Critique of "What Makes Western Culture Unique"

Critique of What Makes Western Culture Unique. This essay "What Makes Western Culture Unique," was written by Professor Kevin MacDonald.

Sorry for the procrastination. I was also very busy!

Professor Kevin MacDonald teaches Psychology at California State University. Although I disagree with him, on a "grand Jewish conspiracy to control Western Culture," he does have great experience and some merit for praise.

He states Western Culture is unique. This, I agree with. His reasons (typed verbatim) therefore are:
1. the Catholic Church and Christianity [Blogger's note:I agree, Europeans and near Easterners (white Middle Easterners (Semites)) uphold Christianity in a manner largely unpracticed by the other races.]
2. A tendency to monogamy [Bloggers note: especially in relation to non-Whites of non-Northern Asian/Canadian descent]
3. A tendency toward simple family structure based on the nuclear family. [Yes, this is a relatively unique Western characteristic, as non-Whites have very high illegitimacy rates in Western countries, while Europe's have tried to stick to the family model, with much better success. However, Northern Asians also well-known for at least maintaining a low illegitimacy rate outside of China. Monogamy and relative lack of illegitimacy are still Western characteristics which make it unique.]
4. A greater tendency for marriage to be compassionate and based on mutual affection of the partners. [I would say this is true, although I don't have any scientific (empirical) facts to support it. However, I do believe White males are usually more likely to marry out of personal affection than out of social status. On the other hand, many non-White males love to show off White (sexual) mates.]
5. A de-emphasis on extended kinship relationships and its correlative, a relative lack of ethnocentrism. [Whites do get ethnocentric, with the right stimulus. However, this is very true in relative terms. Almost only Whites can be fully racial guilt-tripped (with the only possible exception being Northern Asians, but they haven't been tested yet). In relative terms, Whites ignore racial interests. Even in times of Radical White Racism, as in the Jim Crow South, Whites still showed compassion, which would not have been significantly present, had the racial dominance been reversed.]
6. A tendency toward individualism and all of its implications: individual rights against the state, representative government, moral universalism, and science. [This is very likely true, as Whites continue to support democratic-republican principles as no other major groups do outside of America. Whites are also super-empathetic, hence their massive support for protecting non-White and even animal groups. Ironically, Environmental and Animals Rights groups are (generally) proportionately "more White" than conservative pro-life groups!

Whites are also very individualistic and more resistant to communism and excessive collectivism.]

I agree with the influence of the Christian Church. However, I also believe the Jewish Church is also a successful influence and strong characteristic of the Jewish people.

I also agree with him on monogamy and most of the rest of the essay. However, I don't fully agree on the differences between Europeans and Jews (& other Semites). There are technically differences between (non-Southern) Europeans and Jews. However, I find them exaggerated, as he listed them. Before I list examples, it should noted that Jewish behavior is more like (non-Southern) Europeans, than many Southern European groups (probably due to Arab and Black admixture?)

With evolutionary history, it is true that Middle Easterners had a relatively larger herding business, and Europeans relied more hunter-gathering. However, Israel's climate most resembled Southern Europe, and required a level of hunter-gathering, even a few thousand years ago. The Near East was also affected by the Ice Age.

On family systems, I do agree, Jews tend to better associate more with extended families and ethnic communities, just as the Greeks and Italians do, as well. They claim it's culture. It probably is, but I do think Professor MacDonald has a point here.

I don't think the Jews are particularly patriarchal; they actually have leading activists for women's rights. Although I will concede they may be slightly more so, in normal times (with psychological bias absent), they resemble White Gentiles much more than they resemble non-Whites in this area of activism, as they do in most every other field (of behavioral areas) under
study.

I also find the complete omission of monogamy under the "Jewish" category very interesting, as polygamy was hardly practiced by the Jews, outside of royalty, after their formation as an official ethnic group (following Jacob and his children). Other Semitic groups appeared to end polygamy outside of royalty, when their settlements were firmly established.

The practice of polygamy in Islam is an Arabic tradition, not a White Semitic one. Judaism is much less pro-polygamy, than say, unreformed Mormonism.

I also think, what's keeping the Jewish intermarriage rate at around 50% and not higher is culture and religion. But if the Jews are a completely different race from Whites, than their racial out-marriage is higher than ours.

I also disagree on marriage psychology, although he is right to a slight extent. White Gentile families practiced arranged marriage for family wealth and prestige, at times. And Jews likely married for love (as opposed to financially arranged), on a similar level to probably Southern Europeans and White Turks. This has a grain of truth in terms of culture, comparing Israel to deep northern climates. However, I think even the cultural aspect, making even deep Southern Europeans look 'black and white' more 'love-based' and less ethnocentric (than Jews) is exaggerated.

I also find the idea that Jews are particularly patriarchal, laughable. Jews are proportionately, more liberal than even White Gentiles, and support women's right & feminism. Some dismiss the Jews as "just another non-White group." However, the Jews (who are White) have leading women with White Gentiles, in disproportionate numbers. Jewish men also much more resemble European men than they do, Hispanic and Black men, in treatment and attitude toward women.

Jews are not listed as individualistic, but collectivist. I think they would be the latter, in the Soviet sense, for cultural reasons and persecution. Judaism is in between, supporting individual responsibility and support for the religious community. The same applies to Christianity. Maybe he was referring to pre-Christian European culture. If so, I don't know much thereabout. However, I still think Whites (both Gentile and Jewish) are more individualistic and republican than non-White groups.

The Jews are listed as Hyper-ethnocentric and Hyper-xenophobic. I strongly disagree with this assessment, as the Jews tend to be leading liberals. The state of Israel is also being very kind, in its reaction, to Palestinians. It deals with terrorist attacks on civilian population centers on a regular basis; yet, the Jews do whatever they can, to prevent Palestinian casualties. I find the idea that Jews are particularly ethnocentric and xenophobic silly and as a classic exaggeration. The Jews are overwhelmingly non-ethnocentric!

I will agree, Jews are slightly more collectivist, with their community. However, that is for cultural reasons. They promote culture, but they are actually poor in recognizing their genetic nation and supernation.

I also find it hard to understand how Jews "oppose reason and science, whilst supporting dogmatism and submission," when they make such a disproportionate share of Nobel Prize winners and inventors!

http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

The Jews promote moral universalism, with Judaism and behavior. They do not support just "What is good for the Jews?" Most are genuinely liberal and believe in the protection of all human life. They are genetically very similar to Europeans.

"On the other hand, group strategies deriving from collectivist cultures, such as Judaism, are immune to such a maneuver because kinship and group ties come first. Morality is particularistic—whatever is good for the group. There is no tradition of altruistic punishment because the evolutionary history of these groups centers around cooperation of close kin, not strangers."

Genetically, Jews are very similar to Europeans. Liberal Jews play the game of "altruistic punishment," themselves. They are under the same pressures as White Gentiles are; racist Jews get censured by other Jews for racial slurs against non-whites.

Culturally speaking, Judaism did promote community involvement. However, it did provide universal moralism, and eventually brought in converts. The Jewish tribe was slightly ethnocentric, but in the same sense that Celtic, Nordic, and Germanic tribes were. They had a very similar system. And Judaism is a more advanced religion and universally accepting than ancient paganism.

I think the best strategy is to appreciate what makes Western Culture unique, as he stated. People of Jewish descent do have some of the differences as he stated, to a minimal extent. However, I believe Jews are a part of Western Culture, especially when compared to (Brown)
Arabs, Blacks, Brown Asians, and Brown Hispanics. If Jews have the alleged differences between White Gentiles and Jews; and they are as to be viewed as, as big as claimed, than I would be most interested to see the categories for Black Africans.

There is a cultural difference and a smaller genetic difference. However, I think they are exaggerated. A major issue is empathy and higher levels of thinking. Both White Gentiles and Jews hold this in disproportionate degrees!

I also see the conspiracy theory of "Jews plotting to destroy Western Culture" as absurd and even inappropriate for an academic essay, especially for a scholar of Mr. MacDonald's skill level and profession.

Most of the rest of the WMWCU Essay is well done. Western Culture is unique and worth preserving. Let's not neglect and lose the culture of our ancestors!

The Essay of What Makes Western Culture Unique can be accessed with this hyperlink:

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/West-TOQ.htm

Obama won the 2008 Election, with a minority of White votes.

Barak Hussein Obama won the 2008 election.

Whites actually voted for John McCain, 55-43; over 56%, according to the tv news I heard.

Don't quote me, as I don't have a confirmable hyperlink, right now. But this is what I saw on the televison.

Poll Results!

Poll Results:

John McCain: 3 (75%)

Barak Husein Obama: 0

Ralph "Spoiler" Nader: 0

Bob Barr: 0

Other: 1 (25%)

Votes: 4

Note for Jews! Part 4

A fourth, and potentially most dangerous threat resides in the Islamic presence in the West. Muslims are especially in Europe.

Islam. A great expansionist religion, seeking conquest and Jihad of the whole world. As well-evidenced, Islam is a foreign and competing Relgion, belief system with Judeo-Christianity. It's a threat to not only Europeans and Christians. It's also a threat to ethnic and relgious Jews. In this post, I hope to demonstrate why Christians and Jews need to unite, to protect the state of Israel and all other White and Christian nations. This applies especially to the future conflict in Europe. We will likely see a three player clash. Western Civilization will be stuck in the middle between Brown Arabs and Islam to the South and East. To the South on the western plank, the Brown Hispanic threat will thrive and expand.

It's well-known that a number of Jews promote even Islamic immigration into Europe. The reason therefore is likely justified in fear of authoriatative rule. Nationalism has an unfair association with Nazism and genocidial anti-Semitism. This analogy is inaccurate, and misrepresents the inalienable right of peoples to have and maintain self-preservation.

It should also be noted that Islam is a bigger threat to the Jews than even nationalism. Islam will curtail individual and religous freedoms. Muslims are also very racist and anti-Semitic.

Pew survey, May 2003, reported in International Herald Tribune, June 3, 2003 (here and here).
The majority in Morocco, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Kuwait, Lebanon, Indonesia and Pakistan want to end the state of Israel.

A Year After Iraq War - survey, March 16, 2004
The majority in Jordan support suicide bombing of Jews.
The majority in Morocco support suicide bombing of Jews.
The majority who expressed an opinion in Pakistan support suicide bombing of Jews.

Sources:

http://markhumphrys.com/islamic.world.html

http://markhumphrys.com/israel.html#ww2

Islam is not tolerant of the Jewish and Christian people. There is more content I could add, but I don't have the time and/or convenience to do so. We will likely see a global conflict, and the Jewish ethnic and religious people and European Christians will be at a grave risk. The upcoming global conflict could be the next major test for Europe, in stopping foreign invasions. Likewise for Jews facing another attempt at complete genocide. Suggested locations for Jews, are Argentina & Chile (last resorts) and safe rural (though probably out of the Deep South) areas in White-majority areas of America. In Europe, Jews should just look for areas least likely to get caught up in the Christianity-Islam conflict. Whatever the case is, we must unite now!

Note: In notes to Women and Jews, it's not my intention to appear rude or even patronizing. It's solely my intent to give advice to both groups (because I care for them, even though I don't belong to either; and it's in the best interests of Jews, White women, and White Gentile males, to unite and not be divided by social whims).

Note for Jews! Part 3!

Non-Whites are not of your kind. They threaten the whole White race, and potentially the Jews as a distinct people.

Eddie Murphy: "Don't Let me down, Don't let me down,(oh yeh), Dont let me down, Hymietown" skit- Eddie Murphy on Saturday Night Live

http://blogs.uptownlife.net/paulstewart/?p=15

(source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hymie)

Jesse Jackson referrd to New York City as Hymietown, and Jews as Hymies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson#1984_presidential_campaign

Anti-Semitism Among Black Student Groups.

http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/black_bigots.asp

Racial Disparity in hardcore/Strong anti-Semitism.

Foreign-born Hispanics:44%, Blacks:35%, native-born Hispanics: 20%, Overall: 17%

Whites are apparently less than 17%, as the overall is lower than the that of the other races. I also suspect the Hispanic anti-Semitism is higher, among the native-born, especially in the gangs.

Not to forget Louis Farrakhan of Nation of Islam.

Jewish Leaders fear anti-Semitism among Hispanic Immigrants.

I even found a Hispanic Blog accusing Jews of taxing food products, through Kosher labeling. It called it a ? scam. I lost track thereof. I also saw a clip of Mexican saying "they should have dropped a hydrogen bomb on Jewish-sh*t-town Manhattan." I lost track of the latter, too.

It is obvious that non-Whites would be more anti-Semitic, as they are differnt races. It also wouldn't make sense for non-Whites to be pro-Jew, but anti-White Gentile. They dislike, by appearances. If a non-White is about to kill in a race war, don't just shout, "I am a Jew. I am a Jew!" That will actually make the potential assassin more eager to kill. They know who has the most influence; and many (though not all) are jealous.

Black Professor calls for extermination of Whites. Does one truly think the Jews would be an exception? They own a disproportionate share, whichof Whites own a disproportionate share.

It's also silly to have an inter-racial "alliance," whereby an ethnic group betrays its race, in favor of a foreign subspecies. Blacks know this, and most such Blacks only use the Jews, for Black power. In the end, many now, and even more will want us all dead. Now, we need "liberal" Jews to realize this, before it's too late.

(The only benefits of this facade is that Jews can sneak money from Blacks, to give to their racial interests, and potential infiltration. The future Black armies will be very anti-Semtic in nature, and Jews may have an opportunity to sabotage the Nation of Islam, just as it did to Nazism.)

Note for Jews! Part 2

Last time, I talked about the White anti-Semites, who misunderstand the Jewish people. It has been noted that the Jews are a decoy for the real leaders of the internationalists, just as Israel is a decoy for Saudi Arabia (We went to war into Iraq, for Saudi Arabia, not Israel. Mostly Likewise for an invasion of Iran). The Internationalists may disproportionately be Jewish; but they are not interested in Jewish genetic interests. If they did, non-White immigration and miscegenation would not be encouraged, at the current rates. It would also be risky showing Irish women and White women who could be mistaken for Jews, and even White women in generally mixing with non-Whites. By doing so, more Jewish women will likely follow suit. Contrary to popular belief, the Jewish women still consider themselves White, and will be brainwashed to race-mix no less than a blonde Swede. The White anti-Semites will say what they will; but the Jews are not consciously commiting racial suicide. Likewise for self-hating Whites. If we must get rid of the racially aware Jews and 'liberal' Jews, than what about the 'liberal' White Gentiles? There is much potential for a needed alliance between White Gentiles and Jews. The anti-Semitic calls from White anti-Semites must be ignored, but taken seriously.

Now, there are members of the Jewish Establishment that are harming the Jewish people. Likewise for many "anti-Hate" organizations. ironically, the anti-White radicals, many leftist Jews side with, happen to be even more anti-Semitic than David Duke. It's also ironic, the Jews are generally not a hyper-ethnocentric group. They are actually (on average) more anti-White and even anti-Jewish genetic interests than average White Gentiles are. The Jews actually do practice what they preach; there is very little double-standard in the Jewish community, regarding interracial marriage and procreation.

What drives them, is the Holocaust and persecutions which occur at this time. Orthodox Rabbis are attacked for the actions of (pro-race mixing) Jewish Hollywood executives*; it makes sense for the Jews to be upset when the wrong people are punished for offenses. This is the oppposite to the idea that the Jews want to be the only White people; or they feel safest in a racially diverse society. They just want to get on with their lives, and help their people. On an individual basis, it is likely true that a few Jews hate White Gentiles, just as some White Gentiles hate and want to exterminate Jews. However, this is beside the point, overrepresenting a small, powerful minority of Jews. It's also not representative of the Jewish people. They are in the same boat as we are.

Just as there are White Gentiles sabotaging our efforts to promote a strong relationship and alliance between Jews and White Gentiles, some Establishment Jews are doing the same thing. The latter's affects are dangerous and may prove dire for the Jewish people, even more than for the White Gentiles.


*I don't condone violence and/or the breaking of laws within respective jurisdictions.

...(continued)

My suggestion to the Jewish people, is to accept their (including White Gentiles') genetic interests. They should align with the Whites in self-preservation, while keeping society socially tolerant, whereby violence against others is condemned. Jewish Objective: keep society tolerant, permitting friendships transcending genetic ancestry; and oppose race-mixing and race replacement. Promote genetic preservation!

White Gentiles need to become tolerant toward Jews. Encourage them to assimilate with our society and culture, while permitting Jewish communities to remain genetically Jewish.

Jews possess significant intelligence, and White Gentiles have the numbers. Both need each other, as they are helpful to each other.

Note for Jews! Part 1

Note for Jews! Many have taken action against you! Many have denied you, your identity! You are White!

Contrary to popular belief, the Jewish people, and other Semitic people (the Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, some Iraqis, some Iranians, and some Turks) are White. Even Pakistan and Afghanistan have small pockets of Whites. Yes, there is a hint of beige, in Jews, when they are in the Middle East or the Southern United States. However, this skin tone is "elastic," in the sense, that it can become virtually as fair as a Swede's, if in Sweden. This is not the case for Arabs (i.e. Saudi Arabians, Yemenians, Omanians, etc.) There have also been blonde haired and blue-eyed Jews; their complexions appear even more fair than that of many (if not most) Turks and Greeks (Greeks are certainly White, and some Turks are, as well). Their hair and facial features are finer than the typical Arab's.

(You,) Jews are a beautiful people. Be proud of yourselves, as you represent your Race well!

People, of Jewish descent: you have four enemies. The first and most well-known are White Gentile anti-Semites, including in particular neo-nazi's. The second is some of the Jewish Establishment, including the ADL, and maybe the SPLC (assuming the SPLC is headed by Jews). Self-hating Jews are included. The third is racist non-Whites. Muslims, are the fourth and potentially the most dangerous.

There are many anti-Semetic White Gentiles, who must be taken seriously. They pose a serious problem, to their people, including the Jews, and their race, as a whole. With the current climate of anti-White "anti-racism," Whites need all the (clean, non-criminal, morally fit) White recruits, they can get, even if it means gays in the short-term (and maybe medium and long-terms). Whites also need to have a positive PR. This means, their growth will be limited, especially if they spend more time attacking all people of Jewish descent, than seeking self-preservation, and trying to show they are different from foreign races. Even from a Gentile perspective, Whites can't afford to spend most of their energy, villifying the Jewish people. This means, no anti-Zionist excrement; the Zionism means preserving a heartland for the Jewish people, not dominating the World. Anti-Zionism is codeword for anti-Jewish, and Zionism from anti-Semites is codeword for Jewish. The whole anti-Jewish conspiracy theory of Global Jewish domination of a New World Order makes the pro-White movement look bad, especially as we can't afford to have Adolf Hitler as our spokesman. It would also be impractical for the Jews to control the whole world (especially on a purely ethnocentric basis), as the number only 14 million out of nearly 7 Billion. Mixing all of the races into one, and being the only distinct people, would also be against their interests! They would be particularly vulnerable, if the 'Tan Everyman' mass rose against them.

I don't believe in the New World Order conspiracy theory, for my projected lifetime, at least. But the closest thereto, is actually not a pro-Jewish conspiracy, even though Jews may make a disproportionate share thereof. International bankers and multinational bankers pose a bigger and more likely threat; and I still don't see them forming a One World Government in my lifetime, if ever. A North American Union is much more likely, and it's not lead by the Jews, as a genetic people. The Jews are actually opposed thereto. The "dominating, ultimate power-seeking pesky" Jews are actually against it, as a North Amerian Union would actually dilute their numbers from 2% to an eventually sub-percent. They could eventually become virtually unfindable, in a new tide of a Billion Brown Hispanics (who happen to be the most anti-Semitic group only behind Muslims). The common Jew would lose all "priviledges." So, it would have to be an internationalist money and power hungry people, who could care less about the genetic composition of their descendents; whether it be White, Brown (Arab or Hispanic), Yellow, Black, or even Australian Aborigine.

One specified example used, is "the United Nations will entail a One World Government." My response is that the UN is actually very anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. (Shocking! Isn't it?!) Israel comprises only a fraction of a percent of the Middle East (if I am correct), and the Jews are greatly outnumbered by Muslims (Arabs and many Black Africans and Southeast Asians). Virtually the whole Middle East, most of Africa, and much of Central and Southeast Asia, and the inhabitants thereof vs. the Jews and Israel. Guess who makes a more powerful UN block. The UN has even flirted with helping Global Islam, whilst sneering at the Jewish people. So much, for the Jews using the UN, to control the whole World!

The Protocols of Zion are complete! The Jews couldn't have used the UN, any better!

Futhermore, anti-Semites such as David Duke, Matt Hale, and others miss the mark, when spending more time villifying the Jews, than promoting their own people or showing differences with foreign races, at certain junctures. Here is my question: How does denying the Holocaust, attacking the Jewish people in Israel and/or in general, and accusing one's Jewish doctor of promoting a New World Order, help the White Cause?

And assuming the Jews do "support the destruction of White Gentiles," then why not attack where it hurts. Attack them on an individual basis, destroying their boogeyman to convince the Jews to hate their race. Then they lose their boogeyman, and consequentially excuse to hate White Gentiles.

Anyways, I digress, and I apologize, but this is an important message for White anti-Semites.

Known anti-Semitic groups include the Neo-Nazi's and Ku Klux Klan. In principle, it makes sense that the former would be anti-Semitic. However, it's not really racist; it's actually more anti-Semitic. The Nazi's actually didn't know much about Blacks and Brown Hispanics. They also ironically took a negative move, even from a purely ethnic standpoint. They killed some of their most intelligent and productive members and citizens (the Jews), so they could have Black men rape their women. So, German men and women (and children) died, and very genetically similar Jews were slaughtered, in order to have Blacks impregnate their women, and have Muslims (primarily of Black and Turkish descent) fill in the void of Germans and Jews (both White). This is a loss for Germany and real White Nationalists. If they really support their people, neo-nazis must disband and join other groups.

The opposite is the case for the KKK! They were originally racist, not anti-Semitic. A KKK purist should and would encourage the Ku Klux Klan, to accept Jews and stop attacking Jews on a genetic basis. The Klan's real opponents are non-Whites (particularly Blacks and Hispanics), not Jews. They need to 'wake up and smell the coffee;' the Jews are one of them. And if they decide they don't like the Jews, they should at least take a neutral stance, if nothing more positive.

Again, I am sorry for digressing, but this shows hope for Jews, and an ideal blueprint for Jews who may want to infiltrate the Klan, and turn it pro-Jew, while still pro-White.

The Jews need the White Gentiles for numbers; if a race war occurred, who could the Jews side with? Certainly not the Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and/or (mostly Islamic) Arabs. Their only options are Whites and the Government. And I can see many (not all, or even most) Jews having their bases covered by siding with the Government (if still officially pro-Jew and majority White) and Secessionist White Nationalists. All other options would have to be token support and used more for spying, than actually helping.

And White Gentiles need the Jews, for their intelligence and ability to infiltrate and spy. Many Jews can, and likely will pretend to support the Jew-Black alliance, and spy on and sabotage Black efforts, if a racial civil war were to occur. White (Gentile) Nationalists (pro-secession or not), here is your perfect opportunity, as you make the only natural racial ally, with the Jews, who are an excellent asset. We actually need the Jews to multiply!

There will also be a future alliance between European(-European) Nationalists and Jews, as both are ethnically similar, and both will be under attack by Muslims. There will likely be regular pogroms in Latin America. Mexico, Central America, and South America (minus Argentina and Chile) will be likely turn into a Hispanic Nazi (de facto) empire, ready to side with the Muslims in Europe and the Middle East. I see it as the Muslims (especially in Europe) siding with the Brown Hispanics (especially in America and Mexico) against White Gentiles and Jews. China will likely side with the former, initially, until there is a Civil War in its own borders from its Islamic population. China will actually win its civil war against Muslims and will side with only Brown and White secessionists in America (and maybe even White Christian Europe). After overplaying their hand, the overconfident Muslims will lose a great ally in China. China will have to eventually take sides against Islam, as the Islamic caliphate will conflict with its interests and territorial integrity. India will also take sides with the Christians, if the actual Muslim countries declare war on Europe. The Pakistanis will start a war with the East Indians. India will probably nominally support the U.S. government, while secretly helping the Brown and White secessionists at times. Russia will also help the White Secessionists. Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan may also help the Secessionists in America, particularly out of revenge toward the U.S. government.

Jews, you are a beautiful and intelligent people. It's in your best interest to side with us; and we need you! It's in both of our interests to unite!

Note1: I do not support and/or endorse secession from the United States Federal Governement and/or the overthrow thereof.

Note2: A note part, pertaining to self-harming Jews, Racist (and potentially racist) non-Whites, and Muslims, will follow. Publishing will not appear immediately after this note part.

Note for White Women!

Note for White Women! The Establishment has supported the notion that all White men are worthless pigs. And yet White men are also "Sexually repressive" and even "sexually deficient" to White women, especially compared to darker races.

Pertaining to the former, is how the media makes all White men look like misogynists. It is true that women had fewer rights, in the past. However, they are not truly viewed as inferior, by most White men. In the past, it was out perceived necessities to protect women. This evidences that women were actually specially valued, not depreciated. How paradoxical?! Women were actually given special treatment, in some regards. I would rather stay home, snack on foods, and play with the children, than be conscripted into a military and potentially die for a greedy King. The point is that the genders are specialized; that cannot be scientifically (or even objectively, for that matter) denied. These roles are necessary for group survival.

If the UK was so sexist, then how did Queen Elizabeth become and remain queen, in the first place?

The next point is that the media has worked to divide our race. It has cut the racial union apart. The White Wife is being told that her White Husband is oppressive and not sexually sufficient. She is also told that her husband views her as an inferior kind. "He actually hates his mother!"

The media has distanced this beautiful White women from her handsome White husband, who has actually cared for her, and treated her with the most love and care possible. This, in and of itself doesn't necessarily cause the cheating. This is to make it easier to pry her open.

Next, with the mind games, the media says "Your husband is not sexually sufficient!" The former scenario makes this step easier. Now, she is alienated with her White Husband, and is told that Jamal, Jose, and Abdul are all better in bed! Virtually across the whole board, she is told. Just as in an individual marriage, she is wonders "What? I can have better sex? Why?" The other male races, especially the Black one, are shown in the same boat and sexually superior to the White Husband. They are both shown as oppressed by White men. In the psychology of women, the media has helped the Black male steal the White man's wife, in the theater of male competition. Men of all races are in competition for the White women. (for men: you need to make White women less self-absorbed and even less promiscuous. Make them feel like part of the White race; and take control. Don't be emasculated, or all will be lost.) The media has promoted miscegenation (almost always involving White women), to introduce the "new guy" to the White women with the "wandering eyes." She is brainwashed into lusting over this foreigner. Now, she has been manipulated into the extramarital affair. This is where we are now at. Now, the anti-White globalists are working on increasing the number of White women to cheat on/leave their White men, even if metaphorically. White women are being coerced into sexual activity with non-Whites (even female ones) in a most blatant way.

But remember White women, you are still White; and the media knows this. This is why it supported Barak Hussein Obama over Hilary Clinton. The White Women-Black man alliance is a fraud. The Black man and his enablers have turned against you, even (if and) when you decided to explore with other (non-White) men. But the White man is waiting, and willing to love you unconditionally. He will forgive, when you repent* from your foolish ways.

On miscegenation, two points:
By saying Black men are superior to White men, one is insulting your Father and potential Sons. Is that really worth it?

Also, if the Black male is the ideal, then why should he dilute his genes with "less manly" White genes. By intermixing with a White women, his sons will be "half-wusses!" And even if they can replace White males, there sons will be "75% wusses." And so on. And if the White woman is the ideal for non-White man, then why dilute her genes? Just let me have her (in a singular sense of course.). Concepts must be able to self-sustain, to pass muster.

Here is how it all makes sense. Whites are a race and have gender roles. Men are men and Women are women. However, men and women are members of their race first. White men are custom made for their women, and vice-versa. Likewise for Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, and others. We have our own standards, and the genders of each race are best made for the opposite gender of the same race. No race can beat another race, for being the best of the latter. The same even applies to humans with less developed animals.

Gender is being used to divide and kill our race.
Remember White women, you are White first. Return to your man, the White man! : )

* I meant "repent" in a non-religious manner. It was not used for blasphemy, but for lack of a better word.

Predictions for the rest of 2008

Predictions for the rest of 2008. Other matters will be discussed.

Nasty Hurricane Season? Yes & no? Slightly worse than average. One or two major hurricanes will hit the American coast. One to three hurricanes will hit U.S. coast, with moderate damage. Wild tropical storm activity in late July & August.

Gas Prices will rise to $ 5, by the end of the year.

Barak Hussein Obama becomes president. : ( From August to early 2009, the overall American economy will begin to improve, in spite of rising gas prices.

Black riots will succeed Obama's election. The Negroes will celebrate "beating Whitey." This will be a small interference of the improved economy. The Black-on-White crimerate soars, dramatically. Whites will adore "Osama." The mulatto is the way to go! But after 2 to 3 years, things will change. Obama's glory will entail a hangover and disillusionment.

New Shape of the Presidential Field

So, now our presidential field is narrowed. In the Republican party, we have the insane John McCain, who wants to stay in Iraq forever, and invade Iran. We also have former Governor Huckabee, who wants to create theocratic state, and turn the whole country non-White, just because he can't stop hating himself. In the Republican party, we have "Bilary" Clinton, and Barack Obama, who is "qualified," just because he is black! The closeted pro-illegal immigration candidates are now out. Now we don't even have a closeted pro-illegal immigrantion candidate left! : ( All are now openly in favor of it.

Future Topics

Hi, I had an interesting conversation, tonight (by light/dark cycle, not calendar). We talked about politics, which eventually proceeded into the economy. I don't want to spend to much time, right now, as I need to go to bed, but I talked about the balances of the economy. We have a hugh debt. I will talk about the coming recessions & depressions, the national debt, and Peak Oil. I will also discuss the future of this country. It will probably turn into a totalitarian state, split, or collapse, altogether. The first is the most likely, followed by the last.

Thoughts on the Primaries 2

On my last blog, Thoughts on the Primaries (1?), I typed about the threat of our current status quo. Our politicians are nothing other than puppets or marionettes, for the Establishment. : ( We must stop this tyranny. The first (and most important) action is to protect the voting process. We should either have the ballots counted by hand. Another idea, is to give every voter an anonymous identity of number (and this will be done at the precinct level). And, if a vote really is miscounted, the voter could bring up his case (and a governmental check will be done). All in charge of counting votes will be bipartisan. The federal government shall ensure bipartisanship and a lack of conflict of interest(s), while the local area (probably individual precincts) will actually be conduct the process. Before even this can happen, we must prevent fraudulent votes (hence one of the reasons why we need to stop illegal immigration). Contrary to what the Establishment says Diebold, and the ilk, are not the solutions; they actually leave RIGGED elections, a possibility!

The next move is to crack down on lobbying and campaign contributions. We need to limit money that can be donated to politicians from multinational corporations. There shall be no money laundering (such as Wal-Mart giving money to a purely domestic company, to "softly" give money to political campaigns. States should do this, when and where the Federal government can't (and shouldn't for some). Also, when politicians retire, they may not become lobbyists (for f0r-profit organizations). They same applies to the Board of Directors (of for-profit companies).The only exception is if they receive below $100,000, on an annual salary (retirement coverages for the firms shall also be scrutinized. If they do so (without an exception) they will lose congressional pensions and health care coverage. There will also be a very higher tax rate (enough to make a profit from the lobbying firm, rather meager). We must wean our politicians off of the teat of Multi-national corporations, if our nation is to survive.

The third move is to bring anti-trust laws (and strengthen current ones we have). Our major broadcasting channels and whole news-media, shall be localized. Corporations with a commercial conflict of interest (to deemed by a bipartisan commission), will be forbidden from owning media outlets. Newspapers will be localized (not everybody should be reading the New York Times; read your own local newspaper! The more local, the better.) Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and the like will have major decentralization in the media. For example, Fox News, inc. won't be able to control what all of its viewers see (especially on political matters) what all of its viewers could and would see from New York to Los Angeles, from Canada (and Alaska) to Mexico. Think: Decentralization! On top of this, Rupert Murdoch won't be able to control his former channel, as he already has the Conglomerate's collection, in combination with corporate interests. His power, "trust," monopoly, must be destroyed. This is just one case in point. Channels should stop "Poll Results" for the Presidential Campaigns. They are being used by a channel to subtlety endorse a candidate. Broadcaster: "Hi, everybody! [The other week, we totally fixed the Presidential debate, purposefully to prop our choice candidates.] It looks like Huckabee is the most popular candidate, right now. He has the highest approval ratings. Everybody says he won at our hosted debate. He is great! Now, here is America's favorite, Pastor Falwell, Jr. Hi! Mr. Falwell, Jr." Falwell, Jr.: Hi, just so you know, everybody, Huckabee is a great guy! He is a fiscal conservative, and most importantly a 'man of God,' endorsed by our protecting Establishment!" B: "Yes, indeed. ........." And they go on, and on, with this propaganda, with a "Huckabee is winning and many think God is hand-picking him, so let's spend the whole time building his name recognition, while ignoring the others, especially Ron Paul. And here is one of the very few times they talk about Paul (which only occurs when he is doing well, so as to discredit his success): "Ron Paul is a nut! He thinks the North American Union is desired by our bosses in the Establishment! He wants the terrorists to win! He wants to get rid of the whole Federal Government! He is a Racist, a White Supremacist! He wants to let innocent foreign non-Whites die! He hates Abraham Lincoln; he might even be happy, he died! His supporters are loonies!" This is just the tip of the iceberg, as they try to deface his name, and misrepresent everything he says. All they can do is throw fallacies. Because, people tend to pay so little attention to politics (they just listen to the "major" issues) they tend to know little about political matters (except Britney Spears' latest shopping spree, and such!). They also rely too much on emotion, and what they are told to believe. The corporate-owned media knows this! And everything is staged! So, rationally speaking , one could well accept that Ron Paul meant "I just wish Civil War could have been settled diplomatically first," but the paid broadcaster equates this statement to actually opposing Lincoln's legitimacy. I greatly admire Lincoln for what he did, but even from the perspective of Ron Paul disagreeing with Lincoln, that is the whole point of democracy. People are supposed to have their own views, if they wish. This is the whole point of our Democratic Republic, which itself legitimized Lincoln's election. So, therefore, Paul couldn't have been challenging Lincoln's legitimacy. He is actually protecting what truly legitimizes him! But I digress! My whole point is that people need to dig into the information, themselves, and not rely on corporate interests, to tell them everything!

Maybe those who can't think for themselves, shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's one reason why minors can't vote, they would just vote whomever their parents supported; just like people vote for whomever Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh tell them to. The same thing is happening in the Democratic party, with Barrack Huessin "Osama" Obama.

Take care, and have a nice weekend!

Thoughts on the Primaries: 1/8/08

I have noticed the national presidential primaries have been acting rather strange. Obama won, and Huckabee, a.ka.a "Huckster," won Iowa, for the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. According to what I heard, Mitt Romney won Wyoming. Yea! America wants Obama and Huckabee!

But wait; there is a catch! Only about 200,000 Democrats voted (which is a record high for Iowa; and it was very nearly a perfect 3-way split), roughly 20%ish of the Iowa Democratic Party. But it's really a given that the main three (Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards) were the leading 3, although almost (or about) 80% of Iowa's Democratic voters didn't vote! That leaves a lot of room, for those 3 leaders. What happened is just that Obama's turnot was higher. It's possible (though far from confirmed) that if all Iowa Democrats had voted, Obama may have lost. But whatever the case, he just got the most turnout, and that is all that matters (even though a relatively small percentage of a million voted for him, out a few million).

Wait, again! Republican turnout was even smaller. Republicans had almost as little as half of the turnout, as the Democrats did! (This doesn't look good for the GOP, come General Election time.) Mr. Huckabee won Iowa, for the Republicans. Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong, but I believe Huckabee got only less than 40,000 votes! A population smaller than some college campuses! And this is for the whole state of Iowa! I attribute his victory in Iowa, to two things:
1. massive "MSM" media exposure. Ever since the debate in St. Petersburg, FL (in early November), the corporate media has been fixated (and "sucking up" to) the "Huckster." It has said "Huckabee's poll numbers are so high!", "Iowa wants Huckabee!", "America wants Huckabee!" So my question is, is the corporate media really so accurate in predicting the elections, or is it influencing it (how do we know Huckabee didn't have increased turnout from die-hard supporters and those on fence (voting for him, only because the media told them to))? Name recognition is actually more important than positive/negative statements. I can't explain how much it helps, how important it is, even for me, and I consider myself politically alert. Now imagine about those who "just don't give a darn," or are too preoccupied. There is a reason why Ron Paul didn't fare better than he did. What the media did was make the public vote emotionally (i.e. Iowa, which is supposedly over 97% White, gave the highest number of its Democratic votes to a Black man, who has a White mother. I honestly don't know all of the voters' intentions, and I am not pretending to. However, it's very likely that some Whites felt guilty. They felt morally superior, by voting for a Black man (regardless of the issues, as long as his policies are anti-White); they just had to elect a black man. Many (if not almost all) of this type would promote massive race-mixing (involving Whites, of course), even if it meant European (includes "Whites" in the U.S. and Canada) extinction; but I digress.) Most American registered voters (and obviously those elgible to register to vote) don't vote. And many don't pay much attention. The only ones voting in very high numbers are people who feel very passionate about their candidate, their issues, and/or democracy (in principle). But for the ones who payed vague attention, probably understood things as "Ron Paul says Abraham Lincoln was an awful President!" (which is false. I actually support Lincoln's decison to go to war but the media is misrepresenting what he actually said. What he really said was that Lincoln should have tried diplomacy first. But That is not what matters in politics. What matters is that much of the American population is mad at Ron Paul, because of what the media claimed "he said."Negative emotions ran high, because of a corporate media- induced misconception. It also painted Ron Paul as a "nut." It also made him look "anti-American" and "pro-terrorist," because he opposes oppressing countries, just because a few terrorists might reside in them. Emotions win the day, again! Huckabee also stole Paul's message (as well as Dwight D. Eishenhower's campaign slogan, to a degree. Remember of or heard of "I like Ike." for Dwight. Well, Huckabee has "I like Mike." (for Huckabee; How original?). Paul and Huckabee are the only two (0f two or three) candidates acceptable to the Religious Right. And the corporate media wanted Huckabee to take Paul's votes, before the latter could pick up steam (and have a chance at winning). It has apparently worked!

2. His supporters were just more enthusiatic. I remeber observing somebody's local campaign, not because he wasn't the best candidate, but because the winner belonged to a major church group! The media gave latter the most attention (by far); and as turnout was low (less than 10,000 voters out of over 135,000 registered voters actually voted), he had a large group of direct supporters (as a result of one church). Less than 10% voted. And the winner had less than 10,000 votes. But a biased media, and a well connected group of wacky people (who connected to very large groups of other "Theocrats") won him the election!

To be honest, I have mixed feeling about universal voting (in Democracy) for every single citizen. Turnout is always absymal, and a very large percentage (often enough to swing individual elections) of the voters happen to be excessively radical (and crazy). I think there should be an IQ test and/or a civics knowledge test given, where maybe only those who are half-intelligent (0r more, obviously) and/or those who have a clue to the election's candidates, can vote.

On those who do vote, voting on emotions is dangerous. Our Republic can survive, only if we, the voter, vote on the basis of reason, and not pure emotion. The corporate media can easily influence the emotional. It's much harder to manipulate people well grounded (anchored) with reason. If our Democratic Republic survives, it will be because of us upholding reason's supremacy!

New Hampshire Primaries

New Hampshire Primaries start tomorrow; Iowa and and (I believe) Wyoming have already voted.

Indian Hindus attack Christians

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59504

http://www.republicoflakotah.com/

JAN 1, 2008
Notice to All Foreign Governments and Private Owners of Real Estate within the Republic of Lakotah

TO:
The United States of America;
The States of: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska;
The County and Municipal Governments Operating within the Republic of Lakotah; and All Private Owners of Real Estate within the Republic of Lakotah
Lakotah, through its government, have appointed representatives to withdraw from all the treaties with the United States of America.
Lakotah, through such representatives, have formally withdrawn from all agreements and treaties with the United States of America. The reinstitution of our freedom and independence is found in law.
Lakotah has reclaimed sovereignty as a nation and over its traditional lands.
Despite many years of repeated bad faith on the part of the United States government towards the Lakotah People, the Lakotah hold no animosity toward the American people, most of whom have had no part in the actions of their government. We wish to deal with the American people in good faith and in a win-win manner.
While we have the right to impose liens on all of the real estate in our country, we prefer to come to resolutions with you all with out resorting to such measures. Accordingly, at this time, we are only declaring liens on real estate held by governments foreign to the Republic of Lakotah, but not on real estate held by private parties.
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties substantiate this freedom.

Lakotah welcomes the opportunity to meet and discuss this matter. We are in the process of scheduling meetings and will issue public invitations. Should you desire input with regard to scheduling these meetings, please contact us at the above.

Russell Means, Chief FacilitatorProvisional GovernmentRepublic of Lakotah

11/2/08 News Blog!

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59466

'MS-13' vandals deface Vietnam memorial.

Fox News also excluded Ron Paul from debate! : (

Happy New Year's Day!

Happy New Year's Day!

(image can be found at http://echeblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/happy-new-year.html)