On my original post– I had hoped followers of this thread would do a little research on their own to see where this word RACISM originated and why. But I understand most people on this thread work and have lives—so I’ll make it easier for everyone. The first known use of the word racism was coined by LEON TROTSKY the Bolshevik/Marxist leader of the Red Army in the Soviet Union. He first used it in writing in his 1930 History of the Russian Revolution. The term was used numerous times by a Bolshevik Sexologist from Germany known as Magnus Hirschfeld he used the word numerous times to attack his critics. Hirschfeld worked close with the Frankfurt School which is a [sic] Communist Think Tank. The National Socialists deported most of the professors and shut it down. Many of the Marxist professors moved to New York City and set up shop at Columbia University. The Frankfurt School was re-established back in Germany in 1953. The school promotes critical theory, and political correctness in order to destroy traditional western culture and replace it with a Marxist world view. Most the propaganda of a communist nature has entered our society via these college professors and their sympathetic media apparatus. The Soviet KGB used the professors methods to target the US. The method is known as ideological subversion. Ideological Subversion is a four step process; Demoralization of a Nation, Destabilization, Crisis and finally Normalization. The long part is the demoralization phase. The idea is to change the perception of citizens’ reality to such an extent that no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. If you can pump the heads of at least three generations of youth full of Marxist ideas of equality and social justice you can move to the destabilization phase. It doesn’t matter that the USSR no longer exists. Once the poison takes hold its irreversible and must be sorted out in the crisis phase. Labeling your ideological enemies as a RACIST is a weaponized word established and promoted by communist, It is used to immediately shutdown any valid points made by their enemies (Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Traditionalists etc.) Once the label is attached it closes the minds of the masses to those anti-Marxist view points.It has entered our societies vernacular. That even like minded liberty minded people will even target each other with the word without knowledge of its origins.
Day By Day by The Great Chris Muir
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
From comments at Western Rifle Shooters Association - Things Fall Apart
Friday, August 23, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
Vox Day responds to a question:
Will Shetterly poses questions for me and for NK Jemisin. I don't know if she will see fit to answer him, but I certainly don't mind doing so:
What do you want, besides book sales? You both have strongly-held beliefs, Critical Race Theory and Human Biodiversity, but you're both silent about the practical application of those beliefs.Let me first point out something that many people fail to keep in mind when they are occupied with being offended at something I have said. I am a libertarian, so it should always be kept in mind that I am intrinsically skeptical of the idea that government can be effectively utilized to solve most societal problems, or even avoid making them worse, regardless of how serious we all agree those problems happen to be. The fact that I point to something as being a problem should NEVER be taken as an implicit suggestion that the solution can be found in government action.
Vox Day, you say:
"I have repeatedly pointed out that the existence of different human sub-species and/or races does not make those different sub-species and/or races any less validly human. A dog is a dog whether it is a Bichon Frise or a Great Dane. A man is a man whether he is Yoruba or Prussian. My basic argument on race and civilization can be most accurately summarized as the observation that if you wish to pull a sled, you would be well advised to select Siberian huskies rather than chihuahuas or pit bulls."
If people with your beliefs were in power, what changes would there be? Legal segregation of the races as you understand them? A ban on miscegenation? Breeding programs to increase the virtues you see in the different human races, stronger blacks and smarter Asians to serve the more "alpha" whites?
With regards to race, I would be more than content to see the U.S. federal government and other governments across the West firmly respect the right to self-determination, the right to free speech, and the right to freedom of economic association on the part of individual, as well as the political sovereignty of the several States.
This would likely lead to legal segregation in some states, most likely beginning, ironically enough, with the States where Hispanics are expected to soon be the majority. In most of the rest, I expect a return to Constitutional federalism and the concept of democratic laboratories would merely lead to bans on enforced desegregation and government violations of the freedom of association; history indicates that people have a tendency to naturally segregate as that is how most of the various population groups were formed in the first place.
I do not support bans on miscegenation nor do I believe they would be required in any environment that permitted genuine freedom of speech and association. Despite being inundated with heavy doses of pro-miscegenation and pro-equalitarian propaganda in the media, relatively few women of any race have shown themselves to be open to sexual involvement with men of other races.
Being an anti-eugenicist, I do not support breeding programs of any kind, especially not government-sponsored programs.
As for the idea of stronger blacks and smarter Asians serving whites, that could not be further from my own position on ideal interracial relations. My belief is that every population group, every human sub-species, every nation, is better served by furthering a homogeneous group interest. To put it crudely, whites would do well to pick their own cotton and count their own money, blacks would do well to build their own power stations and grow their own crops, and yellows would do well to develop their own technologies and establish their own university systems. Let Israel be Israel and let Myanmar be Myanmar.
Inter-societal communication and assistance is a good thing, so long as it is the sort that involves teaching men to fish and not fishing for them... and if the fishermen are left alone to deal with the consequences of their catch. Trade is generally good. Information exchange is generally good. Even immigration can beneficial in small and limited doses. But the benefits of moderation does not extend to the extremes. For example, trade can benefit both sides, but truly free trade will inevitably destroy the more prosperous side.
It should be noted that the consequences of mass migration are all but indistinguishable from the effects of invasion and occupation, and multi-ethnic societies have shown a strong historical tendency to collapse amidst vicious ethnic violence. No one who recalls the intra-black violence in Rwanda, the intra-white violence in Yugoslavia, or the intra-yellow violence in Vietnam should be misled into thinking that expanding the range of population heterogeneousity is going to alleviate, rather than exacerbate, the eventual inter-ethnic violence. Ms Jemisin may be more right than she knows about how everyone will eventually be forced to take a side, whether they want to or not.
I understand that three generations of Americans who have been raised to venerate the Civil Rights movement will find it hard, if not impossible, to grasp that history may ultimately prove to be firmly on the side of those they have always believed to be monsters of bigotry. But if what logic suggests is the most probable outcome indeed comes to pass, I suspect that forced segregation and non-violent ethnic cleansing will be the best case scenario in consequence of the damnable social engineering of the grand multicultural experiment that began in 1965.
It may already be too late for a peaceful return to historical segregation patterns. But if history is an even remotely reliable guide, the West will return to them one way or another. And keep in mind that my expectations of the future have nothing whatsoever to do with my personal preferences, any more than I wanted to see the global financial system seize up when I predicted the 2008 economic crisis six years before it happened.
There is a flaw in someone's assumptions. The error may be on my part. But based on the known historical patterns as well as the way in which increased integration throughout the West has observably increased racial tensions rather than eliminating them as the multiculturalists so confidently asserted, I very much doubt it.
So, to answer the original question, what do I want? I want to preserve the greatest, most advanced, and most humane civilization the human race has ever known. I want the West to avoid descending into violence and chaos on a scale that will threaten to end our advanced civilization as we know it. And I believe continued mass migration, forced desegregation, reconciliation, government intervention, and racial integration only serve to increase the likelihood of a nightmarish scenario taking place.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
By The Elusive Wapiti Wherin Ms. Oprah is taken to school by Kathy Shaidle. First, Ms. Oprah's fast-and-loose application of three orders of magnitude to blacks lynched in pre-Civil Rights Act America:
In the [Parade Magazine] interview, Winfrey explained her sadness that so few Americans know about the history of the civil rights movement: “They don’t know diddly-squat. Diddly-squat.” She then said of the historic use of the [word "nigger"]:, “I always think of the millions of people who heard that as their last word as they were hanging from a tree.”And then Ms. Shaidle's correction to Ms. Oprah's race- and victim-mongering:
“According to a Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute study, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites.”
Oh, and 1,297 whites.Perhaps before Saint Oprah evangelizes us unwashed heathens about the Civil Rights movement, she would do us all a favor and get her Whig History correct. Even better, I suggest she would do better by addressing the 6,329-ish black folks killed each year in the USA, 93% [page 13 of this PDF] of whom are killed by other blacks. But that would mean she would have to care more about blacks actually dying in the here and now at the hands of other blacks, than in guilt-tripping (and making beaucoup $$ in the process) whites via a false narrative of a past long since gone.