How much longer will the American public tolerate the anti-white rhetoric coming from the mouths of liberal politicians and the pen of the media?

Over the past few months, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post and Democrat politicians, including former President Clinton and others, have questioned the legitimacy of the Tea Party movement because, as they say, it is “too white.”

To them, such “whiteness” is evidence of “racism.” They are attempting to drumbeat into the American consciousness two principles: one, that political speech and positions vocalized primarily by white people is, basically, invalid; and, two, opinions emanating from non-liberal white people is motivated by racism.

Throughout the entire healthcare debate, liberals assigned “racism” to those opposed to the massive overhaul. In fact, the opposition among the middle class had nothing to do with “hidden racism” but was a neutral and understandable desire to maintain for themselves the liberty to choose their own doctor, the fear of diminished quality care, the horror of being over-taxed to a degree that leaves little disposable income for working parents for their own family, and the bedrock, historic American belief of self-responsibility.

Similarly, those wanting closed borders and an end to illegals entering the country and blithely living off taxpayer largess are accused of “white racism.” when the underlying reason has to do with protecting themselves from crime, rape, murder, property damage and the closing of schools, hospitals and other essential services due to local and state bankruptcy born of the expenses of subsidizing illegals.

The left is trying to muzzle its political opposition by brainwashing us into accepting their mantra that non-liberal whites are racist. Our reply in proving that we are not racist has been to show that blacks are among Tea Party members. To be sure, that is important, but, by so doing, we are capitulating to the premise that by itself “white” opinion is somehow invalid.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is found a footnote or asterisk that freedom of speech or assembly is conditioned on its racial diversity, its “un-whiteness.” Our answer to those who ask “how many blacks, Muslims, or Hispanics are members of your group, should be: “It doesn’t matter, what matters is the cogency of our argument.”

We should have enough confidence to answer: “The problem is not with our beliefs, rather with those who do not share our core American values or are unwilling to gather and associate with a group overwhelmingly white”.

Freedom of speech and assembly should not be based on a quota system. Will we now have a situation in speech, like that in hiring, that requires 12% black or 11% Hispanic or 2% Muslim for that speech to be politically valid and acceptable?

What started out years ago as inclusiveness of others has dangerously degenerated into an exclusion of speech and validity if exercised by the white community. Obsessive identification with minority-group views has led to, among elite liberals, a complete indifference and callousness to the feelings and yearnings of the majority white population.
Truthfully, this has always been the goal of liberal multiculturalism. Its intention was never to simply open up our society but to close down those representing the historic ethos and values of America: the white middle class.

For the liberal left, other cultures are not simply to be admitted but should reign supreme—a tyranny of the minority over the majority, orchestrated by white liberals, and minority power brokers, wishing to subdue the majority standing in the way of their political and cultural hegemony, and feeling righteous doing so out of a conviction that non-liberal white people are racist and must be stomped down.

The truth is that many in the liberal community preaching to us about racism are, themselves, bigots against white Christians, labeling them red-necks, un-educated, racists, and simpletons. No one calls them on their bigotry since it’s difficult to conceive that those always touting civil rights and diversity are imbued with their own bigotry. Their never-ending indictment of American society as racist cloaks what is their own variety of bigotry.
The crusade of the liberal establishment to sew into the collective consciousness a belief that whites are inherently racist and “extremist” was displayed in the media’s endless speculation about a “white male” as the perpetrator during the first hours of the Times Square terrorist incident and yet played down the Moslem origin of the actual terrorist when so discovered. Even Rep. Jerold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) and Mayor Michael Bloomberg alluded to a white person “angry over the healthcare bill.” In the liberal mind, white people are closet Timothy McVeighs. It is a subtle bigotry that the American public dare not allow seep into their world view. It is a presumption which must be decried as racism against the white majority.

This belief is so ingrained that after the discovery of the Pakistani terrorist, Mayor Bloomberg warned that: “No reprisals and backlash against the Pakistani community will be tolerated.” Why the need to make this warning given that since 9/11 and numerous Islamic attacks since then, there have been no burnings of mosques or backlash riots against Islamic communities?

Instead of liberals admiring the majority, white community for their monumental restraint and fairness, liberals continue to peddle to “white America” how our evil impulses must be continually reigned in. President Obama has often delivered this very same message, and in a weekly radio address appealed to “Blacks, Muslims, Latinos and women to coalesce into standing behind his hopes and agenda for America”.

The reason for this never-ending liberal portrayal of “racist and extreme white-male America” is to intimidate us into silence. The left knows that the only thing standing in the way of their complete takeover of American government, culture and values is disenfranchising the legitimacy of the middle class. America is unique and different than other countries that are divided into a ruling class and a recipient class, with a very weak middle class. Americanism, on the other hand, comes from a prosperous, self-assured and vigorous middle class.

Liberals cannot out-rightly condemn the middle class. They have decided to strip it of its self-confidence and legitimacy by categorizing it as “white,” with all the orchestrated belittlement and demonization of whiteness we are now hearing. The economy is being transformed in such a way that entrepreneurship and small business, the backbone of the middle class, is being thwarted. An impoverished middle class is an impotent class. The elites are engaged in the destruction of the historic American ethos and value system embodied in the American majority. They want to convince us that “white values” are dangerous. What we have here is nothing less than cultural ethnic cleansing.

Here is a nicely written non-partisan article which describes how the immigration issue is buthchered by corrupt politicians.  Over and over again, Americans poll that they want the borders closed down and illegal immigrants approached instead of ignored or legalized, but over and over again, the leaders of the establishment are very reluctant to do what should be very easy.

In their desperation, President Barack Obama and senators with large Latino populations in their states (like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.) are seeking to polarize Hispanic and Anglo sentiment over the issue of illegal immigration. In his frequent messages calling for higher Latino and black turnout and his condemnation of the Arizona immigration law, Obama is trying to recapture over immigration the voter approval he lost over healthcare.

Arizona acted as it did because of a lack of federal enforcement of federal law barring undocumented immigrants. With a porous border, they felt that they were left no choice but to pass a law allowing potentially intrusive searches to ferret out illegal immigrants. Because this law could subject American citizens of Hispanic origin to undue scrutiny and perhaps to needless trips to the police station, the Arizona law antagonizes the jump ball in the immigration debate — Latino-American voters. If there were a real national identification card, the requirement to produce papers might be less intrusive. But, as it is, with the burden of proof on the citizen (or the illegal immigrant), the law is bound to raise tensions between Anglo cops and Latino citizens.

But being forced to support or oppose the Arizona law is a false choice. It reflects the unimaginative politics of confrontation that jeopardize race relations and elect demagogues like Barack Obama. (Obama’s share of the white vote was the same as Kerry won in 2004. He was elected only because of a three-point increase in black turnout and a shift in Latino votes to his corner. He won because of race, and now he schemes to keep control of Congress by using the immigration issue.)

The real answer is not to round up Latinos in the streets of Phoenix and hope to catch illegals in the net. Nor is it even to pretend that we can stop determined men and women from crossing the border by way of more guards, more troops and better equipment. The answer is to dry up the will to cross the border in the first place by stopping employers from offering jobs to undocumented workers. If there were felony penalties — jail time — for hiring illegals, they would not be hired. And if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigration.

The Republican position on illegal immigration should be to demand tough employer sanctions, including jail, and coupling that program with a vigorous guest-worker program to bring needed workers in legally, pay them a living wage and then escort them out when they are no longer needed. The United States, in need of a younger population to pay for our current and future retirees, should also raise the allowed levels of immigration.

Both parties are hypocritical on immigration. Democrats, controlled by unions, want Latinos to vote but not work. Republicans, controlled by agribusiness interests, want them to work but not vote. The answer is to stand up to union and to agribusiness pressure and take tough action to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants.

If there were no jobs for illegals outside of guest-worker programs, there would be no need for amnesty. They would all go home of their own accord or wait until they got legal status.

We would need a foolproof, biometric identity card to speed identification of those eligible for employment to accompany the sanctions against hiring illegals, but this is a small price to pay for an answer to so pressing a problem.

But Obama will not take the step that could end illegal immigration. Why? Because he wants immigration. He seeks to reshape the partisan balance in America by increasing the number of Latino voters and marrying them to the Democratic Party by provoking Republicans who just want law and order to appear racist to Hispanic-Americans. His is a game of great duplicity and racial opportunism. But good legislation can defeat his designs and solve one of our most pressing domestic problems at the same time.

The extreme naivety of the bourgeois leadership of the American people is shown by their inability to recognize the methodologies that can be used against them by hostile parties.  Anyone who studies criminal profiling would not be shocked by the fact that people can “camouflage.”  Though in this case, the camouflage should have been fairly obvious!

America’s homeland-security amnesia never ceases to amaze. In the aftermath of the botched Times Square terror attack, Pakistani-born bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad’s US citizenship status caused a bit of shock and awe. The Atlantic magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg’s response was typical: “I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor.” Well, wake up and smell the deadly deception.

Shahzad’s path to American citizenship — he reportedly married an American woman, Huma Mian, in 2008 after spending a decade in the country on foreign student and employment visas — is a tried-and-true terror formula. Jihadists have been gaming the sham-marriage racket for years. And immigration-benefit fraud has provided invaluable cover and aid for US-based Islamic plotters, including many planning attacks on New York City. As I’ve reported previously:

* El Sayyid A. Nosair wed Karen Ann Mills Sweeney to avoid deportation for overstaying his visa. He acquired US citizenship, allowing him to remain in the country, and was later convicted for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that claimed six lives.

* Ali Mohamed became a US citizen after marrying a woman he met on a plane trip from Egypt to New York. He became a top aide to Osama bin Laden and was later convicted for his role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa that killed 12 Americans and more than 200 others.

* Embassy-bombing plotter Khalid Abu al Dahab obtained citizenship after marrying three different American women.

* Embassy-bombing plotter Wadih el Hage, Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary, married April Ray in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen in 1989. Ray knew of her husband’s employment with bin Laden, but like many of these women in bogus marriages, she pleaded ignorance about her husband’s work.

* Lebanon-born Chawki Youssef Hammoud, convicted in a Hezbollah cigarette-smuggling operation based out of Charlotte, NC, married American citizen Jessica Fortune for a green card.

* Hammoud’s brother, Mohammed Hammoud, married three different American women. After arriving here on a counterfeit visa, being ordered deported and filing an appeal, he wed Sabina Edwards to gain a green card. Federal immigration officials refused to award him legal status after this first marriage was deemed bogus in 1994. Undaunted, he married Jessica Wedel in May 1997 and, while still wed to her, paid Angela Tsioumas to marry him in Detroit. The Tsioumas union netted Mohammed Hammoud temporary legal residence to operate the terror-cash scam. He was later convicted on 16 counts that included providing material support to Hezbollah.

* Eight Mideastern men who plotted to bomb New York landmarks in 1993 — Fadil Abdelgani, Amir Abdelgani, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Tarig Elhassan, Abdo Mohammed Haggag, Fares Khallafalla, Mohammed Saleh and Matarawy Mohammed Said Saleh — all obtained legal permanent residence by marrying US citizens.

A year after 9/11, homeland-security officials cracked a vast illegal-alien Middle Eastern marriage-fraud ring in “Operation Broken Vows.” Authorities were stunned by the scope of the operations, which stretched from Boston to South Carolina to California. But marriage fraud remains a treacherous path of least resistance. The waiting period for US citizenship is cut by more than half for marriage-visa beneficiaries.

As former federal immigration official Michael Cutler warned years ago: “Immigration benefit fraud is certainly one of the major ‘dots’ that was not connected prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and remains a ‘dot’ that is not really being addressed the way it needs to be in order to secure our nation against criminals and terrorists.”

Jihadists have exploited our lax immigration and entrance policies to secure the rights and benefits of US citizenship while they plot mass murder — and we haven’t done a thing to stop them.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_jihadis_marriage_fraud_scam_iCj3GkDvQHmxATUMP8VTrJ#ixzz0nADESCAE

Globalism means spreading revolution. It does not mean free movement.

Hardcore capitalism however requires free movement. Therefore, aside from the Trotskyites, the Jewish Bolsheviks are preferable to the liberal capitalists.

It requires a religious belief in capitalism in order to keep trying to succeed against all odds, because otherwise it is easier to give up. After all, to succeed requires many failed attempts and/or a special networking connection, especially in this global economic meltdown. I can attest to the fact that most hardcore entrepreneurs truly believe these values.

WASHINGTON — The most popular religion in America isn’t Christianity, as most of us have been taught to believe. The most cherished belief system celebrates the principles of unfettered capitalism.

That misplaced faith in free markets was on display in this past Thursday’s health care summit, when — between sound bites and talking points — Republicans argued that “choice and competition” would largely resolve the country’s health care problems. That belief — that the arbitrary, confusing and consumer-unfriendly policies and practices that we euphemistically call a health care “system” can be transformed by relying on free market principles — is confounding.

Except for beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Affairs system — all government-run insurance programs — those of us who have insurance are utterly reliant on the private market. That’s what got us into the mess we’re in.

The health care market simply doesn’t operate like the market for cars or computers or flat-screen TVs. Sony and Samsung make their profits by selling as many of their products as they can. Health insurance companies make their profits by selling as many of their products as they can and then trying very hard not to actually deliver them.

Try to imagine that you’re awaiting delivery of your brand-new 50-inch TV, for which you’ve already made a hefty down payment. But the company calls to tell you that you violated some obscure clause in your contract, so they’re not going to bring it! In the health insurance world, it’s called “rescission.” Insurers decide they won’t honor the contract because of some alleged violation by the policy-holder.

They do that to keep their fat profit margins. Health care giant Wellpoint has proposed substantial rate increases in the individual market (policies for individuals who don’t have employer-based insurance), not just in California but in several other states. In congressional testimony last week, WellPoint president Angela Braly said the company had to raise premiums because of soaring health care costs. But Wellpoint hardly seems to be hurting; it reported a profit last year of $4.7 billion.

California’s Wellpoint subsidiary, Anthem Blue Cross, is not only proposing stunning rate hikes. The state’s insurance commissioner has announced that the company has also repeatedly violated state law by failing to pay medical claims on time and by misrepresenting policy provisions to consumers, according to the Los Angeles Times.

So, it seems, the company tells you that a policy offers broad coverage when they’re trying to get you to buy insurance. But when you need the coverage, you find out that the policy doesn’t offer broad coverage, after all. That helps explain why so many people, even with health insurance, go bankrupt after a costly illness.

Without stricter government oversight and regulation — which is the essence of the health care reform proposed by President Obama — health care costs will continue to soar while consumers get less and less. Obama’s proposals don’t represent a “government takeover,” as critics contend. The vast majority of Americans would still get their insurance in the private marketplace. But insurers would have to live by a different set of rules.

Vice President Joe Biden said it best at the summit: If Republicans agree that insurance reform is necessary, that health insurance companies should be prohibited from turning away consumers because of pre-existing conditions, that they should be prevented from enforcing lifetime caps on benefits, then the GOP must see the need for strict government regulation. You don’t get those changes in the “free market.”

And, unlike the choice of buying a computer or a car, you’d don’t really get to walk away from health insurance. If you do, you take your life into your hands. Having health insurance increases your chances of longevity.

Once upon a time, political leaders realized that all Americans needed access to electricity, and they stepped in to ensure that all households got that small miracle at reasonable rates — something that the “free market” could not provide. Americans need a similar intervention in health care now.

In 2007 however, as opposed to 2006, The pro-JTF posts were cool because at that time the JTF used to be cool, but all this talk about “white racialism” and “western civilization” is just a bunch of Republican non-sense. My views are increased in sophistication by several orders of magnitude, but really I realized that trying to frame views into a mainstream context is cowardly! In addition to being a coward’s move, trying to “go mainstream” does not get results!

I note a few recurring themes in the posts, but that was mainly because of the environment. If a pond is full of bass fish, then your line will catch bass fish. If a forum is full of people who enjoy talking about certain themes, then you’ll adapt to that. It’s hardly autistic as the clowns on stumble inn would suggest, and more that I was responding to the environment by discussing the same topics, of course with different viewpoints! Contrary to me being autistic, my ideological opponents were, as they latched onto old fashioned ideologies and defended them whereas I always look forwards and sideways, much to the consternation of others.

I note high levels of criticism of Catholicism and Paganism. And criticism of nationalities. I guess you can say the posts weren’t all boxed into one issue.

The other posters here just don’t get it.  Freedom is not free.  Free market liberalism is based on “principles” rather than greed.  In other words free markets are about the liberation of the individual and not about the profit of corporations which are separate from the state.

If it was not for American imperialism, real Communists and real Fascists would have you all interned in camps.

MY COUNTRY TIS OF THEE SWEET LAND OF LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH BEUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES!

DON’T WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN IDIOT

(blood from slit wrists was found on the document)

Kahanism is not the right path to fight Islamic extremism.

The neo-con path is not the right path either. Liberal democracy is not the right path when confronted with theological threats.

A third way is the real option.

Goldman Sachs…These dysgenic cowards should have been in the trade towers when they went down. Paying themselves benefits after they ruined the economy for everyone else. Nothing short of revolution will change the situation. Obama is as much a part of the system as Bush.

A tiny amount of globalists continue to serve their own interests instead of serving national interests.

It is not my generation that ruined the country but the previous generations. It is not my generation that is responsible for the unemployed state of the young but your generation. It isn’t me, it’s you. Shut the fuck up. You get to where you are because you lie, cheat and kiss ass. Then once you gain power, you immediately betray the national interests of America to globalize the economy.

Nothing short of mass executions and bloodshed will fix the question of liberal capitalists who control the American government. I wonder how big the bonuses will be in 2011.

The working class must not turn to egalitarianism but to authoritarian nationalism.

After living through one of the most brutal recessions in U.S. history, many late teens and young adults could be scarred for life, adopting behaviors that could skew everything from their own careers to politics, corporate profits and the stock market.

Academics are beginning to study the implications of the recent recession on the current generation of Americans that age, suggesting it may have much the same effect as how the Great Depression changed so many of the youth of the 1930s into conservative spenders and investors.

Experts said people between 18 and 25 are the most likely to be affected for life as they internalize the struggles they’ve seen in family and friends and contemplate the power they will have over their own destiny.

Researchers Paola Giuliano of UCLA and Antonio Spilimbergo of the International Monetary Fund, in a National Bureau of Economic Research paper looking at recessions from 1963 to 2006, found that young people who live through downturns tend to doubt their control over their careers. Unlike people who have lived through sweeter economic circumstances, the youth of recessions tend to look at career success as luck rather than a result of personal action.

Long-term attitudes are soured most dramatically if individuals go through the stress of losing their own job, rather than simply taking in the broader angst amid a recession.

The current young generation has been hit hard directly and indirectly. In their homes, teens have likely seen parents worry about home values. In the workplace, there’s the threat to jobs as the unemployment rate remains stuck at a high 10 percent.

In addition, households are trying to replenish savings after a huge decline in stocks savaged 401(k) plans, and banks are forcing credit card holders to pay off debt and are reluctant to provide high levels of new credit.

Beyond family pressures, unemployment among 16-to-19-year-olds is at an extraordinarily high level of more than 26 percent. Students finishing college face difficult prospects, with hiring of this year’s graduates down 22 percent, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

The political discontent noted by researchers is showing up in a 25 percent approval rating for Congress and slippage in President Barack Obama’s numbers, according to Gallup polls. The public’s demand for action is fueling debate on how much business regulation is needed to protect people and how much would stymie profits, the economy and stock markets.

Meanwhile, investors pulled billions of dollars out of the stock market last year and this year have put a record amount, more than $300 billion, into bond mutual funds despite recent warnings that rising interest rates could cause bond values to fall.

If investors stay on the sidelines, the stock market won’t receive the boost individual buyers provide. And if bond values fall, the individuals who fled stocks and think they are safe in bonds could get hurt again.

It is possible that a generation of preretirees, and possibly their children, have been scarred permanently by stock market losses. Research by University of California-Berkeley professor Ulrike Malmendier and Stanford University’s Stefan Nagel shows that when individuals have had low stock market returns for many years, they don’t want to take risks in stocks.

Fidelity Investments research shows that Americans 22 to 33 years old have shifted toward more conservative financial behavior too. It’s influencing everything from investing to job choices: More are seeking job security and strong benefits rather than opting to jump from job to job to further their careers.

This is a multiple choice poll. Guests may participate. The potential answers are these.

Why fight for the preservation of ideological systems which hate infidels and continue to thumb their nose at science? Unlike the Iraqi Ba’athists, Theocratic Muslims believe in permanent revolution just as strongly as Leon Trotsky but are not advocating socialism but Islam. If you are an idealist like me, it is saddening that the middle east can’t fight American imperialism with anything but religious fundamentalism. In some ways, I believe the victim is responsible for the rape, to put it crudely.

If the world is divided between two theological viewpoints, secularism and Islam, and only one can exist, then sympathizing with the other is self-destructive. If someone has to be supreme, then it is better America than Iran or Afghanistan. Let it be made clear that if many of these regimes had the military strength to dominate, they would take advantage of it. It is only for material reasons that America dominates. But America is not more evil than Islam.

Yes we are ruled by disgusting liberalism. Nobody denies that. Yes our leaders are corrupt. But that does not mean that I sympathize with every single enemy America has.

Americans should get more militant if the government doesn’t cooperate. We’ve had enough of being bounced between a facade of two similar parties like pinballs and we’re not going to waste our lives away decaying under this system. Both parties serve the same elite and both hate communitarian nationalism. We’re not as dumb as the government thinks we are. If there is no light at the end of the tunnel, you can count on anti-government action and feeling escalating.

In the past i thought the jews are my brothers because they got murdered in the holocaust like gypsies but discovered that jews face is actually the ugly face of a nazi. They fabricated the jewcaust myth because they want money and to silence everybody who disagrees with their intention of world dominance by calling him a anti-semite. The people of JTF collaborate with white gentile racists. They call blacks ugly niggers and animals and beasts, they call gypsies parasites and mexicans dirty scumbags, they want to murder all arabs and commit a genocide against muslims. Their collobarators are well known fascists. The reall face of the jew is ugly and terrible, its the face of a child rapist and murder (look what they do to palestinians, they stole palestinian land). I got banned from JTF suppossedly because i posted on Stormfront but i posted in the oppossing views section like alot of jews. They are not even man enough to name the reall reason behind my banning. The jew is a well known coward.

Here is my response. I have both positive and negative comments about the JTF.

Positive
-Against the Iraq war but for going after explicitly theocratic regimes.
-Against massive and illegal immigration.
-Supporting Israel. Geopolitically, US should.
-against political correctness. Really bash Islam hard and really bash Blacks who dislike Whites. They reject political correctness but still collaborate with a few Blacks. They aren’t against Black participation if Blacks agree with them. They are against this ADL mentality of using non-whites as political muscle against Whites.
-Pushing collaboration with right wing gentiles who agree with them.

Negative
-Too religious. Granted Judaism isn’t Islam, but they are like the Jewish taliban.
-They support a biblical version of Israel and think every single Jew should go there. They think it should go from the Nile to the Euphrates. Too biblical.
-market capitalism. They should be more authoritarian.
-they don’t seem to differentiate between supporters of the nazi bureaucracy, and people who couldn’t realistically resist it.

Relative to the liberals who control America, the JTF does more good than bad in my opinion. However I don’t agree in lockstep with the Kahanist philosophy.

We can compare authoritarian ideological leaders to surgeons. Let us suppose that B-pep (a pro-Nazi internet figure) operated on me, and killed me instead of saving me. The correct response would be not to blame surgeons as a group or surgery as a practice, but to blame B-pep. Likewise, it is entirely possible to blame the Nazis and still hate liberals and internationalists at the same time. It is even possible to hate Jews and still hate Hitler, but I don’t hate Jews.

I will simulate how a neo-nazi responds to liberal smeers, and then I will simulate how I would respond:

While the negatively associated with Nazism has scared people away from authoritarian ideologies, we just have to accept it and minimize it by disassociating from it. Yes, Hitler’s image destroyed the image of those who fight against liberalism, but defending him only makes things worse. Besides, Nazism is philosophically flawed anyways.

The strategy should not be to defend Hitler. Right wingers of today do not have to take responsibility for Hitler, and right wingers do not have to apologize for Hitler. Right wingers do not have to defend Hitler. Neo-nazis feel they have to.

“A diverse Army gives us strength”

“It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well”

13 dead is not a strength, and when we (Bureaucratic authoritarians) take over the country, you will see the real strength. We will show you how to deal with liberals and we will show you how to deal with people who question the state. And we will show you how to deal with people who support spreading liberalism and democracy around the world, instead of spreading crass techno-fascism.

Fox News was right to purge this mental deficient. For the matter of race, Hassan hardly has a negroid appearance anyways.

The only way to have populism is to make the state so strong that it can play referee against economic impulses that are not collectively beneficial. A strong state enables a national self-interest.

Imagine all the problems “fascism” could have prevented. With a strong state, there would be no global economic meltdown because the government would put the bankers in their place. If the bankers act against the interest of the state, they get the purge.

National socialists and white nationalists argue that the movement should all be for the race, and they don’t even know how to define the race. The race is nothing but a collection of genetic matter without the state. The state is everything and everything else is nothing. A cruel death to neo-liberalism!

The elite has been bailed out. The same elite that caused this situation has been bailed out. The economy recovers for investors, but not for everyone else.

Quite frankly, you will never get me back. I will always hate everything the ruling order that produced this situation stands for. I will always hate Democrats and Republicans and hate everything liberal. You will never get me back.
The Link

Bright, eager — and unwanted. While unemployment is ravaging just about every part of the global workforce, the most enduring harm is being done to young people who can’t grab onto the first rung of the career ladder.

Affected are a range of young people, from high school dropouts to college grads to newly minted lawyers and MBAs across the developed world from Britain to Japan. One indication: In the U.S., the unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds has climbed to more than 18 percent, from 13 percent a year ago.

For people just starting their careers, the damage may be deep and long-lasting, potentially creating a kind of “lost generation.” Studies suggest that an extended period of youthful joblessness can significantly depress lifetime income as people get stuck in jobs that are beneath their capabilities, or come to be seen by employers as damaged goods.

Equally important, employers are likely to suffer from the scarring of a generation. The freshness and vitality young people bring to the workplace is missing. Tomorrow’s would-be star employees are on the sidelines, deprived of experience and losing motivation. In Japan, which has been down this road since the early 1990s, workers who started their careers a decade or more ago and are now in their 30s account for 6 in 10 reported cases of depression, stress, and work-related mental disabilities, according to the Japan Productivity Center for Socio-Economic Development.

When today’s unemployed finally do get jobs in the recovery, many may be dissatisfied to be slotted below people who worked all along — especially if the newcomers spent their downtime getting more education, says Richard Thompson, vice-president for talent development at Adecco Group North America, which employs more than 300,000 people in temporary positions. Says Thompson: “You’re going to have multiple generations fighting for the jobs that are going to come back in the recovery.”

What’s more, the baby boom generation is counting on a productive young workforce to help fund retirement and health care. Instead, young people risk getting tracked into jobs that don’t pay as well, says Lisa B. Kahn of the Yale School of Management. That would mean lower tax payments for Social Security and Medicare.

Only 46 percent of people aged 16-24 had jobs in September, the lowest since the government began counting in 1948. The crisis is even hitting recent college graduates. “I’ve applied for a whole lot of restaurant jobs, but even those, nobody calls me back,” says Dan Schmitz, 25, a University of Wisconsin graduate with a bachelor’s degree in English who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y. “Every morning I wake up thinking today’s going to be the day I get a job. I’ve not had a job for months, and it’s getting really frustrating.”

Anxiety and fear
The case for action is strong. Governments should act now before the damage gets even worse, argues David G. Blanchflower, an economist at Dartmouth College who recently served on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. He’s not sure what will work, but he favors trying everything from subsidizing education and training to cutting minimum wages for young people and trainees. “It has to be now,” says Blanchflower. “It can’t be in two years’ time.”

Most analyses of youth employment focus on people aged 16 to 24, which includes everyone from high school dropouts to wet-behind-the-ears college grads. But in this era of rising educational requirements, some people don’t start their careers until their mid or late 20s — and these young college grads are taking it on the chin as well.

According to a BusinessWeek analysis, college graduates aged 22 to 27 have fared worse than their older educated peers during the downturn. Two years ago, 84.4 percent of young grads had jobs, only somewhat lower than the 86.8 percent figure for college graduates aged 28 to 50. Since then, the employment gap between the two groups has almost doubled.

Robert I. Sutton, author of “The No Asshole Rule,” a management book, says he’s seeing “more anxiety and fear” among his students at Stanford University. At Northwestern University Law School, at least three-quarters of students who graduated in May had their employment deferred, in some cases up to a year, says Bill Chamberlain, head of the school’s career center.

But the situation is most severe for job seekers who lack college diplomas and thus have fewer options. “My friends tell me: ‘Go fill this out. Go do that,’” says Charlie Black, 26, of Manhattan, who was out one recent weekend shopping for a Halloween costume for his 2-year-old daughter, Bree. Black has been a union extra in several TV shows and movies, and for a year he worked the overnight shift at an Abercrombie & Fitch store. Now, jobless for almost a year, he would be happy to work as a janitor. “But no jobs have been calling back,” says Black.

It seems strange at first blush that young people are the biggest victims of the current economic slump. One could easily imagine that companies in a recession would prefer to hire young people, who are cheap, and slough off older workers, who are expensive. But both employers and older workers are sitting tight, taking as few risks as possible in an uncertain environment. With no openings, employers are refusing even to look at the résumés of those on the outside looking in.

The sense of stasis in many Western countries is reminiscent of Japan, where talk of a lost generation has been around since as long ago as 1995. Some 3.1 million Japanese aged 25 to 34 work as temps or contract employees — up from 2 million 10 years ago, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Many Japanese blame the young people themselves, saying they are spoiled, alienated “freeters” — a term meaning job-hopping part-timers. But economist Souichi Ohta of Nagoya University argues that a big part of the problem is Japanese employers, who value long experience at their companies — which newcomers by definition don’t have.

Europe offers different lessons about what to avoid. In Spain, employers generally put older workers on long-term contracts that are hard to break. When demand slumps, they get rid of the younger workers, notes Alfredo Pastor, an economist at Spain’s IESE Business School and former Spanish Secretary of State for the Economy. That’s one reason Spain’s unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds is a sky-high 39 percent. The rate is 24 percent in France and 19 percent in Britain.

Economists in several countries have studied the damage such high unemployment can cause. Kahn of Yale found that graduating from college in a bad economy has a long-lasting negative effect on wages. For each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate, those who graduated during the recession earned 6 percent to 7 percent less in their first year of employment than their more fortunate counterparts. Even 15 years out of school, the recession graduates earned 2.5 percent less than those who began working in more prosperous times.

Job programs for youth
What can be done? For one thing, companies should keep hiring young people even if they’re doing layoffs. That’s how General Electric operates, says Susan P. Peters, the company’s vice-president for executive development. She says GE learned from the mistake of its aviation business, which froze hiring and training during a downturn years ago and found its talent pipeline dry when business recovered. “We tell our businesses, ‘Tough, you have to hire,’” Peters says.

Free-market economists favor removing obstacles to employment of the young, such as high minimum wages. “The government in some ways is contributing to this problem,” says Kristen Lopez Eastlick, senior research analyst for the employer-backed Employment Policies Institute. She points out that the 40 percent hike in the federal minimum wage over the past two years made it less appealing to hire young workers. One possibility: Some U.S. states and European countries have enacted subminimum wages just for young people or people enrolled in apprenticeships.

More job training would help as well. In April the British government guaranteed that starting next January, all people under age 25 who have been unemployed for more than a year will have a job offer, training, or a paid workplace experience.

The U.S. has been slower to beef up job programs for the young, partly because of massive budget deficits. The Obama administration is again considering a plan proposed during the campaign to give $3,000 tax credits to employers for each new hire, although an administration spokesman says talks with Congress are only preliminary. An argument in favor of action: The current generation of young people is larger than the one that follows. Dartmouth’s Blanchflower points out that even if programs are left in place after the recession ends, they will serve fewer people and therefore become less costly.

One possible example for the U.S. to follow is Germany’s apprenticeship program, which guides young people from high school into skilled blue-collar jobs. Young-adult unemployment in Germany has risen less than in most other developed countries.

Young people have figured out how to avoid horrid blanks on their résumés. Enrollments are breaking records at such schools as Cincinnati State Technical & Community College and LaGuardia Community College in New York. With no job in sight, Shireen Rahjou, 23, of Boca Raton, Fla., is working toward a master’s degree in public relations. She recently landed a paid internship — O.K., not a job, but a foot in the door — at a PR firm in Miami.

With jobs scarce, Stanford’s Sutton says some of his students plan to start their own businesses. Schools should encourage that instead of churning out “passive regurgitators,” argues Kate McKeown, an adjunct professor of entrepreneurship at Fordham University’s College of Business Administration.

Meanwhile, though, the tide of youth unemployment keeps rising. “We’re seeing further deterioration,” says Stefano Scarpetta, who heads the employment-analysis division of the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, a forum for rich countries.

The unemployment crisis among the young is not as dramatic as the financial crisis of a year ago. But it may turn out to have longer-lasting effects.

Do a search on google blogs and see how many liberal hippis come up.

Search for “technocracy.”

Hardcore, nationalistic, war-mongering (but not nation building) and politically incorrect techno-fascism is the only way. Not this kum-bah-yah garbage.

According to Thomas Hobbes, human life would be “nasty, brutish, and short” without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms, including the “right to all things” and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless “war of all against all” (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gain civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority.

Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often identified with arguments about military service.

What liberals do not understand is that the contract only works if it is mutual. If you tolerate people who want to kill you, then your tolerance causes your own death.

Openly intolerant political ideologies cannot be tolerated by groups with the stated aim of preserving peace. That is the contradiction of liberalism. In order to preserve peace, you have to support war against people who are against peace. In order to stop crime, you have to commit a state sanctioned crime against the criminal. But by declaring war on those who wish to destroy you, and supporting aggressive acts against criminals which limit freedom, you become more similar to your enemies. In order to defeat your enemies, you have to become more like them. If you are unwilling to fight, then the contract will crumble. The violent aggressor will gain power. The necessary response against a legitimate threat forces people who claim to defend peace to become violent. This contradiction applies not only to liberalism, but also to Marxism. Marxists claim to oppose imperialism, but construct their own form of red imperialism while arguing that it is necessary to stop imperialism. Other Marxists feel that Islam is an adequate substitute (which is another contradiction).

Mussolini (unlike Hitler) had this to say about peace:

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.

He was right for reasons I outlined above. If you want to stop political movements that are labeled intolerant, then you must counter their intolerance with your own intolerance. But then you’ve done what you’ve accused your enemies of doing. Peace is not possible to the extent people want to destroy it as the contract can be broken unilaterally, and peace is not desirable because it is not possible.

What we need to do is replace the ideals of tolerance with the ideals of strength. The idea of the social contract is filled with contradictions that require violating it to stop intolerance, but in a way that is itself intolerance. We should embrace intolerance and smash liberalism.

If 100 years later, Marx has still not been revised by his followers, then something is wrong. If 250 years later this is the case, then something is REALLY wrong. Nobody is perfect and everybody must evaluate and adapt. Being inspired by Marx is one thing. I believe Marx did advance human thought in his time. But he passed the baton long ago. Still following Marx word for word is like analyzing modern warfare with the logistics that were used before modern technology.  Surely strategy chances as technology advances from swords and shields to nuclear bombs.  This is as true in the field of economics as it is in the field of warfare.  New philosophers have stepped on his shoulder and analyzed the world with a more current sense of precision.

It seems the extremist left cares more about ideological purity than the extremist right. Though the marginalized extremist right is just more deceptive, and denies its Hiterlism. Third positionists are the only thinkers who analyze and stay current in their thought.  That’s why they do not march in step, and that is a good thing.  National anarchism is different from national bolshevism, which is different from corporatism, etc. Marxists do not stay current and Nazis do not stay current.  Both are stuck in the past.  Republicans and Democrats both make appeals to traditions too; though Republicans are more guilty.  Do I really care what the founding fathers said in the year 2009?  They were good thinkers in their time but it isn’t 1776.  I respect old thinkers, but I put them into context.  Anti-revisionists do not.

Those who argue against revisionism in a nostalgic dogmatic sense get the scientific method backwards.  The scientific method dictates that you base a hypothesis off of the evidence.  If it fails the evidence, you drop it and revise the hypothesis.  The mentality of one who philosophically opposes critical revisionism is to make a hypothesis based off of tradition, and then to revise the evidence to fit the hypothesis.  That’s the kind of process that lead to claims that the world was flat.

The Article

The Web sites we visit, the online links we click, the search queries we conduct, the products we put in virtual shopping carts, the personal details we reveal on social networking pages – all of this can give companies insight into what Internet ads we might be interested in seeing.

But privacy watchdogs warn that too many people have no idea that Internet marketers are tracking their online habits and then mining that data to serve up targeted pitches – a practice known as behavioral advertising.

So Congress could be stepping in. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, is drafting a bill that would impose broad new rules on Web sites and advertisers. His goal: to ensure that consumers know what information is being collected about them on the Web and how it is being used, and to give them control over that information.

While Congress has waded into Internet privacy issues before, this measure could break new ground, as the first major attempt to regulate a nascent but fast-growing industry that represents the future of advertising. Boucher insists his bill will benefit consumers and preserve the underlying economics of the Internet, which relies on advertising to keep so much online content free.

“Our goal is not to hinder online advertising,” he said. “This will make people more likely to trust electronic commerce and the Internet.”

Although his proposal is still taking shape, Boucher is confident lawmakers will pass an online marketing privacy law of some sort. He is working with Cliff Stearns of Florida, the top Republican on the Internet subcommittee, as well as Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., who chairs a separate subcommittee on consumer protection.

Already, Washington’s interest in Internet marketing has put online advertisers on notice. In July, the industry released a set of self-regulatory principles in an effort to head off concerns in Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC put out Internet ad guidelines early this year.

Boucher’s efforts have encouraged privacy activists, who point out that Internet surveillance has evolved beyond just data-tracking files, known as cookies, that Web sites place on visitors’ computers. Technologies such as “deep packet inspection” can now monitor a user’s every online move.

“Consumers have no idea that they are being followed online and that their information is being compiled into invisible digital dossiers,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, one of 10 privacy groups that recently issued recommendations for lawmakers. “There is an incredibly sophisticated, ever-advancing system for profiling online users.”

Chester believes several developments have put the issue on Washington’s radar. Those include the rise of social networking sites that capture detailed personal information, like Facebook and MySpace; Google Inc.’s acquisition of the Internet ad service DoubleClick Inc.; and the proposed Internet search partnership between Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., now under review by the Justice Department.

“Online privacy has finally taken off and become a serious political issue,” Chester said. “A perfect digital storm has created momentum toward action.”

The challenge facing Washington, said Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz, is to strike the right balance between “protecting the fundamental rights of consumers” and preserving “business equilibrium.”

Boucher’s bill will seek a middle ground in a long-running debate over what the default assumptions should be when companies monitor consumers’ online interests.

On one side, privacy watchdogs say Web sites should be required to obtain user permission – that is, people would “opt in” – before collecting most data.

On the other side, Web sites and advertisers insist such a mandate would overwhelm consumers with privacy notices. The companies argue that it is more practical to simply allow people who do not want to be tracked to “opt out” of data collection.

Boucher expects to set different rules for different types of sites. Sites that collect visitor information in order to target advertising on their own pages, for instance, would have to offer consumers a chance to opt out of having their interests tracked. These sites would also be required to prominently disclose what information they collect and provide a detailed description of how that information is used.

Web sites that deal with sensitive personal information, such as medical and financial data, sexual orientation, Social Security numbers and other ID numbers, would have to ask users to opt in to being tracked.

Boucher’s bill would not be the first significant online privacy law. In 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which placed privacy obligations on companies and organizations that offer e-mail services. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 requires commercial Web sites targeted at children under age 13 to obtain parental consent before collecting personally identifiable information.

But the current bill would mark the first significant attempt by Congress to regulate Internet advertising. Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said there had been little need for Congress to impose privacy protections on advertisers offline, since traditional media such as TV, radio and newspapers don’t enable marketers to profile individual consumers as easily as the Internet does.

Now, Rotenberg said, “privacy laws should be updated to reflect new business practices.”

It’s too soon to know whether Boucher’s final bill will go far enough to satisfy privacy activists. But they agree that a law would do much more than the self-regulatory principles released by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and three other advertising trade groups in July.

Among other things, those principles call for consumer education efforts and disclosure of behavioral advertising practices.

ANA Executive Vice President Dan Jaffe said self regulation is the best approach for managing an industry evolving as quickly as online advertising.

“Legislation would be too rigid because this is a moving target,” Jaffe said.

Mike Zaneis, IAB’s vice president of public policy, added that self regulation is effective since it is in advertisers’ interest to make sure consumers trust them.

“At the end of the day, the most important asset any online company has is a strong relationship with the consumer,” he said.

Yet that’s also why Chester insists that tougher rules from Congress would not cripple online advertising. Consumers might be more likely to favor Web sites that allow them to see and influence their personal data.

“It’s about treating consumers with respect,” said Joseph Turow, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. “Companies keep saying they want to engage users. That means opening up and not sneaking behind someone’s back to draw up pictures of them. We need information reciprocity.”

Turow added that while he supports opt-in mandates as “the ultimate form of respect,” the debate over opt-in versus opt-out rules won’t matter “when people really have an opportunity to interact with their data.”

For now, privacy activists are pinning their hopes on lawmakers. Evan Hendricks, editor of the Privacy Times newsletter, believes Boucher’s bill will find bipartisan support in Congress.

“This stands a very realistic chance of passage,” he said. “Privacy is the kind of issue you can’t be against.”

I do agree with his point that softening a message is pointless.  All that is written or spoken on a political subject will offend some people.  One cannot express views and simultaneously care if people are offended.  If I cared more about getting along than about expressing views, then free media productions never would have been created.  I agree with his anti-elitism too.  Powerful capitalist leaders do not serve national interests.  I agree that infidels should not “play dumb” to Islam and should be assertive and firm in combating Sharia style extremism.  In my opinion, Bush/Obama and their neo-con/neo-liberal supporters have made it more difficult to intelligently critique Islam without being written off as part of the establishment.

My only criticism is that he did not truly show the other side of the argument, which is that ideological opposition to imperialism drives Muslims into extremism.  In other words, Islamic fundamentalism can be a symptom of an alienated persona which originally fights a just cause.   On the other hand, many fundamentalists are in fact motivated by visionary and cultural tendencies rather than rebellion against the West.  Reducing all fundamentalism to resistance against imperialism is oversimplification.

I support those who resist imperialism, even if they do it under the banner of Islam.  But to the extent they become imperialists themselves (immigration, forcing sharia on non-Muslims), I do not continue to support Muslims.

I recognize that people like Ted Kennedy are the symptom – not the problem.   The problem is spirit and atittude of liberalism that originated long before 1776.  I will not openly celebrate the death of a political opponent, but I can hope that America will produce better thinkers in the future who critique the problems of society instead of joining them.  I do not blame Ted Kennedy for acting like a typical liberal on a personal level, but he did nothing to earn my respect.

I would be pleasantly surprised if neo-liberalism passed with Ted Kennedy.  Unfortunately, it has only became slightly less extreme since then.

-The USA has 76% of the worlds serial killers.
-Europe in second, has 17%.
-England has produced 28% of the European total; Germany produces 27%, and France produces 13%.
-California leads in the US with the most Serial Homicide cases that have occured. Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida follow shortly behind.
-Maine has the lowest occurence of serial murders – none. Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, Delaware, and Vermont each have had only one case of a serial murder.

Now analyze the positioning of these countries in a ranking of economic freedom.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx

Notice a correlation? Serial murder is correlated to freedom and liberalism. California, internally to the US, is the most liberal state and serial murder hits its maximum there.

Statistical evidence suggests that serial killers thrive in countries that give them the liberty to operate more freely.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

Readers, reflect on the above quotation. People who expose what is wrong with society are better than people who slip under the radar. And it is “ordinary” liberals who slip under the radar as opposed to militant organizations and criminals. We must support the organizations that expose the cover of liberalism. For example, If Catholics organize as Catholics to support illegal immigration, it is superior to individuals slipping under the radar. Problems must be defined, measured and analyzed before they can be improved and controlled. The more militant and open the liberalism, the better it is for those who want to control it. The stronger groups like the ADL, Catholic Church, Protestant Churches, Republicans, Democrats and Major Corporations lobby for liberal causes, the more easy it is to expose those causes. Therefore the ADL, Catholic Church, Protestant Churches, Republicans and Democrats should be supported but with malicious intent to the causes they promote.

This philosophy is very Machiavellian, but anything that “exaggerates” liberalism is good for those who oppose it. The short term hurt the exaggeration causes will be rectified when more people howl back with anger.

What we have here is an article written by a Black race realist. I support the efforts of people of all races to critically attack the establishment with harsh reality and honesty.

Many people hoped that the election of a black President of the United States would mark our entering a “post-racial” era, when we could finally put some ugly aspects of our history behind us.

That was quite understandable. But it takes two to tango. Those of us who want to see racism on its way out need to realize that others benefit greatly from crying racism. They benefit politically, financially, and socially.

Barack Obama has been allied with such people for decades. He found it expedient to appeal to a wider electorate as a post-racial candidate, just as he has found it expedient to say a lot of other popular things — about campaign finance, about transparency in government, about not rushing legislation through Congress without having it first posted on the Internet long enough to be studied — all of which turned to be the direct opposite of what he has actually done after getting elected.

Those who were shocked at President Obama’s cheap shot at the Cambridge police for being “stupid” in arresting Henry Louis Gates (Metal Gear  : I agree with Obama on that point) must have been among those who let their wishes prevail over the obvious implications of Obama’s 20 years of association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who can believe that Obama did not understand what the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright meant can believe anything.

With race — as with campaign finance, transparency, and the rest — Barack Obama knows what the public wants to hear, and that is what he has said. But his policies as president have been the opposite of his rhetoric, with race as with other issues.

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama pushed the “racial profiling” issue, so it is hardly surprising that he jumped to the conclusion that a policeman was engaging in racial profiling, when in fact the cop was investigating a report received from a neighbor that someone seemed to be breaking into the house that Professor Gates was renting in Cambridge.

For those who are interested in facts — and these obviously do not include President Obama — there has been a serious study of racial profiling in a book titled Are Cops Racist? by Heather Mac Donald. Her analysis of the data shows how this issue has long been distorted beyond recognition by politics.

The racial-profiling issue is a great vote-getter. And if it polarizes the society, that is a price that politicians are willing to pay in order to get votes. Academics who run black-studies departments, as Prof. Henry Louis Gates does, likewise have a vested interest in racial paranoia.

For “community organizers” as well, racial resentments are a stock in trade. President Obama’s background as a community organizer has received far too little attention, though it should have been a high-alert warning that this was no post-racial figure.

What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.

To think that someone who has spent years promoting grievance and polarization was going to bring us all together as president is a triumph of wishful thinking over reality.

Barack Obama’s past and his present tell the same story. His appointment of an attorney general who called America “a nation of cowards” for not dialoguing about race was a foretaste of what to expect from Eric Holder.

The way Attorney General Holder has refused to prosecute young black thugs who gathered at a voting site with menacing clubs, in blatant violation of federal laws against intimidating voters, speaks louder than any words from him or his president.

President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court is, like Obama himself, someone with a background of years of affiliation with an organization dedicated to promoting racial resentments and a sense of racial entitlement.

An 18th-century philosopher said, “When I speak I put on a mask. When I act I am forced to take it off.” Barack Obama’s mask slipped for a moment last week but he quickly recovered, with the help of the media. But we should never forget what we saw.

Race realists believe in truth telling and harsh honesty.  They are not crazy conspiracy theorists. Most who consider themselves “race realists” have nothing to do with the “white nationalist movement.”

How do you feel about not being able to freely speak your mind? “This is America,” you protest, “and I can say anything I want.” Not exactly. It’s true, you can say whatever you want without fear of arrest (with a few exceptions such as screaming fire in a crowded theater) but you had better be careful. If you bring up the wrong topic, you may find yourself in hot water. If you express a taboo opinion, you may be threatened with violence (Metal Gear : Also Economic Discrimination). It’s my belief that we should be able to talk freely about anything, so long as we exercise good manners and use non-inflammatory language.

This blog is about race realism – that is, the acknowledgement and study of demonstrable racial differences. I realize this is a much hated position to take, but I believe there are indeed very real differences between racial groups. Further, I believe these differences affect nearly every aspect of our lives. People prefer to associate with their own stock, as I will argue in future posts, and our multicultural “melting pot” gives rise to all sorts of unnatural and uncomfortable interracial involvement. The news, beneath the surface, is mainly about race, and in future posts I intend to analyze news stories to uncover their hidden racial components.

Race realism is common sense. This blog is one small attempt at bringing sanity to this crazy world. It’s my hope that I can open a few eyes and help folks see what’s right in front of them: namely, race – and the havoc that invariably results from ignoring it.

As I stated above, we should be able to talk about anything as long as we are respectful and avoid inflammatory language. I’m going to politely discuss race on this blog. I will be respectful doing so and I expect the same treatment in return. Therefore, I will be paying a lot of attention to tone when deciding whether or not to approve comments made on this blog. If you use an aggressive tone and rant and rave like a lunatic, don’t cry censorship when I delete your comment.

Lastly, I do not in any way advocate white nationalism. I am in favor of complete freedom of association and critical of immigration. However, I have absolutely no desire for an all white state, and I disagree vehemently with many aspects of the movement. I don’t associate with anyone of that ilk online or in person. Please save yourself some time and don’t accuse me of being a white nationalist or supportive of white nationalist organizations.

The moral power of the exemplary person is the wind; that of the petty person is grass. When the wind blows over the grass, it will surely bend. – Confucious

Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will Scatter – The 48 Laws of Power

Those who most successfully play the game of death – success in the free market, should not be blamed more heavily than the unlucky and weak. They may not be conscious allies, but they serve our inegalitarian interests. Analogously, Dennis Rodman cannot be blamed for the invention of basketball and gangster rapers cannot be blamed for the “harsh reality” of society or for profiting from the liberal capitalist system. Directly blaming the bankers and business men? Get real! The blame should be placed on George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama and the architects of society…the politicians, the military, the constitution. NOT the businessmen who happen to be a bit more “crafty” than their opponents. Do not blame Wal-Mart. Blame Washington DC. Let the behavior of Wal-Mart (shipping jobs overseas for low pay) expose Washington DC.

Don’t hate the player who plays the game. Hate the game. Until the military force that controls society is altered, we all play the game. Yes we would like to switch from one set of rules to another set of rules, but do not be jealous and hypocritical. Reject the two party system. All energy and focus should be in redirecting society collectively away from the ruling order, instead of trying to rehabilitate and tweak the regime without the necessary adjustments.

Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. It is not morally or strategically justified to blame the player.

Most of these people (Prozium, Weston, etc.)  look at a globe and when they spin to America, they see a proud inheritor of occidental tradition that was derailed by Jews. I look at America and see a pile of trash and credit Jewish people for rising to the top of the can. The world is truly dirt. Most people are scum. Most Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Men and Women are scum. Most homosexuals are scum and most heterosexuals are scum. Your mother is probably scum. We live in a bucket of scum.

The world is dirt and Jews are like worms who have tunneled their way to the top of the trashcan. Fuck the world, but hail the strong over the weak.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game. We are like ants in the trashcan; it’s time to take out the trash and escape, not to blame the ants who are on the top. It has to be stated forcefully that most people, including the races of Europe, are scum. We live in dirt. Let’s get rid of the dirt then we can build a better house. The Jew issue is a red herring. Let’s get the vacuum and vaporizer and clean up the environment thoroughly instead of bitching about Jews.

I am not praising Roni the Nazi. I am posting this to prove that Jews are not marching in step like some think. If you notice, the JTF has reached the same conclusion that I have, which is that neo-liberals support elevating neo-Nazis into right wing movement (even Jewish right wing movements) to discredit those movements. I am not endorsing the JTF in lockstep but even Jewish right wing “nationalist” movements have their problems with the media labeling them as Nazis. Arabs have the same problem as do Iranians and European Nationalists. The term “Nazi” is really overused.

Discussion of Roni the Nazi (long program)

Video 1

Ha"aretz story about Roni the Nazi – MyVideo

Video 2

Inside the mind of Net Nazis
6. Three possible reasons can be hypothesized for the thoughts and behavior of Net Nazis:
Possibility One) Their viewpoints are essentially correct.
Possibility Two) Their viewpoints are incorrect but they believe them to be correct.
Possibility Three) They know their viewpoints are false but have exterior motives (attention, politics etc.)

7. Possibility one is out. The views expressed by these people are obviously flawed. Some of the flaws were highlighted in the “Identifying Net Nazis” section but a much more detailed rebuke is certainly possible but not worth the time. That leaves us with possibilities two and three.

8. I believe possibility two can be eliminated too with logic as follows: In a complete 180 degree turn, Net Nazis have expanded their definition of “Aryan” from what the SS required to include even Russians and Greeks. Some Nazi websites include South Asians and Arabs too (but not Jews). Hitler would be rolling over in his grave, and they know this. Again, we are not merely talking of opposing establishment Jewry, but identifiable Net Nazis based on the characteristics I listed. Indeed, they are not very “good” Nazis in an ideological sense.

Exterior Motives
9. Attention seeking must be considered as an exterior motive..
10. Of course money must be considered as an exterior motive.
11. To quote Guy White

Nazis are an embarrassment to anyone trying to counter the views of the far-left. The Left purposely tries to create the impression that any non-leftist must be a Nazi. The reason this tactic is successful is that most Neo-Nazis embrace this ideology only because they like being the object of other people’s disgust.

Conclusion
12. Liberal establishment supporters have a political interest in making inegalitarian ideology fail. Race realists try desperately to disassociate themselves from Neo-Nazis but Neo-Nazis continue to cause trouble and purposely disrupt the supporters of Race Realism, while liberals use the disruption to associate Race Realism with Nazism.

13. My conclusion is that Net Nazis are actually often members of the liberal establishment and can even be Jewish in some instances. FBI and CIA infiltration is another reality.

Liberty and justice for all?
Actually only for the elite.
Consumerism: the nation, the world burned raw.
I’ll use the flag to wipe my feet.

”It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable.”

Stupidity should hurt. Liberalism should hurt. Putting full trust into the “democratic process” should hurt. Opposing cultural degeneracy but not the society that enables it should hurt. Worshiping free enterprise to the exclusion of all else should hurt. Being religious to the point of denying science should hurt. Denial of national characteristics should hurt and seeing Jews and Communists behind every tree should REALLY hurt. Denying the existence of human biodiversity should REALLY hurt and gerrymandering it into false categories should hurt just as much. Belief in equality between religions, ethnic groups, nationalities, sexes and individuals in general should hurt. Belief that gun control “makes you safe” should hurt.

Stupidity should be painful.

Years ago, as the Cold War was coming to an end, I said to my fellow leaders around the globe: the world is on the cusp of great events, and in the face of new challenges all of us will have to change, you as well as we. For the most part, the reaction was polite but sceptical silence.

In recent years, I have often told listeners that I feel Americans need their own change – a perestroika, not like the one in my country, but an American perestroika – and the reaction has been markedly different. Halls filled with thousands of people have responded with applause.

First Gorbachev articulates the need for change. I agree, there is a need for a change. Much to the consternation of the Marxist-Leninists on this website, I believe USSR needed change too (but went too far). In his contingent historical time, Stalin advanced industrialization, but the conditions that existed while Stalin did no longer exist. Marx, while a good thinker for his time, is even further outdated than Stalin.

Our perestroika signalled the need for change in the Soviet Union, but it was not meant to suggest a capitulation to the US model. Today, the need for a more far-reaching perestroika – one for America and the world – has become clearer than ever.

Gorbachev here makes it clear that while he intended to revise the Marxist line, he did not intend to embrace the Reganite line.

But then came the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, and it became clear that the new Western model was an illusion that benefited chiefly the very rich. Statistics show that the poor and the middle class saw little or no benefit from the economic growth of the past decades.

The model that emerged during the late 20th century has turned out to be unsustainable. It was based on a drive for super-profits and hyper-consumption for a few, on unrestrained exploitation of resources and on social and environmental irresponsibility.

This is very true. The economic crash definitely strengthened my position that in times of struggle, populism and authoritarianism are necessary. On some level, I have always admired authoritarian regimes, but now I swear by them.

But if all the proposed solutions and action now come down to a mere rebranding of the old system, we are bound to see another, perhaps even greater upheaval down the road. The current model does not need adjusting; it needs replacing. I have no ready-made prescriptions. But I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasise public needs and public good, such as a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transport, sound education and health systems and affordable housing.

Gorbachev must be reading Free Media Productions!

The time has come to strike the right balance between the government and the market, for integrating social and environmental factors and demilitarising the economy. Washington will have to play a special role in this new perestroika, not just because the United States wields great economic, political and military power, but because America was the main architect, and America’s elite the main beneficiary, of the current world economic model. That model is now cracking and will, sooner or later, be replaced. That will be a complex and painful process for everyone, including the United States.

I couldn’t agree more!

Now that subversives have helped to highlight the fact that Liberal Democracy is a failure with many flaws, we can start building a new bridge.  When we build the bridge, of course we will not make the same mistake of allowing subversion that the previous system did.

New York Jewish bankers and liberal ideologues should be supported for exposing the weaknesses of the capitalist system, even if they do not intend to. A strong dose of liberal idiocy is like a strong dose of bacteria; anti-bodies are produced. A more gradual dose of liberalism is like lead poisoning; when you notice it is too late. In a Machiavellian sense, they have proven how inferior the system is and how badly it needs to be replaced. Hail the Jewish subversives who expose the flaws of capitalism, liberalism and democracy! Third Positionists, Marxist-Leninists and all critical of Western Capitalism must mourn the loss of Saddam Hussein, but otherwise the most successful Jewish sociopaths should be applauded. Hail Madoff, Hail Abraham Foxman, Hail Chaim Ben Pesach, Hail the Jews who pretend to be anti-semites on Nazi websites.

EXPOSE THE FUNDAMENTAL WEAKNESS OF CAPITALISM. PUT IT ON THE RADAR! The more Jews manipulate the system, the more the weakness of the system becomes obvious. I applaud Jews for proving that the overthrow of capitalism is a prerequisite to a revival of nationalism and ridicule bourgeious nationalists who think removing Jews is sufficient.  Nationalism cannot exist with the current political system in place. The more obvious this is the fact, the better.

I have news for neo-liberal scum : CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. If Assault rifles are outlawed, the serial killer and gangbanger next door will still have one.  Only you won’t!

If in a legally protected situation of self-defense, you want to pop someone’s head off like a pumpkin, a glock just does not get the job done.  Notice that I said legally protected here; I am not advocating openly breaking the law. If words like this offend you, then you would succumb six feet under because you are a wuss who is offended by even thoughts of violence.  And wusses get their asses kicked by people who exploit them.

Life is not the movies where pistols can accurately hit 400 meters away and always finish the job.  Shotguns just do not aim precisely.  They are good indoors but not outdoors.  An assault rifle is really necessary if you want to take someone out in self-defense and leave no doubt that they will not have the last laugh.

True maturity and ideology develops in steps, and I recognize this.  Still, when looking in the rearview mirror, only he who is incapable of self-criticism and objectivity is incapable of seeing room for improvement.

Perfection is not a real concept; we are always working to improve ourselves.  I am a better poster now than I was last year and hope to look back again next year and say the same.  Of course I have a sense of humor and much is written in jest.  I am not ashamed of anything I wrote that was obviously a joke.

May the bar be sit higher, not lower.  May neo-liberalism be opposed intelligently, not unintelligently.

1. Corruption – politicians receive large sums of money from businesses and other special interests (e.g. unions) in exchange for implementing specific policies. Politicians depend on such contributions for campaign funding.

2. Lack of accountability – because any given politician or party has such limited power for such limited periods of time it is difficult to evaluate their impact. Power often oscillates from one party to the next such that outcomes can easily be attributed to the party currently in power or, similarly easily, to the party previously in power. Power is divided between various branches and levels of government and among numerous politicians such that responsibility and accountability are dispersed and confused.

3. Incoherence – the division of power, both between different levels of government and within each level of government, can lead to an assemblage of policies that are inconsistent in terms of there objectives and implementation.
Example: Division of power requires compromise between those who support the complete ban of a substance and those who favor no restrictions. The compromise reached is to criminalize the production of the substance but not its use, thereby allowing unfettered demand to combine with exclusion of legal production to produce a huge market for organized crime.

4. Gridlock/delay – disagreement within government and so-called “checks and balances” delay the implementation of much needed policy changes. Consultation of “the people” takes time.

5. Fuzziness of the concept – the very meaning of democracy is unclear. Whether a given system of government is more democratic than another is frequently disputed among proponents of democracy.

6. Corporate (etc) media influence – much media is delivered by corporations with their own interests that could influence their reporting. Media depends on advertising for much of its funding and could be compelled to report in ways favorable to current and prospective advertisers. Such reporting heavily influences the voting public.

7. Lack of effective/powerful international/supranational government and impracticality of its formation within a democratic framework – practically precludes comprehensive, substantial, global cooperation and coordination to solve problems.
Example: Two states share a border. One of the states implements a strict ban while the other does not. Consequently, the state with the ban has much greater difficulty enforcing its ban.

8. Instability – governments and policies often change frequently resulting in wastage of resources from starting and undoing programs and lack of sustained long-term policies/projects. Incentives become less effective due to uncertainty.

9. Political myopia – campaigning focuses on short-term goals, accomplishments, and results. Politics becomes overly focused on shot-run outcomes.

10. Superficiality/triviality – voters are unwilling and/or unable to dedicate much time or effort to investigate or analyze political issues. Consequently, politics becomes focused on rhetoric, emotions, trivialities and is overly simplistic. Policies and candidates are selected within the context of the aforementioned state of political discourse.

11. Division/partisanship “democracy fosters division along party lines” people are expected to adopt particular ideological identities (opposition vs government etc) – unity is precluded (granted, Russia may be an exception).

12. Democracy allows good governments to be voted out of office.

13. “Human rights” often promoted as essential components to democracy. Many of these “human rights” interfere with the implementation of good policy.

Readers, I direct you to an interesting discussion taking place on “politics forum” which is a high end political discussion forum.  Feel free to add your opinion if you would like to.

There’s no longer any left or right. There’s the system and the enemies of the system. The system is the liberal democracy that triumphed everywhere, that noxious, shit-colored weed. The enemies of the system — that’s who we are, extreme Communists, extreme nationalists.

This should sound familar. In my previous writing, I wrote:

What passes for “left and right” is simply two sides of the same liberal Democratic coin. The debate is framed in a deceptive fashion, where two very similar parties (Democratic and Republican) are seen as representatives of an entire “left/right” spectrum. The first reality is that both parties are basically the same, and neither represents the historic left or right. The second reality is that the terms are meaningless to begin with.

The terms left and right are obsolete, and we are beyond left and right. They are oversimplifications that originate from a smear system within American politics, and philosophically, the terms are baseless. They derive their meaning from American history and that alone, rather than any philosophical reasoning. As soon as somebody uses this terminology, it is a good indication that they are brainwashed by the liberal democratic status quo.

I commend anyone who can see through the oversimplified views related to the political spectrum that exists in modern discourse. Apparently it is not just America but Russia too and all of the neo-liberal world that is oversimplified. The first step in rejecting mainstream politics is rejecting the left-right spectrum. Rejecting the idea that Republicans and Democrats are positionable on that spectrum and rejecting the idea that dissident political movements fit on that spectrum. A Communist and a Nationalist who oppose the status quo have more in common with each other than either do with the “left or right” within the status quo. There is no “left and right.” There is an “us and them.”

The truth is that instead of viewing political thought through the nice compartmentalized boxes that the intellectually lazy would find comfortable, dissidents who envision the larger picture know that fully comprehending politics is about understanding details. Free Media Productions encourages its members and readers to be detail-oriented and sophisticated, and to reject simplistic ideology.

Kerim of Savage Minds, an anthropological blog, writes a post titled Anthropometry: Alive and Kicking. In it, he dismisses the 1988 All India Anthropometric Survey, North Zone : Basic Anthropometric Data, although it is not at all clear why he objects to anthropometry. I guess, anthropometry is what those bad old colonial racists did, so dismissing it requires no justification.

Anthropometry is the measurement of the human body: its shape, size, color; the collection of quantitative data about human beings. Anthropology is the study of mankind. Without anthropometric data there is no anthropology, or at most there is something like modern social or cultural “anthropology”, a data-lite, theory-heavy field which generates papers with titles like “Coetzee, Agamben, and the Passion of Abu Ghraib”, “The End of the Soul: Scientific Modernity, Atheism, and Anthropology in France”, “Piro Designs: Painting as Meaningful Action in an Amazonian Lived World”, “Agency, Personhood and the ‘I’ of Discourse in the Pacific and Beyond”

It is often erroneously claimed that modern science has superseded traditional physical anthropology. The old typologists, it is said, were misguided, their conclusions wrong, their caliper-wielding methods naive, or even dangerous, leading to racism, intolerance, genocide, and assorted very bad things.

On the contrary, many of the conclusions of traditional physical anthropology, such as the taxonomic division of Homo sapiens into at least four subspecies have stood the test of time, having been amply confirmed by genetic studies, as well as the multivariate analysis of craniometric and anthropometric data.

The old physical anthropology was simply limited by its lack of computational power and statistical methodology. Most of it was done before the pioneering work of R. A. Fisher’s discriminant functions, before the use of classification trees, clustering algorithms, or Principal Components Analysis. Without computers, multivariate analyses of large samples were unthinkable. Anthropologists relied on their expertise, and on simple comparisons of means and standard deviations of single traits. Nonetheless, at least for the major problems, their conclusions were essentially correct.

Nowadays, computational power is abundant, statistical methodology is well established, and tools for collecting data about human personality, intelligence, genes, and appearance are there for anyone to use. Unfortunately, though, no one is using them. The Human Genome Diversity Program was shot down, and the Genographic Project, privately funded, is a much toned down version, which aims only to reconstruct human origins.

As a practical matter, anthropologists could easily do a comprehensive study of human variation. Imagine a study where 100,000 people from around the world are given a thorough anthropometric measurement, an IQ test, a personality test, a number of medical tests, and a comprehensive genetic test which can be refined down the road as gene sequencing becomes cheaper. Imagine thousands of attributes, phenotypic or genotypic, for each one of the 100,000, the first large sampling of human variation in all its measurable aspects. Such a database wouldn’t cost much, but would allow us to really speak authoritatively about human variation.

What is stopping us from doing such a study? Bizarre notions about the rights of indigenous groups, a dogmatic rejection of any correlation between physical (especially racial) traits with morality, personality, or cognitive function, a pre-occupation with medical applications and pathological variation.

We need more anthropometry, not less. More psychometry too, more genetic testing, more data of every kind. Above all, more willingness to study man quantitatively, rather than a reliance on politically-correct preconceptions about ourselves.

In a truly top quality post, Dienekes in the past described exactly how political correctness holds back the sciences and why this must be rectified. In fact he described the situation of contemporary liberalism and its corrosion of the sciences better than I could have myself. It is time to take off the mask of neo-liberalism once and for all and expose all the destruction it has caused.

In this sense, the liberal capitalism of America enables economic discrimination against dissidents by making personal information easily available through mediums such as “google.” China, on the other hands, controls and regulates the internet as does Cuba.

China and Cuba should be commended with a nice package and a thank you card. Liberals should receive a metaphorical bomb.

Note that I said metaphorical. I am not advocating violence but I understand the motivation.

The human race is a construct. It is not real. Human population groups are too diverse to have any one destiny in common. The white race is a construct. It is not real. White peoples are too diverse to have any one destiny in common. Nations are the soil-based embodiments of ethnically homogeneous peoples. White nationalism is a globalization ideology and thus not real nationalism at all. Fascism and National Socialism were both imperialist ideologies. Real nationalism is the enemy of imperialism and globalization. Real nationalism is separatist and democratic. Real nationalism wants to break up large artificial structures (such as empires) and reestablish natural ethnic entities (such as nations).

Defining ethnic identity by continent instead of nationality (pan-Europeanism) is a form of bourgeois globalism.  Pan-nationalism recognizes the identity of the nation.  The true political incorrectness necessitates the rejection of nonscientific anthropological theories and replaces them with the blunt truth.  Most internet “racialist” egos do not understand the basics of nationalism.  Not to mention, few understand how capitalism harms nationalism.  Imperialism, including fascism and national socialism, has historically stood in the way of legitimate nationalism.  In practice, it has competed with nationalism for political power.  Now anti-nationalists confuse imperialism with nationalism (often intentionally).

I must point out that national socialism, however, is not fascism.  It is a form of racial equality for Germans whereas fascism acknowledges the superiority and inferiority of individuals.  As far as Zionism goes, my take on Zionism now is that it must reject Torah Judaism, imperialism and bourgeois nationalism and replace it with futuristic progressive nationalism.

if (person.mind == sane)
{
left_right_spectrum = false;
imperialism = false;
}

string neoliberalism (bool answer)
{
if  (answer == true)

return “ERROR“;

else

return “Bourgeois, do not enter”;

}

The organized offender leads an orderly life that is reflected in the way he commits his crimes. He is said to be of average to high intelligence, socially competent, and more likely than the disorganized offender to have skilled employment.

-

The organized killer approaches his victims by socializing with them, charming them, or tricking them into a situation where he can overpower them. He typically owns a car, which he then uses in his crimes. He follows the reports of his crimes in the media and changes jobs or moves to a different city when he believes he may be detected. He is sometimes schooled in police investigative methods and he is constantly improving his technique with each additional murder. The longer he kills, the more difficult it becomes for police to catch him (Vronsky 2004).

-

In contrast to the organized killer, the crime scene of the disorganized offender is described as reflecting an overall sense of disorder and suggests little, if any, preplanning of the murder. He, too, is difficult to catch because while the organized offender is predictable in some way, the disorganized offender is very much not. He has vague and intense murderous fantasies, but he does not develop a thought-out plan of action.

Analogously, the most calculating neo-liberals fit a different psychological profile than neo-liberals who are driven mainly by impulsiveness and frankly stupidity. That is why it is important to distinguish between elites and non-elites. I personally detest weakness and view disorganized sheep as useless, but they are also less effective enemy combatants. The organized neo-liberal intricately plans and executes the murder of civilization for ulterior motives whereas the disorganized neo-liberal actually believes the propaganda. Motives can very. The motive is usually greed but that is beyond the scope of this post which is discussing preplanning rather than motivation (though the two are often related).

From the May 29, 2009 edition of the America First hard copy newspaper:

The primary cause of this (America as we know it) is not a conspiracy of elites, which most probably exists, but the failure of the American people. The people have failed to stay within their moral limits, and to take sufficient interest in public policy matters. – Jonathan Hill

Hill goes on to write another article titled “Are we a nation of wimps?”

I have commented extensively about a conspiracy of American elites, most notably here and here.  However, I certainly do note the important point that the American reaction has been extremely feminine and passive.  I do agree that the average person to an extent is responsible for what the country has become, though the elites nevertheless are the most organized engineers of destruction.  Cowardice and greed and a host of other flaws are present and collectively must be rectified.