Day By Day by The Great Chris Muir

Monday, December 28, 2015

Alfred Kinsey, Child Sexuality, and Rabbitism

Alfred Kinsey, Child Sexuality, and Rabbitism

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

"The benefits of foreign labor are a lie" - Vox Day

The benefits of foreign labor are a lie 

Vox Day @ Vox Popoli

In Cuckservative, John Red Eagle and I conclusively demonstrated, using official government statistics, that immigrant labor is a net negative to Americans and American workers. Others who are looking into the subject are reliably finding that the importation of foreign labor is harmful:
Last year, thousands of American companies won permission to bring a total of more than 150,000 people into the country as legal guest workers for unskilled jobs, under a federal program that grants them temporary work permits known as H-2 visas. Officially, the guest workers were invited here to fill positions no Americans want: The program is not supposed to deprive any American of a job, and before a company wins approval for a single H-2 visa, it must attest that it has already made every effort to hire domestically. Many companies abide by the law and make good-faith efforts to employ Americans.

Yet a BuzzFeed News investigation, based on Labor Department records, court filings, more than 100 interviews, inspector general reports, and analyses of state and federal data, has found that many businesses go to extraordinary lengths to skirt the law, deliberately denying jobs to American workers so they can hire foreign workers on H-2 visas instead....

At the same time, companies across the country in a variety of industries have made it all but impossible for U.S. workers to learn about job openings that they are supposed to be given first crack at. When workers do find out, they are discouraged from applying. And if, against all odds, Americans actually get hired, they often are treated worse and paid less than foreign workers doing the same job, in order to drive the Americans to quit.

What’s more, companies often do this with the complicity of government officials, records show. State and federal authorities have allowed companies to violate the spirit — and often the letter — of the law with bogus recruitment efforts that are clearly designed to keep Americans off the payroll. And when regulators are alerted to potential problems, the response is often ineffectual.
I know it's painful for the devotees of free trade, who love nothing better than to compare 21st century analyses to 18th century dogma, to admit, but the increasingly undeniable empirical reality is that free trade, and the free movement of labor, are about as Marxist, globalist, socially destructive, and economically harmful as Communism.

I've read every single defense of free trade that I can find. None of them, not a single one of them, holds up. And as for those who babble childishly about a protectionist government picking winners, as if that suffices to make a rational case, what on Earth do they think is happening in the USA and in the EU now?

All that free trade accomplishes is that it allows governments to pick winners from around the world rather than from inside their own borders. And the winners are those who are willing to pay the most for the privilege, which is why the dominant figures in the U.S. media are a) an Australian and b) a Lebanese based in Mexico.

Update 1 - dc. sunsets comments on the original post:

 I used to be a free trader. I now see that virtually any "good" will be inverted if not embedded in a larger cohesive social milieu.

Shared identity (culture, heritage, etc.) is a powerful system of disciplining naked self-interest. Cultural Marxism's and Blank Slate's first effect is to destroy shared identity, freeing people to undertake individually profitable actions that utterly destroy the commons on which their lives depend.

Multi-culturalism and totalitarian anti-racism/anti-sexism produce, in fact, a monstrous Tragedy of the Commons, where a common culture, common heritage, even common belief systems and common values are the essential connective tissue of a peaceful and prosperous society.

 Maybe it makes me an aspie, but the inescapable conclusion from this logic train is that what "we" need more than anything is separatism.

My family and I will thrive best if we live our lives embedded in a homogeneous society, one where we share the same core values. Given the axioms of HBD, this means we would best live in a society of straight, culturally conservative (at least nominally Christian) people primarily of Northern European descent, and where all others would be encouraged to Go. Somewhere. Else. Such a cohesive community would embed powerful checks and balances on members' individual actions, most of them subtle and private rather than public and legalistic. Borders would be semi-permeable to goods, virtually impermeable to people.

As Hans Hermann Hoppe has noted, Job #1 would be ejecting anyone who tried to infect the Body Politic with the poisons with which it is saturated today.

 @17 Leo, sadly I'm compelled to see that while permeability to people is THE most disastrous of free trade, there must certainly be instances where The Commons of a cohesive society is threatened by certain goods as well.

My lingering libertarian quickly asks, "Who is to decide what is socially good and what is not?" but when caught in the vise between "Authority Decides" and "Naked Self-Interest Rules," I'm now forced to side with Authority.

Until humans self-segregate and geographically separate into relatively homogeneous societies there will be too little social cohesion to subtly apply moral opprobrium in enough quantity to offset naked self-interest. A relatively free society cannot emerge from or even survive amidst heterogeneity, this should now be blatantly obvious.

Until then, the path ahead that does not lead into the Valley of Lord of the Flies must pass through a totalitarian autocracy. Since we're already living in a totalitarian democratic despotism, it's possible an autocracy will actually be an improvement for most of us.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

"Cuckservative" - Review by Keoni Galt / Hawaiian Libertarian

Playing the Red Card to Trump the Cucks 



"And what of the original Americans, the natives who lived on this continent before the first Europeans arrived? What did this melting mean for them? Unfortunately, that is something that the native-born, culturally American, European-descended population is in the process of finding out as it declines in the face of ever-growing numbers of immigrants from vastly different cultures possessing rival traditions, ideologies, and agendas of their own."

There are generally two kinds of cultural change agents that work to progress society towards the utopian dystopian ideals of our Brave New World Order. The first type are those who self-identify as the liberal, progressive leftist, who openly and proudly promotes the overthrow of classic American cultural heritage aka the so-called hegemony of white-Christian-patriarchal-privilege. As detestable as they are, at least they are somewhat honest when they state their goals and objectives in attempting to change the face of the nation.

The other kind of change agent is far more insidious and has caused far more damage to the fabric of Western Civilization, and they have done so while supposedly bearing the standard of opposition against the liberal-progressive leftists. These are they who claim to be a part of the opposition of the progressive leftists and cultural marxists working to overthrow traditional American society, but their actions do not match up with their words. They are the controlled opposition that have co-opted the original conservative movement.

They have previously been called many different names, from RINOs to NeoCons, yet none of these terms have ever really had much of an effect on those who bore the mantle of "conservative" in bad faith. But the latest term they have been branded with, Cuckservative, has been the most effective rhetorical weapon to date ever devised to strike them with. In the past year, the meme wars on teh Interewebz based on the newly coined term has hit them right between the eyes.

Who are the cuckservatives? Ye shall know them by their shrieks when they are confronted with teh tweets.

Seizing upon the opportunity of the proliferation of such a popular and effective meme, John Red Eagle and Vox Day, two Indians (feathers, not dots) have just released a new book, Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America. 

As stated in my review of Vox's previous release, SJWs Always Lie: 

"I bought this book because I wanted to indulge in schadenfraude! I wanted to help the Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil punch back twice as hard at the snivelling hordes of brainwashed lickspittles and useful idiots that march under the banner of the SJW. No War but Culture War! This book is a badly needed, long overdue counterattack against the long march. For that, I consider it money and time well spent."  

For much the same reasoning, I bought Cuckservative on it's official release date this past Monday from Amazon, and finished reading it by Wednesday. I enjoyed it and I did learn a few things that I never knew before, such as the origins of the term "melting pot." But more importantly, our Injun authors give us a historical perspective on nations, cultures and heritage, and the effects mass immigration had on them in many different times and places in world history.  From antiquity to the present day, they make a strong case that mass immigration should be defined as nothing less than an act of war and conquest.

Of particular interest, was their identification of the source of American culture and heritage that is severely endangered from the continued influx of foreigners unsuited and non-amenable to America's nation-founding ideals:

As much as it has changed over the years, American culture still has very specific historical roots in English culture and history. Observe that we say "English," not British, as the latter is more of a multicultural political construct from an amalgamation of four nations than a true national culture of its own. "American" is arguably well on its way to becoming something more akin to "British" rather than "English." Those who value American culture, and who would prefer to avoid seeing that come to pass, would do well to develop an understanding of how America's ancestral English culture came to be.

While going through a brief rundown of the history of English culture, our Redskin co-authors identify two primary characteristics of this "English" culture that served as the foundation for American culture: self-reliant independence of the citizenry and the limitation of the powers of a society's rulers.

As they point out, these cultural values are primarily upheld through cultural transmission of a largely heterogeneous populace from one generation to the next, and that subsequent hordes of migrants with different values and beliefs will inevitably change them.


There was no magic dirt. There was no shining city on a hill. All that was required for irrevocable change was the arrival of sufficient numbers of people with a separate culture of their own who were both willing and able to hold onto it in the face of native opposition.

I came away with one very important idea from this work: the litmus test for determining who is and who is not a cuckservative. While they offer a twenty-two point bullet list as a field guide for identifying a cuckservative in chapter 4, all one need do is to simply look at any so-called "right" wing politician or pundit and review their statements on the issue of mass migration (both legal and illegal; documented and undocumented) from the third world to the Anglo-sphere: the US, UK, Europe, Canada and Australia.

Then compare and contrast with their stance on Israel's strict, race-based immigration policy (for which I support Israel's right to do so, 100%!) and that is all the info you need to identify a cuckservative.



The Cuckservative are the ones promoting the myths of the melting pot and magic dirt to support the continued migrations of non-white, non-Christians into all of these formerly white Christian majority countries. The reasons usually given by such cuckservatives is based mostly upon the appeal that conservatives must avoid being labelled racist by the left.

In addition to a stated fear of being labelled as racist, many cuckservatives who attribute the need for supporting mass migrations, base it on an argument of falsified doctrine of Christian charity, particularly the parable of the Good Samaritan. John and Vox use both statistics, logic and scriptural citations to totally destroy churchian-styled arguments based on the twisting of scripture.

While the book is filled with facts, statistics, charts and other evidence to make their case against "conservatives", their strongest rhetoric (at least for me personally, as I can certainly relate) comes from playing the red card:

Import people, and you import their culture. Import them on a small scale, as with the Normans, and they may assimilate, but in doing so, they will still influence yours. Import them on a larger scale, and they'll keep their own culture, which will conflict with yours. Import them on a large enough scale, as with the Saxons, and your culture will be the one assimilated. And if that happens, you find yourselves at the mercy of whatever the newcomers decide to do with you.

Trust us. We know. Both of our Native American cultures have been all but eliminated. Our tribes were forcibly expelled from their lands and forced onto reservation, where they still live today. Neither of us knows more than a few words of the languages our forefathers used to speak before the arrival of Spanish and English immigrants.

The Magic Dirt won't save you.

I've got my own brown card to play, and I'll throw it in with John Red Eagle's and Vox Day's red cards into the middle of the table. As the descendent of a marginalized, occupied, dispossessed and miscegenated-unto-near-extinction indigenous native people, I too echo the warning to those who still value the founding American ideals of self reliance and limited Government.

I see the new breed of conqueror, and their desired objectives would be far worse for us all, than the life we managed to make under the regime of the American pale face and it's original foundation of self-reliance and limited Government.

I see the new breed of conqueror and I understand their overriding goal is to bring all of the world's populations down to a lowest common denominator of miscegenated homogeneity with no discernible cultural heritage or identity that may one day serve as a rallying point to resist their emerging tyranny of global governance.

I see the new breed of conqueror and I believe it is the defining fight of our lives to resist their agenda of mass enfeeblement, arrested development and over-reliance and dependence on a centralized, global and tyrannical regime to govern every aspect of our micro-managed lives. Make no mistake about it, this is ultimately the end goal of those that the cuckservatives are working for. To get their Brave New World Order, America as it was originally founded must first be destroyed, and the cucking of conservatism is one of the primary means for THEY to accomplish it.

As John and Vox put it:

The uncomfortable truth is that cuckservatism not only betrays America's posterity, it also betrays the intent of the other clauses of the Preamble to the Constitution, including, "to form a more perfect Union","establish Justice","insure domestic Tranquility","provide for the common defence", and "promote the General Welfare", five things that adding 60 million immigrants in 50 years have manifestly not done.

One could make a very strong argument that thanks to their cuckservative ideology, America's self-styled conservatives have literally betrayed the entire purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America, and in doing so, they have put the very survival of the nation at risk.

Yes indeed, these two Native American Injuns have in fact done exactly that in writing Cuckservative - How "Conservatives" Betrayed America. 

Best heed their warning, pale face.




Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Sailer's Law of Female Journalism

Had to post this classic from Steve Sailer:

Sailer's Law of Female Journalism

A cover story on Slate.com today (#4):
Hair Raising:
Can a shocking YouTube video of a girl getting her curls brushed change attitudes about black hair?
By Teresa Wiltz

This is another example of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

Technically, it might seem highly possible that somebody named "Teresa Wiltz" has naturally straight hair and is just writing out of a disinterested interest in the topic. But, decades of reading female journalism at its most passionate suggested to me that Ms. Wiltz's own looks would turn out to highly germane.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Islamic Refugee Crisis: Good Samaritan or Maccabean Response? Or both

Islamic Refugee Crisis: Good Samaritan or Maccabean Response? Or both

What would Thomas Aquinas Say?





What would Saint Thomas Aquinas say about the Refugee Crisis?
We as Christians are debating among ourselves about whether or not we have a moral duty to receive refugees fleeing Muslim nations.

This article is politically incorrect and says things that might shock you. Please read the entire article until the very last two paragraphs before making a judgment or writing incendiary comments. This might be one of the clearest things you’ve read on the topic, because it draws on virtue ethics of Thomas Aquinas – something generally ignored in our day and age. – Godspeed, Taylor Marshall

Are We Good Samaritans?

As Christians we remember Our Lord’s parable about the Good Samaritan recounting how the outwardly religious clerics (the priest and the levite) passed the injured man in the road, but how the Samaritan proved to “be his neighbor” and care for him. Christ rebukes the outwardly religious hypocrites and commends the good Samaritan.
When it comes to the refugee crises, none of us wants to be the hypocrite who turns his steps to the opposite side of road to avoid caring for an injured victim.

Or Are We Good Maccabeans?

Meanwhile, if you are Catholic, you’ve been listening to the book of Maccabees this week in the daily Mass readings. These biblical lessons approvingly recount how Mattathias along with his Maccabean sons and companions rightfully used physical violence against their political oppressors the Seleucid Greeks who were actively using force to undermine the conscience and convictions of the People of God.
So which are we?
Are we the caring Samaritans or the crusading Maccabeans?

The Catholic political theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas can help us with this question:

Thomas Aquinas Black largeLet’s first suspend all emotional appeals, and set down a few logical and calm points of agreement to get us all on the same page:
  • In the Summa theologiae, Thomas Aquinas places politics under the civic virtue of patriotism which is itself a sub-virtue of justice. Our discussion is ultimately not about “politics” but the virtuous duties of justice toward God, our families, our nations, and all of humanity (in that order).
  • For Thomas Aquinas, all political human laws must be: 1) in accord with reason; 2) published or promulgated; 3) by rightful political authority; and for the common good (See STh q. 90, aa. 1-4). If a political law is lacking in any of these four attributes, it is for Thomas, not a law at all.
  • The duty of the political magistrates (the Republic or Kingdom) are by the virtue of justice different than the duty of the civilian person. Citizens are not de facto judges, soldiers, police officers, or legislators (STh q. 90, a. 3).
  • Muslims explicitly affirm that Muhammad is the Last Prophet of God.
  • Muslims explicitly affirm that Our Lord Jesus Christ is certainly not the Son of God.
  • These two Muslim affirmations place all Muslims in implicit or explicit theological contradiction with Christians who profess Jesus Christ as the Son of God and consequently conclude that Muhammad was a false prophet.
  • For Sunni Muslims (the majority of global Muslims), the mandate to erect Sharia law in every human government is a doctrine of faith. Muslims must in accord with their conscience pursue this theological belief that Sharia law must be promulgated in every human society (England, France, Poland, USA, Mexico, etc.)

So how does this apply to Refugees from Islamic nations?

When we move through the logical points above, we begin to discover a few logical conclusions:
  1. Muslims are bound by conscience to erect Sharia law in your nation. This is a bad thing for baptized Christians. At best it means being taxed at a higher rate (the Muslim jizya tax for Christians). At worse it means death.
  2. If you live in a democracy, a 51% political Islamic majority will allow “we the people” to promulgate Sharia law. They are following their conscience and religious beliefs in this matter. They will do this just as they have done in any other community where they captured the majority (Mecca, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, etc.)
  3. It is a duty of of justice for Christian people to strive to prevent the promulgation of false laws (i.e. those contrary to reason or the common good). Christians are called to be politically active and advocates for the common good and natural law.
  4. While we have the Christian duty to care for the refugee, the sick, the victim, and the injured, we have a greater common duty by justice to preserve the state of law and our religious liberty first and foremost.
We see this principle in our Scriptural readings. When it comes to the Samaritan, he rightfully cares for the victim. However, when it comes to the nation and the threat of terrorism (Seleucid Greeks), false laws, and the danger of our children, military, and civic peace, we (like the Maccabees) are politically obliged to resist, protect, and expel…for the common good.

The Analogy of the Familial Home

I am the head of a household. I earn an income to feed my wife and my children. With my surplus, I care for orphans, widows, the church, pro-life causes, single-mothers, and other apostolates that I feel God has called me to support.
Justice and charity demand that I care for the less fortunate and it is a Catholic belief that our salvation depends on how we treat the hungry, the naked, the homeless, and the sick.
MOREOVER….
I am not obliged to take the homeless into my house and have them sleep in my daughter’s bedroom at night. I am not obliged by justice or charity to give the homeless a vote over my financial decisions. He does not have the right to choose what’s for dinner. The homeless man does not (by my charity) receive a right to my continued support. The homeless man cannot share a bed with my wife when I am traveling. Nor may he presume a right over my children’s belongings.

Since we live in a democracy (“we the people”), political refugees de facto gain a measure of political authority over our laws, taxes, finances, military, religious holidays, and legislative bodies.
This principle applies to refugees universally. It applies even more so when the refugee in his conscience believes that he is morally obligated to introduce and vote for the enshrinement of Sharia law.
There is also the further problem that 5%-20% of global Muslims are considered to be “radicalized,” which means that they are consciously willing to use terrorist tactics to advance their Muslim worldview against the West. If you knew that 10% of your child’s Halloween candy was poisoned, would you allow your child to consume any of it?

So what would Thomas Aquinas say?

I’m afraid that Thomas would be much harsher than most of us would feel comfortable with.
Thomas prizes the “common good” so highly under the virtue of political justice that he openly promotes arms and capital punishment against those who are publicly “dangerous and infectious.”
The common good is the peace of society so that life and faith can thrive. Babies can be born and have a happy life. Grandparents can grow old together. Anyone who seeks to destroy the common good should be, according to Thomas, destroyed.
Thomas Aquinas also taught that anyone that fomented “danger to the community” or heretical movements is worthy of the death penalty:
“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” STh II-II q. 64, a. 2.
It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community — just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. STh II-II q. 64, a. 3.
Have no doubt that Thomas Aquinas would have stated that Christian nations should receive Christian refugees but refuse Muslim refugees for the sake of national justice and the common good. The Muslim’s official declaration of faith denies natural law (eg, polygamy), religious liberty (eg, Sharia), and implicitly Muhammad’s doctrine and example of political violence.

What’s our Catholic Response? The Samaritan Uses the Hotel

We Christians should be generous with humanitarian aid toward Muslims and all people. We should send money and resources to those who have been dispossessed. We should be loving and generous with Muslims. Kindness brings about conversion and understanding. We should also try to topple the Islamic State and eradicate terrorism in our lands and in the Islamic lands.
Remember the Good Samaritan! He did not take the roadside victim home with him. Rather, the Good Samaritan put the victim up in a hotel and paid for him to get better. The Good Samaritan was good and commended by Christ. The Good Samaritan did the right thing: humanitarian aid.
We are not required by Christ to take victims that oppose our faith and our way of life and make them into our political heirs. We are not required to take them into our homes.
But we are obliged to help them. And if terrorists use our charity as a pretense to hurt us, then, as Thomas Aquinas says, they should be swiftly destroyed.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Godspeed,
Taylor Marshall

Not To Have Your Views And Motives Taken Seriously

Via The Dark Herald:


It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

It's like a bad Monty Python sketch:

"We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it."

"No you didn't."

"Wait, what? Yes we did..."

"No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons."

"WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers."

"No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so."

"Huh!? Who are you to tell us we're not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being."

"Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that's why you did this. We're sorry."

"What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians - disenfranchisement doesn't even enter into it!"

"Listen, it's our fault. We don't blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out."

"Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we're not going to let you take it away from us."

"No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame."

"OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across
?"

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Vox Day Book - Cuckservative

The third collaboration

Yesterday Mike Cernovich announced that he would be publishing his next book, Last Man Standing, with Castalia House. He also announced that he had accepted a position as Editor-at-Large with Castalia House. What he did not mention, at my request, is that he is also working with Castalia House on a third project. I asked him not to mention it because I wanted to tell you myself.

As dark lords go, I am, as most of you know, unusually civil. Having asked one of my GGinParis co-hosts to write a foreword for one of my books, I thought it would be a grievous breach of etiquette to fail to request the same of the other. So, I am pleased to announce that the aforementioned Editor-at-Large has already written the foreword for my next book, which I have written with a fellow American Indian (albeit one from a different tribe). It is expected to be released before the end of year. It is a hard-hitting book in the vein of SJWAL, but addresses an even more important and controversial subject: the politics of American immigration.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America contains an extremely important phrase that is almost always ignored by those who appeal to it, or to the men who wrote it, in defense of immigration. It states:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key phrase is this: “to ourselves and our posterity.” The blessings of liberty are not to be secured to all the nations of the world, to the tired and huddled masses, or to the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of other lands. They are to be secured to our children, and their children, and their children's children.


To sacrifice their interests to the interests of children in other lands is to betray both past and future America. It is to permit an alien posterity, like the newly hatched cuckoo in another bird's nest, to eliminate our own, and in doing so, defeat the purpose of the Constitution. It is, like the cuckolded husband, to raise the children of another man instead of one's sons and daughters. It is, in a word, cuckservative.


Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America will be published in December by Castalia House.

Inconvenient Facts

HT: Brock Free NC


yvISrr

Thursday, November 12, 2015

With Open Gates

Time to reunite Poland and Lithuania and pull a Jan III Sobieski -Vienna in 1683:


Tuesday, October 20, 2015

White Privilege

One day, someone will look back at this era & marvel at how many white people w/ Ivy League degrees attacked others for being privileged.




Tuesday, October 6, 2015

White Supremacy Threat

By the most excellent Colonel Bunny:

You heard it here first.

"Statistics Show White Supremacy is a Bigger Threat to the U.S. Than Radical Muslims." Ponder that title for a moment and axe yourself if that is anywhere close to what you think the reality is in America today. Still, Yahoo, in front of God and man, presents the above is as an honest contribution to our national political debate.
We inquire:
Since (but not including) 9/11/01: Extremists who are white -- committed 48 killings in the U.S.
Extremists who are Muslims (self-proclaimed jihadists) -- committed 26 killings.
Population of U.S. -- 322 million.
Whites in U.S. -- 224 million.
Muslims in U.S. -- 2.6 million.
Killings per million white persons (48/224) -- 0.21.
Killings per million Muslims (26/2.6) -- 10.0.
"Muslim extremist" killings exceed white "extremist" killings -- factor of 47.6 (10/0.21).[1]
A useful comparison: Homicides in Chicago 1/1/15-10/3/15 -- 397.
Picture chosen at random.
Black killings: 307 black victims, 66 black assailants. Blacks in Chicago 32.9% of 2.7 million in 2010 -- 0.89 million.
Black killings in Chicago per million blacks (307/0.89) -- 344.94.
White killings: 15 white victims, 7 white assailants.
Whites in Chicago 45.0%[2] of 2.7 million in 2010 -- 1.22 million.
White killings in Chicago per million whites (15/1.22) -- 12.30.
Black Chicago killings exceed no. of white killings -- factor of 28.04 (344.94/12.30).
Thus, looking at different time periods and different populations but calculating rates per population within those periods the same way, we see that:
Nationwide: Rate of Muslim killings per million Muslims compared to white killings: 47.6.[3] Chicago: Rate of black killings per million blacks compared to white killings: 28.04.
Ergo,
  1. White supremacy is a bigger problem than Muslim supremacy.
  2. Black Lies Matter.
This dishonest, tendentious study by the New America Foundation is all the more astonishing for who runs and donates to it. A partial list:
  • CEO: Steve Coll, staff writer with The New Yorker magazine.
  • Chairman of the Board: Chairman & CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt.
  • Board member: James Fallows
  • Board member: Francis Fukuyama
  • Board member: Walter Russell Mead
  • Board member: Steven Rattner
  • Board member: Jonathan Soros
  • Board member: Fareed Zakaria
  • Grant: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
  • Grant: William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
  • Grant: W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation.
  • Donation: Arizona State University.
  • Donation: David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
  • Donation: Pew Charitable Trusts.
  • Donation: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
  • Donation: Foundation to Promote Open Society.
  • Donation: Google.
  • Donation: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
  • Donation: The New York Community Trust.
  • Donation: Open Society Institute.
  • Donation: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
  • Donation: US Department of State.
So when you think of Yahoo, the New America Foundation, Google, Eric Schmidt, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. State Department, Arizona State University, and Jonathan Soros, remember this: They want you to think "the major threat to America isn’t Muslim extremism. In fact, statistics show that the real danger lies with domestic extremists." We know this because, regardless of what the author of that report on Yahoo, Keisha Hatchett, chose to conclude in so many words, they published an intellectually dishonest study that cherry picks and distorts data to support the conclusion Hatchett reached, or they contributed money to make that report possible. Instead of a picture of a white guy carrying the Confederate Battle Flag, Yahoo could have chosen this one as an honest attempt to identify the problem for us:
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to catch up on the latest in our dishonest, undeclared, unconstitutional war on Bashar al-Assad, the number ONE threat to the security of the United States and THE WORLD. After Barack Hussein Obama.
Notes
[1] If you add in the 2,977 deaths from the day before the New America Foundation chose as the beginning period of its "analysis," this figure jumps from 47.6 to 5,500.0.
[2] Down from 91.7% of Chicago population in 1940.
[3] See note 1.


UPDATE - Francis W. Porretto continues with the good Colonel's thoughts:

White Rights

     These days you can visit a considerable number of places on the Web to hear racial rants, taunting, denunciations, and calls for this or that sort of “action.” The “Black Lives Matter” whores are only the currently most visible examples. Nearly all such sites are contemptible. But not all: some are worse. Clearly, this is an imbalance that demands to be redressed.
     Our esteemed Colonel Bunny has posted a statistics-laden piece that utterly refutes one of the most important lies currently bedeviling American society: the canard that American Caucasians of European descent, who will henceforth be referred to as whites, despise and are attempting to destroy the members of other races and ethnicities. The truly stunning thing about this deceit is that not only is it untrue, it’s the exact reverse of the truth:
  • Crimes against whites by others utterly overwhelm crimes by whites against others.
  • Whites have extended a hand of friendship and assistance to others, and have usually had it spat on, bitten, or swatted aside.
  • Peaceful white neighborhoods have ceased to be peaceful when non-whites have moved into them – and not because the whites have tried to drive them out.
  • Non-white racial and ethnic groups, though not united on other points, are utterly unanimous on this one: the “white devil” must be dispossessed and destroyed.
  • Despite all the above, any hint of protest, much less counter-organization by whites is denounced as illegitimate, inherently racist, and an expression of hatred.
     This isn’t exactly new. More than thirty years ago, a young woman of no small intelligence nor achievement told me that should my neighborhood experience racial admixture of the sort well known to promote disorder and loss of property values, it would be my moral duty to remain here and endure it, because...well, just because. She could not articulate any objective reason; it was entirely a matter of her opinion.
     At one of his recent campaign appearances, Democratic presidential aspirant Martin O’Malley was shouted down for suggesting, in response to the chants of “Black Lives Matter” agitators, that all lives matter. Bernie Sanders has had to cope with something similar. Persons who dare to suggest that contemporary whites have no responsibility for the statistical differences between whites’ aggregate wealth and achievement and the wealth and achievement of other races and ethnicities are routinely branded as racists, haters, and persons who want to bring back slavery.
     This mick-wop honky has had quite enough.

     We on the Right have often complained that we lack conservative politicians with actual spines. In reflecting on that notion, it struck me that our politicians, while not a perfectly representative sample of our ranks, nevertheless are drawn from it. Thus, an increase in our overall Backbone Quotient – BQ? – would surely elevate that of our elected officials. (At the very least, we should be trying our best to raise the “lower end” of the bell curve.)
     Racial/ethnic matters are a significant venue for such improvements. Today, virtually no one in public office or seek to enter it is willing to say, publicly, any of the following:
  • Violent crimes and crimes against property are overwhelmingly committed by non-whites.
  • Neighborhoods characterized by disorder, squalor, and violence are almost always non-white.
  • The quality of local schools is inversely proportional to their attendance by non-whites.
  • Non-white communities routinely shelter the lawbreakers among them against public justice.
  • Demands for “free stuff” emanate almost exclusively from non-whites and their mouthpieces.
  • Non-whites who point out such facts are demonized: “Oreos,” “Uncle Toms,” “race traitors,” etc.
     Despite all that we have the phenomenon of black racialist groups demanding that a few states be separated off into a new all-black nation...which, however, would be supported by funds from the rest of the country. We have groups such as Aztlan and La Raza demanding open immigration from the south, and that the American Southwest be returned to union with Mexico. Newest on the scene are the exclaves dominated by Middle Eastern Muslim “immigrants” and “refugees” where the writ of law does not run and it is unsafe for whites to tread.
     But don’t you dare to say that white lives matter...that the Knockout Game, a.k.a. “polar bear hunting,” is a real phenomenon...that illegal aliens from south of the border commit huge numbers of violent crimes, whether against one another or against whites...or that the degradation of our public facilities correlates strongly with the invasion of nearby neighborhoods by non-whites.
     It’s been said more times than anyone could count that it’s impossible to address a problem you aren’t willing to name. Someone must name it. It appears that the mantle has descended on me:
     The problem is non-whites.

     It’s time for a countermeasure. Indeed, it’s possible that we’re already too late. Nevertheless, I propose a blatant, in-your-face approach that makes plain that American whites will stand for no more:
Restore The Rights Of American Whites!
     Those rights include all the following:
  • Freedom of association, including the freedom to discriminate in buying and selling.
  • Freedom of enterprise, including the right to hire, fire, promote, and demote upon arbitrary criteria.
  • Repeal of all laws that distinguish any racial, ethnic, or religious group from any other, regardless of context.
  • The elimination of “stakeholder” laws and judicial presumptions that award privileges to recognized groups.
  • The right to form proprietary communities protected by enforceable covenants, including covenants that restrict residency according to race or ethnicity.
     Note that none of the above propositions would create legal privileges that only whites would enjoy. Indeed, the condition of the country at this time is such that only whites are, de facto, denied any of the above rights. Blacks and Hispanics can form race or ethnicity-based groups and associations without fear of legal penalty. Black employers can hire blacks exclusively without worrying about what the EEOC will say, and of course the same is true for Hispanics and Muslims. Though the laws would appear to weigh as heavily on non-whites’ discrimination against whites as the reverse, they’re not enforced when the target would be a non-white business or organization.
     It’s time not merely to halt the locomotive of racial-ethnic degradation, but to reverse it. If non-whites want the fruits of the American blessing that whites experience, let them earn those fruits on the same plane as we did. Those who’d prefer not to make the effort can choose among the other continents of the world...assuming those lands would have them.

END

Thursday, October 1, 2015

How Pedophilia Will Be Normailsed

Quote comments from commenters at an NRO article that rationalises pedophilia, because they are insightful:

Matt:
1. Organize
2. Humanize
3. Legalize
4. Legitimize
5. Litigate
6. Repeat
Stage Two doesn't seem too unreasonable, does it? How many bloody times do we have to get rope-a-doped by the same shtick before we recognize that it's part of a much larger campaign which has been going on for generations, now?
Priests, pastors, and psychiatrists receive special training to lovingly and thoughtfully help people with terrible issues like this one who need help. Privately. There's absolutely NO reason for anybody to work through this problem publicly. There's absolutely no reason to challenge the one hysterical taboo the American people have which is fully justified.
And can we impose a permanent moratorium on atheists needling Christians on how their faith is supposed to be expressed? It's not like we go around telling atheists how they're supposed to tip their fedoras and embed cheese crumbs in their neckbeards.

Dingus Rattenberg:

Step one is chipping away at the legal and social norms associated with pedophilia. Our attention is deflected carefully away from the monstrosity of adult-child sexual attraction (calling it an "orientation," for example), and redirected toward pity for the offender. Do our laws really need to be so harsh? Is the extreme social stigma really justified? After all, look at these poor fellows. They're very sad.

Step two. Graphic tales of violence done against pedophiles or suspected pedophiles, usually by vigilantes (to shock comfortable bourgeois liberals) but also law enforcement (to shock civil libertarians), are rubbed in our noses. These cases will be easy to find, since reactionary pushback to step one is practically guaranteed. People who really hate pedophiles are nasty and evil and violent bigots will be the implied message. Meanwhile, "studies" conducted at state-sponsored universities will "find" that adult-child sexual contact really isn't all that psychologically harmful to children. Rather, our superiors will inform us, the reason children suffer post-contact depression is because of the "social stigma" attached to such relationships. We will be encouraged to be supportive and understanding "allies" of pedophilic relationships, since, after all, a simple attitude change on our parts will prevent depression and suicide.

Step three. At about this time, the real legal push to lower statutes of limitation begins. New "studies" show that children in fact benefit, in some very loosely-defined way, from early sexual contact with adults. The most progressive and forward-thinking parents in the most progressive and forward-thinking states begin lending their children for "play dates" with pedophiles, framed as mutually beneficial arrangements whereby children are therapeutically socialized into sexual maturity. Why risk letting some stranger take your child's virginity in a drunken haze, when it can all be done with the help of a vetted accomplice in the comfort of one's own home? Win-win.

Step four. Pedophiles will begin to emerge more frequently in pop culture and mass media. A record label, for instance, may promote an otherwise wild, hard-headed rapper's soulful ballad mourning society's unequal treatment of what is really the "same love." Mainline protestantism (if it still exists at this point) will ordain open pedophiles. The Catholic Church will be praised for its leading role. Cases involving the "rights" of pedophiles will have trickled up to the Supreme Court. You can fill in the rest.
Thanks to the Great Cuckservatives of the National Review Online.

UPDATE: Also see this Vox Day Post:

SJWs shift the Narrative and Thoughts on tolerance

Rejection = disbelief + opposition
Tolerance = disbelief + passivity
Submission = disbelief + support
Denialism = belief + opposition
Acceptance = belief + passivity
Celebration = belief + support

 

UPDATE UPDATE:  RAMZPAUL: NRO and Salon Fight Pedophobia

Friday, September 18, 2015

Christians in the Talmud


Christians in the Talmud

 by The Thinking Housewife


THE TALMUD, the sacred text of  Judaism, is comprised of rabbinic commentaries that were written over a period of hundreds of years and contain the oral traditions that have shaped Judaism since shortly after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
Americans, including many Jews, are generally unfamiliar with the Talmud’s content. While it is widely acceptable to criticize the intolerance of the Quran, the Talmud is off bounds for mainstream commentary. Thus many do not know just how intolerant the revered text of the official religion of the state of Israel is.
Benjamin Freedman was a successful Jewish businessman and Zionist activist who lived from 1890 to 1984. Later in his adult life, he became an outspoken critic of the Judaic mentality and eventually converted to Catholicism. He is said to have devoted much of his fortune to researching and publicizing the history of Judaism.
“The Talmud today virtually exercises totalitarian dictatorship over the lives of so-called or self-styled ‘Jews,’ whether they are aware of that fact or not,” he wrote in his 1954 work “Facts are Facts,” which is an extended letter to another Jewish convert. “Their spiritual leaders make no attempt to conceal the control they exercise over the lives of so-called or self-styled ‘Jews’. They extend their authority far beyond the legitimate limits of spiritual matters. Their authority has no equal outside religion.”
Not only does the Talmud, which includes more than 60 volumes of commentaries, regulate the thinking and daily lives of Jews, he wrote, it inculcates in them hostility toward gentiles, or non-Jews.
Using the translation from the Hebrew by the Latvian priest and eminent scholar, the Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church in Old St. Petersburg, Russia, Freedman proved his point by listing summarized Talmudic references for some of the specific laws regarding Christians, and gentiles in general. I list them below. They conform with many other translations of the Talmud. Please feel free to correct any of these summaries if you can prove they are faulty. Again, some of these references refer to all non-Jews, not just Christians.
Hilkhoth Maakhaloth — Christians are idolators, must not associate.
Abhodah Zarah (22a) — Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.
Iore Dea (153, 2). — Must not associate with Christians, shed blood.
Abhodah Zarah (25b). — Beware of Christians when walking abroad with them.
Orach Chaiim (20, 2). — Christians disguise themselves to kill Jews.
Abhodah Zarah (15b) — Suggest Christians have sex relations with animals.
Abhodah Zarah (22a) — Suspect Christians of intercourse with animals.
Schabbath (145b) — Christians unclean because they eat accordingly
Abhodah Zarah (22b) — Christians unclean because they not at Mount Sinai.
Iore Dea (198, 48). — Clean female Jews contaminated meeting Christians.
Kerithuth (6b p. 78) — Jews called men, Christians not called men.
Makkoth (7b) — Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.
Orach Chaiim(225, 10) — Christians and animals grouped for comparisons.
Midrasch Talpioth 225 — Christians created to minister to Jews always.
Orach Chaiim 57, 6a — Christians to be pitied more than sick pigs.
Zohar II (64b) — Christian idolators likened to cows and asses.
Kethuboth (110b). — Psalmist compares Christians to unclean beasts.
Sanhedrin (74b). Tos. — Sexual intercourse of Christian like that of beast.
Kethuboth (3b) — The seed of Christian is valued as seed of beast.
Kidduschim (68a) — Christians like the people of an ass.
Eben Haezar (44,8) — Marriages between Christian and Jews null.
Zohar (II, 64b) — Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.
Zohar (I, 28b) — Christian idolators children of Eve’s serpent.
Zohar (I, 131a) — Idolatrous people (Christians) befoul the world.
Emek Haschanach(17a) — Non-Jews’ souls come from death and death’s shadow.
Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) — Souls of gentiles have unclean divine origins.
Rosch Haschanach(17a) — Non-Jews souls go down to hell.
Iore Dea (337, 1). — Replace dead Christians like lost cow or ass.
Iebhammoth (61a) — Jews called men, but not Christians called men.
Abhodah Zarah (14b) T — Forbidden to sell religious works to Christians
Abhodah Zarah (78) — Christian churches are places of idolatry.
Iore Dea (142, 10) — Must keep far away physically from churches.
Iore Dea (142, 15) — Must not listen to church music or look at idols
Iore Dea (143, 1) — Must not rebuild homes destroyed near churches.
Hilkoth Abh. Zar (10b) — Jews must not resell broken chalices to Christians.
Chullin (91b) — Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.
Sanhedrin, 58b — To strike Israelite like slapping face of God.
Chagigah, 15b — A Jew considered good in spite of sins he commits.
Gittin (62a) — Jew stay away from Christian homes on holidays.
Choschen Ham. (26,1) — Jew must not sue before a Christian judge or laws.
Choschen Ham (34,19) — Christian or servant cannot become witnesses.
Iore Dea (112, 1). — Avoid eating with Christians, breeds familiarity.
Abhodah Zarah (35b) — Do not drink milk from a cow milked by Christian.
Iore dea (178, 1) — Never imitate customs of Christians, even hair-comb.
Abhodah Zarah (72b) — Wine touched by Christians must be thrown away.
Iore Dea (120, 1) — Bought-dishes from Christians must be thrown away.
Abhodah Zarah (2a) — For three days before Christian festivals, avoid all.
Abhodah Zarah (78c) — Festivals of followers of Jesus regarded as idolatry.
Iore Dea (139, 1) — Avoid things used by Christians in their worship.
Abhodah Zarah (14b) — Forbidden to sell Christians articles for worship.
Iore Dea (151,1) H. — Do not sell water to Christians articles for baptisms.
Abhodah Zarah (2a, 1) — Do not trade with Christians on their feast days.
Abhodah Zarah (1,2) — Now permitted to trade with Christians on such days.
Abhodah Zarah (2aT) — Trade with Christians because they have money to pay.
Iore Dea (148, 5) — If Christian is not devout, may send him gifts.
Hilkoth Akum (IX,2) — Send gifts to Christians only if they are irreligious.
Iore Dea (81,7 Ha) — Christian wet-nurses to be avoided because dangerous.
Iore Dea (153, 1 H) — Christian nurse will lead children to heresy.
Iore Dea (155,1). — Avoid Christian doctors not well known to neighbors.
Peaschim (25a) — Avoid medical help from idolators, Christians meant.
Iore Dea (156,1) — Avoid Christian barbers unless escorted by Jews.
Abhodah Zarah (26a). — Avoid Christian midwives as dangerous when alone.
Zohar (1,25b) — Those who do good to Christians never rise when dead.
Hilkoth Akum (X,6) — Help needy Christians if it will promote peace.
Iore Dea (148, 12H) — Hide hatred for Christians at their celebrations.
Abhodah Zarah (20a) — Never praise Christians lest it be believed true.
Iore Dea (151,14) — Not allowed to praise Christians to add to glory.
Hilkoth Akum (V, 12) — Quote Scriptures to forbid mention of Christian god.
Iore Dea (146, 15) — Refer to Christian religious articles with contempt.
Iore Dea (147,5) — Deride Christian religious articles without wishes.
Hilkoth Akum (X,5) — No gifts to Christians, gifts to converts.
Iore Dea (151,11) — Gifts forbidden to Christians, encourages friendship.
Iore Dea (335,43) — Exile for that Jew who sells farm to Christian.
Iore Dea (154,2) — Forbidden to teach a trade to a Christian
Babha Bathra (54b) — Christian property belongs to first person claiming.
Choschen Ham(183,7) — Keep what Christian overpays in error.
Choschen Ham(226,1) — Jew may keep lost property of Christian found by Jew.
Babha Kama (113b) — It is permitted to deceive Christians.
Choschen Ham(183,7) — Jews must divide what they overcharge Christians.
Choschen Ham(156,5) — Jews must not take Christian customers from Jews.
Iore Dea (157,2) H — May deceive Christians that believe Christian tenets.
Abhodah Zarah (54a) –Usury may be practiced upon Christians or apostates.
Iore Dea (159,1) — Usury permitted now for any reason to Christians.
Babha Kama (113a) — Jew may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian.
Babha Kama (113b) — Name of God not profaned when lying to Christians.
Kallah (1b, p.18) — Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.
Schabbouth Hag. (6d). — Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording.
Zohar (1,160a). — Jews must always try to deceive Christians.
Iore Dea (158,1) — Do not cure Christians unless it makes enemies.
Orach Cahiim (330,2) — Do not assist Christian’s childbirth on Saturday.
Choschen Ham.(425,5) — Unless believes in Torah do not prevent his death.
Iore Dea (158,1) — Christians not enemies must not be saved either.
Hilkkoth Akum (X,1) — Do not save Christians in danger of death.
Choschen Ham(386,10) — A spy may be killed even before he confesses.
Abhodah Zorah (26b) — Apostates to be thrown into well, not rescued.
Choschen Ham(388,15) — Kill those who give Israelites’ money to Christians
Sanhedrin (59a) — `Prying into Jews’ “Law” to get death penalty [Translation: Gentiles who critique the Talmud are to be executed.]
Hilkhoth Akum(X,2) — Baptized Jews are to be put to death
Iore Dea(158,2)Hag. — Kill renegades who turn to Christian rituals.
Choschen Ham(425,5) — Those who do not believe in Torah are to be killed.
Hilkhoth tesch.III,8 — Christians and others deny the “Law” of the Torah.
Zohar (I,25a) — Christians are to be destroyed as idolators.
Zohar (II,19a) — Captivity of Jews end when Christian princes die.
Zohar (I,219b) — Princes of Christians are idolators, must die.
Obadiam — When Rome is destroyed, Israel will be redeemed.
Abhodah Zarah(26b) T. — “Even the best of the Goim should be killed.”
Sepher Or Israel 177b — If Jew kills Christian commits no sin.
Ialkut Simoni (245c) — Shedding blood of impious offers sacrifice to God.
Zohar (II, 43a) — Extermination of Christians necessary sacrifice.
Zohar (L,28b,39a) — High place in heaven for those who kill idolators.
Hilkhoth Akum(X,1) — Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians
Hilkhoth Akum (X,1) — Either turn them away from their idols or kill.
Hilkhoth Akum (X,7) — Allow no idolators to remain where Jews are strong.
Choschen Ham(388,16) — All contribute to expense of killing traitor.
Pesachim (49b) — No need of prayers while beheading on Sabbath.
Schabbath (118a). — Prayers to save from punishment of coming Messiah.

See the previous post, “Jesus in the Talmud,” here.

 

Monday, August 10, 2015

The Battle Flag and the Attack on Western Culture




shutterstock_258851933
Too much misinformation has been generated recently about Confederate flags and monuments. A great amount of it floating about on the Internet is as palatable and useful as what my neighbor cleans up out of his horse paddock each week—although what my neighbor cleans out actually has a better and less pungent odor about it than most of the shoddy, culturally Marxist ideological agenda pieces I’ve read.
Back in mid-June, after the Charleston shootings, the frenzied hue and cry went up and any number of accusations and charges were made against historic Confederate symbols, in particular, the Confederate Battle Flag, which is not as some supposedly “informed” writers called it, “the Stars and Bars.” (The Stars and Bars is a completely different flag with a totally different design—this error is an indication of those writers’ supine ignorance).
The best way to examine these charges in a short column is point by point, briefly and succinctly.
First, the demand was made that the Battle Flag needs to come down, that images of that flag need to be banned and suppressed, because, whatever its past may have been, it has now become in the current context a “symbol of hate” and “carried by racists,” that it “symbolizes racism.”
The problem with this argument is both historical and etiological.
Historically, the Battle Flag, with its familiar Cross of St. Andrew, was and is a square ensign that was carried by Southern troops during the War Between the States. It was not the national flag of the Confederacy that flew over slavery, but, rather, was carried by soldiers, 90-plus per cent who did not own slaves (which was roughly comparable to percentages in various regiments of the Union army, which had slave holding soldiers from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri in its ranks; indeed, General Grant’s wife, Julia Dent Grant, owned slaves).
By contrast, the American flag, the “Stars and Stripes,” not only flew over slavery for seventy-eight years, it flew over the importation, the selling and the purchase of slaves, and the breaking up of slave families. Additionally, the Stars and Stripes flew over the infamous “Trail of Tears,” at the Sand Creek massacre of innocent Native Americans, later at the Wounded Knee massacre, over the brutal internment of thousands of Nisei Japanese American citizens in concentration camps during World War II, and during the action at My Lai during the Vietnam War.
Although there are some zealots who now suggest doing away with the American flag because of these connections, I would suggest that most of the pundits on the Neoconservative Fox News and amongst the Republican governors presently clamoring for banning the Battle Flag would not join them in this demand. Yet, if we examine closely the history of both banners from the radically changing contexts that are used to attack the one, should we not focus as well on the history of other banner, as well? And, pray tell, if only a particular snap shot context is used to judge such symbols, is any symbol of America’s variegated history safe from the hands of those who may dislike or despise this or that symbol?
Second, a comparison has been made between the Battle Flag and the Nazi flag (red background, with a white circle and a black swastika centered). Again, this comparison is ridiculous and demonstrates an utter lack of historical acumen on the part of those making it: the Nazi flag was created precisely to represent the Nazi Party and its ideology. The Battle Flag was designed to represent the historic Celtic and Christian origin of many Southerners and served as a soldier’ flag.
Third, the charge has been made that we should ban Confederate symbols because they represent “treason against the Federal government.” That is, those Southerners who took up arms in 1861 to defend their states, their homes, and their families, were engaged in “rebellion” and were “traitors” under Federal law.
Again, such arguments fail miserably on all counts. Some writers have suggested that Robert E. Lee, in particular, was a “traitor,” that he violated his solemn military oath to uphold and defend the Constitution by his actions. But what those writers fail to note is that Lee had formally resigned from the US Army and his commission before undertaking his new assignment to defend his home state of Virginia, which by then had seceded and re-vindicated its original independence.
And that brings us to point four: the right of secession and whether the actions of the Southern states, December 1860-May 1861, could be justified under the US Constitution.
One of the best summaries of the prevalent Constitutional theory at that time has been made recently by black scholar, professor, and prolific author Dr. Walter Williams. I quote from one his columns:
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, ‘A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.’
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? [my emphasis added]
Let me add that an examination of the ratification processes for Georgia, South Carolina, and in my own North Carolina in the late 1780s, reveal very similar discussions: it was the independent states themselves that had created a Federal government (and not the reverse, as Abe Lincoln erroneously and incredibly suggested), and it was the various states that granted the Federal government certain very limited and specifically enumerated powers, reserving the vast remainder for themselves. As any number of the Founders indicated (cf. Elliott’s Debates and voluminous correspondence on this point), there simply would not have been any United States if the states, both north and south, had believed that they could not leave it for just cause.
Interestingly, in my many years of research I can find only one, possibly two, American presidents who openly and frankly denied the right of secession (of course, there is John Quincy Adams, but carefully). Even in March of 1861, lame duck President James Buchanan in his farewell address, while deploring secession in the strongest terms, stated frankly that, under the Constitution he had “no power to halt or interdict it.” Former President John Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, and former President Franklin Pierce, in his famous Concord, New Hampshire, address, July 4, 1863, joined Buchanan in decrying the efforts to suppress the secession of the Southern states:
“Do we not all know that the cause of our casualties is the vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States, cooperating with the discontents of the people of those states? Do we not know that the disregard of the Constitution, and of the security that it affords to the rights of States and of individuals, has been the cause of the calamity which our country is called to undergo?”
More, during the antebellum period William Rawle’s pro-secession text on Constitutional law, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825,) was used at West Point as the standard text on the US Constitution. And on several occasions the Supreme Court, itself, affirmed this view. In The Bank of Augusta v. Earl (1839), the Court wrote in an 8-1 decision:
“The States…are distinct separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and object of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute.”
A review of the Northern press at the time of the Secession conventions finds, perhaps surprisingly to those who wish to read back into the past their own statist ideas, a similar view: few newspapers took the position that the Federal government had the constitutional right to invade and suppress states that had decided to secede.
Indeed, were it not the New England states in 1814-1815 who made the first serious effort at secession during the War of 1812, to the point that they gathered in Hartford to discuss actively pursuing it? And during the pre-war period various states asserted in one form or another similar rights.
One last point regarding the accusation of “treason”: consider that after the conclusion of the War, the Southern states were put under military authority, their civil governments dissolved, and each state had to be re-admitted to the Union. Now, unless the logic I learned in university is wrong, you cannot be “re-admitted” to something unless you have been out of it. And if you were out of it, legally and constitutionally, as the Southern states maintained (and many Northern writers acknowledged), then you cannot be in any way guilty of “treason.”
The major point that opponents of Confederate symbols assert is that the panoply of those monuments, flags, plaques, and other reminders actually represent a defense of slavery. And since we as a society have supposedly advanced progressively in our understanding, it is both inappropriate and hurtful to continue to display them.
Again, there are various levels of response. Historically, despite the best efforts of the ideologically-driven Marxist historical school (e.g., Eric Foner) to make slavery the only issue underlying the War Between the States, there is abundant evidence—while not ignoring the significance of slavery—to indicate more profound economic reasons why that war occurred (cf. writers Thomas di Lorenzo, Charles Adams, David Gordon, Jeffrey Hummel, William Marvel, Thomas Fleming, et al). Indeed, it goes without saying that when hostilities began, anti-slavery was not a major reason at all in the North for prosecuting the war; indeed, it never was a major reason, as Lincoln made explicit to editor Horace Greeley of The New York Tribune a short time prior to the Emancipation Proclamation (which only applied to states in the South where the Federal government had no authority, but not to the states such as Maryland and Kentucky, where slavery existed, but were safely under Union control).
Here is what he wrote to Greeley on August 22, 1862:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
The Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate political ploy by Lincoln to churn up sagging support for a war that appeared stale-mated at the time. Indeed, Old Abe had previously called for sending blacks back to Africa and the enforcement of laws that made Jim Crow look benign. He knew fully well that “freeing the slaves” had no support in the North and was not the reason for the conflict.
Professor di Lorenzo, returning afresh to original sources, focuses on the deeper, all-encompassing economic motives:
“Whatever other reasons some of the Southern states might have given for secession is irrelevant to the question of why there was a war. Secession does not necessitate war. Lincoln promised war over tax collection in his first inaugural address. When the Southern states refused to pay his beloved Morrill Tariff at the Southern ports [monies that supplied a major portion of Federal revenues], he kept his promise of ‘invasion and bloodshed’ and waged war on the Southern states.”
Indeed, late in the conflict the Confederate government authorized the formation of black units to fight for the Confederacy, with manumission to accompany such service. As many as 30,000 black men fought for the Confederacy. Would a society ideologically intent on preserving in toto the peculiar institution as the reason for war, even in such dire straits, enact such a measure?
It is, of course, easy to read back into a complex context then what appears so right and natural to us now; but it does a disservice to history, as the late Professor Eugene Genovese, perhaps the finest historian of the Old South, fully understood. Understanding the intellectual struggle in which many Southerners engaged over the issue of slavery, he cautioned readers about rash judgments based on politically correct presentist ideas of justice and right, and in several books and numerous essays defended those leaders of the Old South who were faced with difficult decisions and a nearly intractable context.
And more, he understood as too many writers fail to do today, that selecting this or that symbol of our collective history, singling it out for our smug disapprobation and condemnation, may make us feel good temporarily, but does nothing to address the deeper problems afflicting our benighted society.
As I have written elsewhere about Dylann Roof, the lone gunman responsible for the Charleston shootings: if a rabid fox comes out of the woods and bites someone, you don’t burn the woods down, you stop the fox.
In the United States today we live in a country characterized by what historian Thomas Fleming has written afflicted this nation in 1860—“a disease of the public mind,” that is, a collective madness, lacking in both reflection and prudential understanding of our history. Too many authors advance willy-nilly down the slippery slope—thus, if we ban the Battle Flag, why not destroy all those monuments to Lee and Jackson. And why stop there? Washington and Jefferson were slave holders, were they not? Obliterate and erase those names from our lexicon, tear down their monuments! Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon? Change those names, for they remind us of Confederate generals! Let’s dig up Nathan Bedford Forest! Amazon sells “Gone with Wind?” Well, to quote an inane writer at the supposedly “conservative,” Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, ban it, too!
It is, as I say, a slippery slope, but an incline that in fact represents a not-so-hidden agenda, a cultural Marxism, that seeks to take advantage of the genuine horror at what happened in Charleston to advance its own designs which are nothing less than remaking completely what remains of the American nation. And, since it is the South that has been most resistant to such impositions and radicalization, it is the South, the historic South, which enters the cross hairs as the most tempting target. And it is the Battle Flag—true, it has been misused on occasion—which is not just the symbol of Southern pride, but becomes the target of a broad, vicious, and zealous attack on Western Christian tradition, itself. Those attacks, then, are only the opening salvo in this renewed cleansing effort, and those who collaborate with them, good intentions or not, collaborate with the destruction of our historic civilization. For that they deserve our utmost scorn and our most vigorous and steadfast opposition.