score higher on the SAT’s and are physically smaller and less criminally inclined than they are?

The white fear of being accused of racism against blacks seems to be rooted in the overall white fear of blacks. This leads to the ironic situation where whites are so afraid of blacks that they fear showing how afraid they are of them.

Most whites, even if they don’t fully grasp them, at least sense the many ways in which whites and blacks differ. And so, in their heart of hearts, they realize that they are in fact “racist.” And since they’ve been told time and again by the media how evil this makes them, they end up groveling and acquiescing to black demands in order to show that this is not true.

But it’s a universal law of human nature that the truer something is, the more effort will be spent denying it. It’s the person who constantly says that he’s got honesty and integrity whom you can be sure has neither. It’s the guy who who disparages gays the most vociferously whom you can be pretty sure has pretty strong inclinations in that direction himself. And so on.

Likewise, those who go to the greatest lengths to prove they’re not racist tend to be the ones who in fact feel the most instinctively repelled by blacks. (“Racist” has a lot of vague, overlapping, and usually self-serving definitions, but for purposes of this post, “instinctively repelled” is the sense in which I’m using the word.)

Whites’ feelings of guilt don’t stem from slavery. Only a small percentage of whites in America today had ancestors who owned slaves. And those who did are no more responsible for what their ancestors did than blacks are somehow collectively responsible for the blacks who’ve raped and robbed whites. So whites have no reason to feel individually guilty about what happened long before they were born.

It’s far more in keeping with human nature to feel guilty about one’s own innermost feelings. And if one’s inner thoughts about blacks tend to be negative, and if one is told constantly that harboring such thoughts makes one a bad person, that can lead to feelings of guilt.

Whites aren’t as fearful of appearing prejudiced against Hispanics and Asians simply because they are less prejudiced against them. They may make some negative judgments about those groups, but they tend to feel more comfortable with members of those groups individually, and therefore have less to cover up. When the average white converses with a Hispanic or Asian, he simply doesn’t put his guard up to the same extent.

It’s an almost mathematical relationship: the more uncomfortable a white is with blacks, the more alien he perceives them to be, and the more scared of them he is, the greater the effort he will put forth to make it appear he’s not racist.

A strident, vocal, virtue-signaling stance of anti-racism is itself the best proof off racism there is.