DebateGate

GENOCIDE LOOMS FOR WHITE FARMERS

WND EXCLUSIVE

South Africa's black president sings killing songs as thousands massacred

Published: 2 days ago

By Alex Newman

STOCKHOLM, Sweden ? The eyes of the world were on South Africa two decades ago as the apartheid era came to an end and Western governments helped bring the communist-backed African National Congress to power.

Last month, however, when Genocide Watch chief Gregory Stanton declared that white South African farmers were facing a genocidal onslaught and that communist forces were taking over the nation, virtually nobody noticed.

Few outside of South Africa paid attention either when, earlier this year, the president of South Africa began publicly singing songs advocating the murder of whites.

The silence is so deafening that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn?t even publicly mention the problems when she was there last week. Instead, she was busy dancing, pledging billions of dollars and praising the ruling government.

?I find that quite disturbing, as if Afrikaner lives do not count for the Obama administration,? Dan Roodt of the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group, PRAAG, told WND.

He says the situation is rapidly deteriorating.

The tyranny of political correctness is out of control. Read Ilana Mercer?s ?Into The Cannibal?s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.?

Genocide Watch, a highly respected U.S.-based nonprofit organization led by arguably the world?s foremost expert on genocide, has been sounding the alarm on the genocidal onslaught facing South Africa for a decade. The world media, however, has barely uttered a word about it.

Over those 10 years, thousands of white South African farmers, known as Boers, have been massacred in the most horrific ways imaginable.

Experts say the ongoing slaughter constitutes a clear effort to exterminate the whites or at least drive the remaining ones ? now less than 10 percent of the population ? out of the country. In other words, South Africa is facing a genocide based on the United Nations? own definition.

More than 3,000 farm murders have been documented in that time period, representing a significant number considering the number of commercial white farmers is now estimated at less than 40,000.

Tens of thousands of whites have been murdered throughout South Africa, too, according to estimates.

Disemboweled, drowned in boiling water

Many more victims have been savagely tortured, raped, disemboweled, drowned in boiling water or worse. The horrifying evidence is available for the world to see on countless sites throughout the Internet: pictures of brutalized dead women and children ? even babies.

?We don?t know exactly who is planning them yet, but what we are calling for is an international investigation that will try and determine who is planning these murders,? Stanton said.

The ANC government downplays the problem, claiming it is mostly just ?regular? crime. Experts, however, know that is not true.

?Things of this sort are what I have seen before in other genocides,? Stanton, who also worked against apartheid, said of the murdered white farmers after a fact-finding mission to the ?Rainbow Nation? in June.

?This is what has happened in Burundi, it?s what happened in Rwanda,? he continued in a speech to the Transvaal Agricultural Union in Pretoria. ?It has happened in many other places in the world.?

The true scope of the problem is almost impossible to determine, because the ruling ANC refuses to properly track the figures.

Regular citizens are now working to compile the statistics and document the savagery themselves.

The government often classifies the brutal farm murders as simple ?robberies,? for example. Sometimes the crimes are not even reported.

South African exiles and family members of victims who spoke with WND said reporting the atrocities is often useless or even counter-productive.

In some cases, experts also say, authorities are actually involved in the brutal crimes. Police oftentimes participate in cover-ups, too.

The non-stop wave of grisly, racist murders in the Rainbow Nation ? new incidents are reported almost daily now ? has led Genocide Watch to conclude that South Africa is close to the final phases of the genocidal onslaught.

When ANC Youth League boss Julius Malema began singing ?Kill the Boer,? Genocide Watch moved up South Africa to stage six out of eight on the road to genocide ? the preparation and planning. The seventh phase is extermination of the target group. The final stage is denial.

?It became clear to us that the [(ANC) Youth League was this kind of organization ? it was planning this kind of genocidal massacre and also the forced displacement of whites from South Africa,? Stanton explained.

When a court declared the racist song ?hate speech? for inciting genocide against whites, the self-styled communist president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, began singing it too.

Dehumanization

It is all part of a vicious campaign of dehumanization aimed at whites, according to experts. Demonizing the victims always precedes genocide.

Known as Boers or Afrikaners, the descendants of Northern Europeans, mostly Dutch, arrived in Southern Africa hundreds of years ago, in some cases as far back as the 1600s. Still, racists refer to them as ?settlers,? implying they do not belong there.

?Whenever you have that kind of dehumanization,? Stanton explained, ?you have the beginning of that downward spiral into genocide.?

The National Socialists (Nazis) did it in Germany, and the Islamists did it in Turkey before exterminating Armenian Christians, he added.

The government, meanwhile, has already launched a campaign to disarm Afrikaner farmers. As Genocide Watch observed in a recent report on South Africa, disarmament of the target group is one of the surest warning signs of impending genocide.

Whites have not been the only victims. Even before apartheid was dismantled, the ANC was notoriously brutal to its opponents, using some of the most barbaric tactics imaginable even against blacks who refused to bow down.

Necklacing, in which a tire filled with gasoline is placed around a victim?s neck and set on fire, for example, became a common form of punishment for dissenters and ANC opponents. Even Nelson Mandela?s wife endorsed the monstrous practice.

Beyond genocide against whites lurks another largely overlooked but related phenomenon: the efforts by communist forces to completely take over South Africa.

It is hardly a secret. The Communist Party of South Africa has always has been a firm ally of the ANC. Both of the last two presidents have been members of the Communist Party.

As in Zimbabwe after Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe seized power, the issue of land distribution is being used to advance the same dangerous agenda in South Africa.

?Whatever system of land tenure is adopted in South Africa, the communists ? in the long run ? have in mind to take away all private property. That should never be forgotten,? Stanton warned during his recent trip.

The idea, he said, is to crush all potential resistance.

?Every place you go where communists have taken over, they take away private ownership because private ownership gives people the power ? the economic power ? to oppose their government,? Stanton continued. ?Once you have taken that away, there is no basis on which you can have the economic power to oppose the government.?

While the outside world largely refuses to understand or even acknowledge what is really going on, white South Africans are keenly aware of what awaits the nation if the communist schemes are not stopped.

?The ANC regime has publicly stated that it wants to nationalize all land, in effect doing away with private property when it comes to agricultural land,? explained PRAAG?s Roodt.

?The Communist Party has always been the real intellectual home of the ANC, and even government ministers call each other ?comrade? in public,? he added.

Land redistribution

Since the end of Apartheid, the ANC government has been working to redistribute land ? much of which is still currently owned by the white minority ? to blacks and others.

As in neighboring Zimbabwe, once one of the wealthiest nations in Africa, the schemes have mostly resulted in failure. Under Mugabe, who gave the stolen land to his cronies, estimates suggest millions of people have died from starvation. Others fled, ironically, perhaps, to South Africa.

Now, the ANC wants to speed up the land reform process. Some elements within the government are even advocating forced expropriation without any compensation.

The farm murders, analysts say, are the early phases of what may be coming.

?More and more, the ANC regime?s supporters are turning to violence and revolution to achieve their aims of taking control over land and industry,? Roodt explained.

?Over the last few days there has been an increase in attacks on family owned farms with the intent of driving owners off their land,? he continued, echoing a widespread sentiment among South Africans that the situation is quickly spiraling out of control.

?Hit squads target specifically women and elderly farmers as they are seen as soft targets,? he added. The government also disbanded farmer self-defense groups known as ?commandos? that formerly protected rural areas.

According to Roodt, South Africa, like every country during a communist takeover, is being deliberately destabilized. Ethnic and racial tensions are being purposefully stirred up as part of the scheme as well, he said.

?The ANC regime has failed completely to create jobs for its mass of supporters,? Roodt told WND. ?So it is using the white minority as a scapegoat, blaming them for its own economic failures due to corruption, mismanagement, nationalization, racial preferences and so on.?

Roodt says the ?revolution? could drag on, slowly, with a lot of talk but little action. On the other hand, there could be a sudden, radical shift such as what happened in Zimbabwe, where white farmers who refused to be driven off their land were tortured or murdered.

There could even be a Rwanda-type situation in which whites would be targeted for wholesale slaughter, Roodt warned.

Sadists encouraging sadists

?Anything is possible,? he added, saying the ruling government was very similar to an organized criminal enterprise. ?What is going on in South Africa today with the rape and killing of children, torture or farmers and racial violence, is tantamount to a sadistic society. We are ruled by sadists who encourage other sadists to go out to rape and kill.?

No matter how bad it gets, however, Roodt and other South Africans fear that the world will shut its eyes and wash its hands.

?To many people in the West, especially liberals and leftists, I think it is seen as normal for blacks to hate whites and oppress them,? he explained. ?Because of their historical guilt associated with colonialism, whites are deemed to deserve punishment, even of the most extreme kind such as torture and mass murder.?

Even in South Africa, the press is largely silent about what is going on. Consider that after Stanton announced his preliminary findings in late June ? explosive by any measure ? just one newspaper covered it.

Many white South Africans believe that time may be running out. Some want their own country in Southern Africa to preserve the unique Afrikaner culture, language and civilization. Others are currently working with Western governments in an effort to raise awareness and hopefully allow especially vulnerable populations to escape as refugees before the festering tensions explode into a full-blown catastrophe. More than a few, though, have vowed to stay and fight back if and when the time comes.

For now, activists, exiles and human rights leaders told WND they hope Americans will help spread the word about the looming potential calamities facing South Africa. If the ANC gets its way, they say, it will be an unmitigated disaster for whites, blacks ? basically everyone except politically connected cronies.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/genocide-looms-for-white-farmers/

http://takimag.com/audio/derbradio120629.mp3

Return of the Kings
by Charles A. Coulombe

A specter is haunting Europe?and pace Marx, it is the specter of monarchy. Whenever a ceremony of any sort is performed for or by a deposed ruling family?s members?as has happened in the past few years in France, Germany, and Austria?there is sure to be whining in the media and among the political caste.

This is understandable, since the latter are the heirs of those who seized power and aim to keep it forever?regardless of what their subjects might want. Sundry triumphant pols passed laws forbidding the physical return of royal heirs to their nations?even as visitors. One by one, however, these measures were voided until the European Court tossed out the last of them and allowed the House of Savoy to return to Italy.

The entrenched political class feared that once back, the royals might regain some of their property. To avoid this, recourse was had in several countries (most notably Austria) to the kind of legal chicanery we Americans are used to with the Supreme Court. But the dominant classes? apprehensions were fulfilled in all the Balkan countries?heretofore exposed to the reductio ad absurdum of ?democracy? in the form of exquisitely brutal communist regimes.

With the exception of Greece, which with Anglo-American help had avoided its sister countries? red servitude, the populations of the formerly Marxist region welcomed back their former monarchs (or their heirs) with open arms?going so far as to reverse the theft of much of their former property. The Balkan royals began once again to play supporting roles in their homelands? public life. Simeon II of Bulgaria was perhaps the most successful. Acting as the focus of a grassroots political movement, he was elected prime minister in 2001.

But after leaving office in 2005 with a solid record, the King assumed the same sort of quasi-royal role his brother monarchs of Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, and Albania had. He met secular and religious dignitaries, gave out decorations, and advertised his country abroad. He did everything a reigning constitutional monarch would do, save opening and closing parliament and receiving ambassadors. This satisfying if anomalous position, financed by his regained lands rather than tax dollars, annoyed the class in power. To choke off his activity, they used that weapon so beloved of ?democratic? oligarchs everywhere and took him to court to steal his lands once more. They just won a major victory: The country?s Supreme Court has ruled that Simeon?s hunting lodge at Krichim does not belong to him, opening the legal path to pilfering the remainder of his estates.

So steeped have we become in the politics of envy that the government robbing a rich man?better still, an ex-reigning sovereign?will bring joy to many. This is why the decades-old reduction of Britain?s landed aristocracy from a political force to a band of desperate folk trying (and often failing) to hold onto what is left of their inheritance begets either a smile or a yawn. If Simeon is to continue to play a useful role in his country?s life, he will need to seek justice?paradoxically enough?from the European Court of Human Rights. It is ironic that this is happening under Boyko Borisov?s scandal-ridden prime ministry. The contrast between monarch and politico could not be starker.

Meanwhile, Simeon?s brother sovereigns in the Balkans are doing a sterling job carrying on as shadow heads of state. Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia and his family live in the White Palace in Belgrade. (The president inhabits the Royal Palace.) Sixty-four percent of Serbs support Alexander?s restoration to the throne. After a tumultuous life filled with coups and exile, King Michael I of Romania?the only World War II-era ruler still around?now splits his time between Switzerland (the country that hosted him under communism) and Romania. His oldest daughter, Crown Princess Margarita, and her husband Prince Radu, live full-time in the country on returned property and play a large role in national life. Among other things the prince has become a sort of roving ambassador for Romanian business. Young Crown Prince Leka II of Albania has also found government employment. He acts as special advisor to his country?s ministries of interior and foreign affairs. This sort of ?creeping restoration? has gone furthest in Montenegro, where Crown Prince Nicholas II and his family have had an official position alongside (and paid at the same rate as) the president.

Despite Simeon?s apparent setback, the monarchs? position in the ex-communist Balkans is rosy compared to that of Constantine II of Greece. Since the plebiscite on the monarchy in 1974, he has not been allowed even to visit his homeland for any great length of time. He fought the government in the European Court of Human Rights for his estate at Tatoi and other property. The resulting judgment may have been a moral victory for the King, but it was a financial success for the government.

The Greek Supreme Court banned the monarchist National Hope Party from the May 2012 elections while permitting the allegedly fascist Golden Dawn Party. The court removed the ban for the June elections; perhaps Golden Dawn?s success in May convinced the judges that there are worse things than monarchy. As Europe struggles to retain its identity and its soul, this would be good for the continent?s elites to ponder.

http://takimag.com/article/return_of_the_kings_charles_coulombe/print#axzz1xw8rql6x

UKIP LEADER NIGEL FARAGE TALKING ABOUT THE "EURO SINKING SHIP"!

Europe's post-Nazi stress disorder has brought it to ruin
By Ed West Politics Last updated: May 30th, 2012


The European crisis threatens to re-awaken the old monster of nationalism, military historian Antony Beevor has warned. In an interview with the Telegraph, the author of Stalingrad and Berlin: the Downfall said that:

The great European dream was to diminish militant nationalism. We would all be happy Europeans together. But we are going to see the old monster of militant nationalism being awoken when people realise how little control their politicians have. We are already seeing political disintegration in Europe.

I feel slightly uneasy at the way historians are consulted as if history is going to repeat itself. It never does. It is misleading and dangerous to make sweeping parallels with the Second World War. Politicians like Blair and Bush liked to sound Churchillian or Rooseveltian at times of crisis, but the comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler were preposterous. Eden compared Nasser to Hitler and that led us into the Suez disaster.

Indeed. On the same day The Guardian printed a letter, ?We are all Greek Jews now?, warning against Right-wing extremism, a letter that perfectly captures all the symptoms of Europe?s post-Nazi disorder.

We invite all citizens, political parties, unions, civil society, intellectuals and artists to fight the extreme right by promoting and bringing to life the European dream. We must always remember that this dream was built on the ruins of Nazism. We must never forget about the Shoah. Our dream is of a continent free from racism and antisemitism. It is the project of a society based on "togetherness" ? beyond boundaries.

Second, we must refute the dogma of "the European fortress", which favours the spread of anti-immigrant speeches and the lockdown of Europe's frontiers, especially when a core element of European postwar identity ? its social welfare system ? requires the economic input of immigration to remain sustainable.

Taking aside that they conflate genuinely nasty neo-Fascist parties like Golden Dawn with populist (often quite libertarian) groups such as the Dutch Freedom Party, the European dream is not under threat from a few Greek heavies who look like they?ve stepped out of a Vauxhall nightclub; it?s under threat from itself, because its vision is totally unworkable. The idea of a society without borders in a world where people share their countries is as radical and extreme as the idea that people might share their property ? so don?t be surprised when it doesn?t work.

No political or cultural entity can exist without boundaries; indeed there cannot be any ?togetherness? without boundaries in the first place. The very entity of ?Europe?, or ?Christendom?, came about in opposition to the rise of Islam, and Islam remains the only force that could ever unite Europeans (the Counter-Jihad movement is very pan-European, and Anders Breivik committed his terrible crimes, he said, to save Europe). Otherwise why not just have a ?World Union??

Neither can you build an ?identity? on a social welfare system; quite the opposite. A welfare system relies on a strong sense of national community, something that its earliest proponents, such as William Beveridge, all pointed out. (And I have no idea where they get the idea that welfare requires the economic input of immigrants; the ?replacement? theory of immigration has been blown apart by every body that has ever researched it, and minority communities in every western European country overall receive more welfare than natives.)

Where did this utopian vision come from? My grandparents, like most people in England in the 1930s, hated the Nazis; they hated their militarism, their criminality, their contempt for the rule of law and their racism (a word which was only coined in that decade). But my grandfather did not serve in order to create a world without borders or nation-states; no one did. And I suspect that, were he to see Britain and Europe today, he would conclude that it was in the grips of collective insanity.

Freud has rather gone out of fashion in recent years, but if we could psychoanalyse the people of Europe one might conclude that the continent?s leadership was behaving in a neurotic, self-destructive manner brought about by a horrific trauma.

As the letter writers say, this European dream was built in the shadow of Auschwitz, the aim being from the start the death of nationalism. The EU has been Godwin's Law on a massive scale.

But it?s never been explained why, because of what the Nazis did ? and the Nazis were not normal nationalists anymore than Mark Chapman is a normal music fan ? the Dutch, the French or the English should embrace a utopian vision whereby they become minorities in their own major cities and their countries become provinces of a new Holy Roman Empire.

And, moral though I appreciate this vision might be, is it the best way to stop conflict? Nazism, the Second World War and the Holocaust came about for a number of reasons unique to the period, such as the First World War and the threat of Communism. (Incidentally, on the same day as the "Greek Jews" piece, The Guardian had a letter ? perhaps a spoof ? praising the Soviet Union?s education policy. And yes, I know that the USSR was rather less depraved than Nazi Germany, in the same way that Peter Sutcliffe wasn?t quite as sick as Fred West.)

But Golden Dawn and Jobbik are not going to bring about a new Holocaust ? in fact the overwhelming, dominant threat to Europe?s Jewish community comes from the Arab and Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is unfortunately far more widespread than it was in Germany before Hitler. And the irony is that, out of collective guilt for what happened to Europe?s Jews, Europe imported millions of people from some of the world?s most anti-Semitic countries, made no attempt to counter these prejudices, and even began to adopt the idea that Israel was uniquely responsible for the world?s problems. Instead of preventing future atrocities by defending Israel?s very strong historic legitimacy ? a crucial step on the road to peace ? they are still trying to fight the last genocide, stuck in their solipsistic dreams.

There?s no harm in having dreams, of course, except that when they become nightmares, others are often forced to share them.

The European crisis threatens to re-awaken the old monster of nationalism, military historian Antony Beevor has warned. In an interview with the Telegraph, the author of Stalingrad and Berlin: the Downfall said that:

The great European dream was to diminish militant nationalism. We would all be happy Europeans together. But we are going to see the old monster of militant nationalism being awoken when people realise how little control their politicians have. We are already seeing political disintegration in Europe.

I feel slightly uneasy at the way historians are consulted as if history is going to repeat itself. It never does. It is misleading and dangerous to make sweeping parallels with the Second World War. Politicians like Blair and Bush liked to sound Churchillian or Rooseveltian at times of crisis, but the comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler were preposterous. Eden compared Nasser to Hitler and that led us into the Suez disaster.

Indeed. On the same day The Guardian printed a letter, ?We are all Greek Jews now?, warning against Right-wing extremism, a letter that perfectly captures all the symptoms of Europe?s post-Nazi disorder.

We invite all citizens, political parties, unions, civil society, intellectuals and artists to fight the extreme right by promoting and bringing to life the European dream. We must always remember that this dream was built on the ruins of Nazism. We must never forget about the Shoah. Our dream is of a continent free from racism and antisemitism. It is the project of a society based on "togetherness" ? beyond boundaries.

Second, we must refute the dogma of "the European fortress", which favours the spread of anti-immigrant speeches and the lockdown of Europe's frontiers, especially when a core element of European postwar identity ? its social welfare system ? requires the economic input of immigration to remain sustainable.

Taking aside that they conflate genuinely nasty neo-Fascist parties like Golden Dawn with populist (often quite libertarian) groups such as the Dutch Freedom Party, the European dream is not under threat from a few Greek heavies who look like they?ve stepped out of a Vauxhall nightclub; it?s under threat from itself, because its vision is totally unworkable. The idea of a society without borders in a world where people share their countries is as radical and extreme as the idea that people might share their property ? so don?t be surprised when it doesn?t work.

No political or cultural entity can exist without boundaries; indeed there cannot be any ?togetherness? without boundaries in the first place. The very entity of ?Europe?, or ?Christendom?, came about in opposition to the rise of Islam, and Islam remains the only force that could ever unite Europeans (the Counter-Jihad movement is very pan-European, and Anders Breivik committed his terrible crimes, he said, to save Europe). Otherwise why not just have a ?World Union??

Neither can you build an ?identity? on a social welfare system; quite the opposite. A welfare system relies on a strong sense of national community, something that its earliest proponents, such as William Beveridge, all pointed out. (And I have no idea where they get the idea that welfare requires the economic input of immigrants; the ?replacement? theory of immigration has been blown apart by every body that has ever researched it, and minority communities in every western European country overall receive more welfare than natives.)

Where did this utopian vision come from? My grandparents, like most people in England in the 1930s, hated the Nazis; they hated their militarism, their criminality, their contempt for the rule of law and their racism (a word which was only coined in that decade). But my grandfather did not serve in order to create a world without borders or nation-states; no one did. And I suspect that, were he to see Britain and Europe today, he would conclude that it was in the grips of collective insanity.

Freud has rather gone out of fashion in recent years, but if we could psychoanalyse the people of Europe one might conclude that the continent?s leadership was behaving in a neurotic, self-destructive manner brought about by a horrific trauma.

As the letter writers say, this European dream was built in the shadow of Auschwitz, the aim being from the start the death of nationalism. The EU has been Godwin's Law on a massive scale.

But it?s never been explained why, because of what the Nazis did ? and the Nazis were not normal nationalists anymore than Mark Chapman is a normal music fan ? the Dutch, the French or the English should embrace a utopian vision whereby they become minorities in their own major cities and their countries become provinces of a new Holy Roman Empire.

And, moral though I appreciate this vision might be, is it the best way to stop conflict? Nazism, the Second World War and the Holocaust came about for a number of reasons unique to the period, such as the First World War and the threat of Communism. (Incidentally, on the same day as the "Greek Jews" piece, The Guardian had a letter ? perhaps a spoof ? praising the Soviet Union?s education policy. And yes, I know that the USSR was rather less depraved than Nazi Germany, in the same way that Peter Sutcliffe wasn?t quite as sick as Fred West.)

But Golden Dawn and Jobbik are not going to bring about a new Holocaust ? in fact the overwhelming, dominant threat to Europe?s Jewish community comes from the Arab and Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is unfortunately far more widespread than it was in Germany before Hitler. And the irony is that, out of collective guilt for what happened to Europe?s Jews, Europe imported millions of people from some of the world?s most anti-Semitic countries, made no attempt to counter these prejudices, and even began to adopt the idea that Israel was uniquely responsible for the world?s problems. Instead of preventing future atrocities by defending Israel?s very strong historic legitimacy ? a crucial step on the road to peace ? they are still trying to fight the last genocide, stuck in their solipsistic dreams.

There?s no harm in having dreams, of course, except that when they become nightmares, others are often forced to share them.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100161509/europes-post-nazi-stress-disorder-has-brought-it-to-ruin/#disqus_thread

Newark Star-Ledger admits to censoring race in savage mob attacks

By now many of you are familiar with the brutal racially motivated mob attack on two Virginia-Pilot reporters in Norfolk, Virgina. The pair was attacked by a mob of up to thirty young blacks down the street from the offices of the Virginia-Pilot.

The newspaper news staff refused to report the story. Two weeks later, a writer for the opinion page blew the whistle on her own newspapers' censorship. She also reported on a twitter message from one of the perps. The message boasted that the attack was revenge for Trayvon Martin. She said the police had been reluctant to do anything about the attack.

This story was picked up by Bill O'Reilly and several syndicated radio talk show hosts. Syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones pointed out "if it was this hard for two reporters to get their own employer to report the attack, just think how many of these attacks are never reported at all." The newspaper, which was still under the leadership of Obama's new deputy HUD secretary when the attack took place, took a beating in the conservative media. Norfolk police were also put on the defensive. Suddenly the police made an arrest and charged the perp with a felony and numerous misdemeanors.

However, media censorship of black crime continues unabated. Over the weekend, the Red Hot Chili Peppers performed at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. About 20,000 fans packed the arena.

As concert goers walked to their cars after the show, a mob of what the Newark Star-Ledger is calling "teenagers," brutally attacked several people. Five people were injured, some of them very badly. Three of the injured victims are teens. Two of the victims suffered serious facial fractures.

Newark Police Director Samuel DeMaio said the attacks were motivated by a desire to cause injury. He says the perpetrators were laughing during the attacks.

Sounds like the attacks were racially motivated hate crimes right? Well the Newark Star-Ledger only describes the attackers as "teenagers." Any details that would clue the reader as too the race of the attackers appears to be intentionally omitted.

I called the Star-Ledger and asked if they had a policy of omitting the race of at large crime suspects. The first woman I talked to went to ask her superiors. She came back and told me that there is no formal policy, "but we generally do not publish race."

I then asked to speak to crime reporter James Queally who wrote Star-Ledgers' two articles on the attacks.

Queally told me that the police report did list the race of the perpetrators and that he censored this information in his two articles on purpose. He also stated that it was the newspapers' policy to censor race in crime stories.

Then the conversation took a comedic turn. I asked Queally what race was listed in the police report and he refused to tell me. He also said he interviewed three of the victims, but refused to tell me what race they were. Queally did however volunteer that "it's an 80% black area and the concert was full of white rock and roll fans."

​ Queally denied that the attacks were racially motivated. He said that if it was blacks attacking whites, then that was just a factor of probability. Keep in mind that Queally admits knowing the race of the perps and refuses to say.

​I told Queally about numerous other black on white mob attacks all over the nation and explained to him this was part of a trend of racially motivated hate crimes. At this point Queally went from a friendly demeanor to a very arrogant sounding tone. He replied "well somehow myself and everyone else in the media have missed all of these." I told Queally I have been documenting these hate crime mob attacks and would be happy to e-mail him lots of information. Queally then hung up the phone without a reply.

During the conversation Queally hinted at his reasoning for wanting to censor the race of the perpetrators. He asked "if all the attackers were black fifteen year-olds, would you avoid all black fifteen year-olds in Newark?" I told him I would, especially a group of black fifteen year-olds. I told him that avoiding a specific demographic known for brutally attacking my demographic at random was "common sense." Queally replied, "that's your opinion."

In other words Queally places political correctness above public safety, even though "public safety" is one of the topics he is supposed to be covering. The LA Times, for example, is very candid about having a policy of censoring race in crime stories. They say they don't want to "stigmatize racial minorities."

Recently I called WYFF Greenville, an NBC affiliate. I found two articles on their website about attempted burglaries, where a home owner scared the suspect off. One of the stories has detailed information about the perps' clothing, but omits his race. The other story lists the perp as white. I asked why one was censored and not the other. The woman who answers their main phone said that employees of the studio have staff meetings and decide which stories to censor race and which ones not to censor race. She said she wouldn't characterize it as "censorship," but as "making a decision."

She said she didn't know why race would be stated in one attempted burglary story and not the other. I think it is pretty self-evident.

My conversation with Queally reminded me of a funny comedy bit by comedian Patrice O'Neal. He lampooned the agony that a white liberal must feel when they see a dangerous looking black male coming down the street. He said they want to flee, but are afraid of being "racist." His advice was to run away and be safe, and feel guilty later.

I recently had a black man from Columbus, Ohio tell me about being mugged by two young black perps. He said he suspected the men were dangerous and could have gotten away in time. He didn't take evasive action because he decided  that he shouldn't "racially profile." He felt pretty foolish afterward.

Even left-wing icon Rev. Jessie Jackson believes race is a very important piece of information to know when it comes to crime. At a 1993 conference for the Rainbow/PUSH coalition in Chicago, Jessie Jackson said "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved?. After all we have been through. Just to think we can?t walk down our own streets, how humiliating."​

follow me on my new twitter: @kyle_rogers76

http://www.examiner.com/article/star-ledger-admits-to-censoring-race-savage-post-concert-mob-attacks

Friday, 13 April 2012
Equality as an Evil
The Moral Scourge of Modernity
By Alex Kurtagic
 
The dominant ideology of modern Western societies upholds equality as an absolute moral good, which must, therefore, be pursued for its own sake. The morality of egalitarianism is never questioned by the establishment power structure or by the vast majority of citizens; it is, in fact, a taken-for granted assumption that exists outside the scope of acceptable debate. Predicated on the arbitrary assertion that all humans are born equal in dignity and rights, and bearer of such rights by the mere fact of being human, able to reason, or endowed with dignity (note the circular reasoning) it makes of anyone questioning the moral goodness of equality into an individual of questionable humanity. Even conservatives dare not question the moral goodness of equality, focusing instead on critiquing the methods of application. Yet, equality, despite the high-flown rhetoric surrounding it, is far from an absolute moral good. On the contrary, when we examine the consequences of equality, it is an evil. This article will first explore some of the ways in which equality is an evil and will then put forth an alternative paradigm, founded on a theory of difference.

Unfair Distribution of Reward

The pursuit of equality?s most obvious consequence is the unfair distribution of reward. Because individual capabilities are always different, equality cannot be achieved without taking rewards from the deserving and reallocating them to the undeserving. Thus, talent, industry, thrift, diligence, discipline, initiative, and perseverance are penalised, while inability, idleness, profligacy, indifference, negligence, inertia, and inconstancy are rewarded in the name of social justice. This is egregiously apparent in the policies of universities in the United States, where the pursuit of racial equality has led to differential admission standards that privilege the scholastically inept at the expense of the scholastically apt. In the wake of unequal outcomes in SATs by different racial groups, millions of bright, hard-working students have been excluded from the universities of their choice, particularly where these have been ivy-league universities, in the effort racially to equalise outcomes.

The irony is that an argument for egalitarianism has been the need to combat the unfairness of what egalitarians commonly refer to as ?privilege?. Egalitarians deem ?privilege? bad because it is unmeritocratic, allowing some to enjoy unearned benefits. Yet, since, as we have seen, egalitarian policies still create privileged classes of individuals, who unfairly enjoy unearned benefits, it achieves the opposite of its stated goal, merely transferring ?privilege? from one group to another.

Unfair Distribution of Resources

Closely related to the above is the unfair distribution of resources that accrues from pursuing equality. An example has been provided by recent a news report about universities closing or scaling down science departments to make room for diversity or equality officers. It seems the salary for one such officer would be enough to fund two cancer researchers. Being an absolute moral good, for egalitarians equality needs no logical justification, but the truth is theirs is an ideology that inflicts misery and costs lives. Let us be specific with the implications. Imagine you have a young loved one who has cancer or some other degenerative medical condition. Prognosis is early death in ten or fifteen years without a medical breakthrough. The research is making slow progress. You hope science will make the breakthrough before it is too late. Then, suddenly, the relevant research centres begin closing down or scaling down science departments, while, at the same time, these centres create positions for well-paid diversity or equality officers, allocating their departments generous funds. The research now moves more slowly, pushing back that medical breakthrough you are hoping for. Your loved one now faces a more protracted illness, possibly death before a cure or a more effective drug therapy is found. And what if you are a primary carer? Misery is thus inflicted upon you too, since the cure, or the new drug therapy, takes longer or comes too late. The worry and the sorrow also affect every close relative. It is difficult quantify the extent to which this is the case, particularly as no one seems to have researched this area, but the above scenario is not unreasonable. Can equality be a moral good when these are the consequences?

Negation of Difference

In recent decades, diversity has been a catchword among egalitarians, yet the affirmation of equality is simultaneously the negation of difference. The occasional phrase ?different but equal? has been the egalitarians? attempt to have their cake and eat it, but it is a logical contradiction and therefore nonsense. The argument that the equality referred to is merely equality before the law does not hold, because were it so there would be no need for a policy of differential (unfair) treatment of university applicants. The argument that the equality referred to is merely equality of opportunity does not hold either, because were it so there would be no consternation at unequal outcomes in test results among students in different racial categories, and therefore no need for unfair admissions policies. The affirmation of equality is a straight negation of difference across the board, even to the point of denying the biological existence of one of the primary sources of difference?race and gender?and of pretending that these are pure, arbitrary fictions.

Diversity is predicated on difference. The elimination of one implies the elimination of the other. Modern egalitarianism?s celebration of diversity, and its proclamation of diversity as a good worth pursuing for its own sake, are, therefore, contradictory. What is more, by criticising opponents of diversity as immoral, egalitarians fail to meet their own professed standards of morality, making egalitarians themselves immoral.

The negation of difference implies, by extension, a negation of quality, both in the sense of distinguishing attributes and of superiority. The logical end product of equality is, therefore, sameness and mediocrity, a denial of all the things that make life good and worth living. A system of belief that takes the joy out of life, a system of belief that is, ultimately, anti-life, cannot be considered moral.



Negation of Individuality

Difference is what makes us individual. To assert that everyone is equal, therefore, is to negate individuality, because individuality implies uniqueness, autonomy, non-interchangeability. None are compatible with equality. The demand for uniformity? even when made in the name of individualism?entails a demand for conformity, a renunciation of the self, a demotion or degradation of the individual. This is not just another contradiction, but an affront to so-called ?human dignity?, and since dignity is human, equality is inhuman. A philosophical outlook that simultaneously exalts and affronts dignity is not a coherent outlook.

There are two forms of collectivism: voluntary and imposed. The state- and institutionally sponsored pursuit of equality falls under the second category. Consequently, we can describe egalitarianism as imposing a degradation of the individual in service of an abstract collectivity?a collectivity that, because abstract and therefore dehumanised, does not exist empirically. Is this moral? Not in any way we could accept.

Agent of Oppression

As we have seen from the development of egalitarianism in modern Western societies, the logic of equality presupposes the equivalence of all humans. A result is that unrestricted immigration and racial diversity become ideologically unproblematic. Because humans are differentiated on multiple levels, racially diverse societies have become, by contrast, problematic, necessitating the proliferation of norms, regulation, laws, surveillance, penalties, bureaucracies, and additional taxation in pursuit of harmonious and continued functioning. The progressive limitation of freedoms never ends, because the above-stated measures address only symptoms, not the underlying cause: difference remains, and results in different responses to each measure, which in turn create the need for further measures. Worse still, because of the need to address an increasing number of areas in an increasingly disparate population with few or no shared values or assumptions, the regulatory effort becomes not only ever more invasive and prescriptive, but also increasingly ill-fitting for everyone. (Jack of all trades, master of none.) Freedom is also eroded economically due to the growing costs of regulating, policing, enforcing, penalising, and administrating social behaviour.

Modern Western societies provide innumerable examples of this process? oppressive nature. This goes beyond the lost careers, ruined reputations, fines, and imprisonment that may result from expressing a politically ?incorrect? opinion, because being consequent with politically correct opinion can also result in adverse outcomes, such as rape, robbery, rioting, and murder, all of which are linked to and are a function of racial diversity. Forcing people?and specifically one class of people?to live under increased levels of personal danger lest they wish not to lose their livelihood, reputation, and freedom constitutes oppression. Since oppression is immoral, on this count too so is equality.

Cause of Apathy and Alienation

Robert Putnam linked racial diversity in communities to apathy and alienation: individuals in racially diverse communities tend to exhibit lower levels of community engagement, higher levels of mistrust, and greater reliance on television. According to Putnam?s study, the phenomenon becomes more pronounced with greater racial diversity. The conclusion is that individuals living in racially diverse communities enjoy a lower quality of life than individuals living in racially homogeneous communities, and that the greater the diversity, the lower the quality of life. The elevated levels of crime concurrent with a declining proportion of Whites in a community further accentuate this trend. Since racially diverse societies in the West have resulted directly from the pursuit of equality, equality is causally linked to declining quality of life, and not the opposite.

Equality is not immoral if pursued voluntarily, even if those pursuing it experience a decline in their quality of life as a result. However, it is immoral if it is imposed, by the state (with its implicit threat of violence) or through social pressure, upon those who have no wish to pursue it. And it is doubly immoral if the nonconformity of those in the latter group are, as a result, and as we have seen, denied their humanity.

Destructive System

As has become apparent by now, equality is a destructive force on several levels. Firstly, it is destructive of individual quality, since traits that contribute toward making individuals salient in some way, including activities or ways of behaving, are disincentivised, degraded, or denied. Secondly, it is destructive of the things that make life worth living, for the same reason. Thirdly, it is destructive of human dignity, even though it claims to be for it. Fourthly, it is an agent of oppression, even though it claims to be against it. And finally, it is destructive of quality of life and communities, even though it claims to aim at improving both.

Immoral Practitioners

Aside from the intrinsically destructive nature of the equality ideology, the latter is further tainted by the immorality of its practitioners, for equality activism almost invariably works?though this is not always explicitly stated or even acknowledged?to the detriment of one particular class of individuals: Whites. By their actions, equality practitioners can be safely assumed to have anti-White attitudes, or be anti-White, even though in most cases they are White themselves. It is, therefore, ironic that equality practitioners deem themselves highly moral, and even arrogate to themselves the preaching of morality.

Perhaps more egregious are the crimes of communists, who justifiably comprise the most notorious class of equality zealot. Communists have murdered, imprisoned, and condemned millions to a life of misery, including artists, writers, teachers, and intellectuals. Communists have deprived Europeans of some of the latter?s best people. Communist atrocities are, indeed, the worst in world history. Even on a smaller scale, communist and congenial egalitarians have often been prone to street violence, and as their breed of activist seems more eager than any other to engage in violence when faced with divergent opinions. This may be because egalitarianism has a terrorist history, beginning with the French Revolution, a movement comprising criminals, psychopaths, alcoholics, defectives, and sociopathic geniuses. This may also be because egalitarianism attracts the worst elements of any population, since they are the ones with most to gain by equality policies.

Psychopathology

From the above it is difficult not to see White egalitarians as suffering from an undiagnosed psychopathology, particularly when their equality activism?s long-term effect is to cause massive damage to their race, perhaps even its eventual destruction. Being perfectly analogous, such behaviour can be conceptualised as a collective tendency towards self-mutilation and / or suicide. In the case of Whites, it is reasonable, then, to treat egalitarianism as a moral defect or mental disturbance. (In the case of coloured people, egalitarianism is paid lip service in the interest of extracting concessions; in the case of a subset of Jews since the nineteenth century, egalitarianism is a strategy aimed at making Western societies more amenable to Jews.) Mental disturbance and defective morality are often linked.

The term ?mental disturbance? may seem disproportionate to some, given that many egalitarians sound and act like normal, well-adjusted members of society, and given also that, at least on the surface, egalitarianism represents the consensus opinion. It must be remembered, however, that this semblance of normality is a fairly common phenomenon. ?Racism? is now commonly considered the epitome of evil, but ?racist? attitudes and opinions, not to mention ?racist? legislation and government policies, represented until recently the consensus opinion, and were considered perfectly normal?so normal, in fact, that they were not always easy to identify, and even now new forms continue to be ?discovered?. Identifying, and then changing, them has been the modern egalitarians? self-imposed mission and raison d??tre. We must not, therefore, allow ourselves to be deceived by apparent normality or by the apparently normalising effect of a consensus. Also, we must keep in mind that dominant ideologies always seek to perpetuate themselves by representing orthodoxy as healthy and normal, and heterodoxy as pathological and abnormal.

Difference

The pursuit of equality has been tied up with notions of social justice for so long that many may find it difficult to separate the two, and may therefore find an alternative unthinkable, or at least an evil to be avoided. Certainly, this is how egalitarians think and would like everyone else to think. We would propose, however, that the reverse is true, and that a superior paradigm might be one based on the desirability of difference.

A theory of difference is not ?diversity? as egalitarians understand the term. The ?diversity? of egalitarians refers to humans who may look different, but who, apart from individual personality and socially constructed differences, are essentially equivalent and interchangeable. This, of course, is too one-dimensional to constitute diversity, for it denies the validity of group attributes that contribute to identity. A theory of difference defines diversity as it is meant to be defined, and embraces the multidimensionality of human difference, both at the individual and collective levels.

Under a difference paradigm, therefore, we would expect individuals and groups to be different, even to diverge significantly from our own baselines, rather than expect them to be the same or to have failed when they showed no sign of convergence with us. We would respect difference as a matter of individual or group prerogative. And even where difference may result in instances that are repugnant to us, we would not for that reason cease to consider difference generally a font of riches, for the possibility of difference is a precondition for excellence and the extraordinary.

Sample Policy Implications

Alert readers who are familiar with my earlier writing on Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa should immediately see the policy implications. Below are some examples.

Firstly, if difference is good and a matter of prerogative, it follows that allowing genetically and culturally distant settlers from the Third World to settle in Western nations is detrimental to the uniqueness of those nations. Immigration is not necessarily an evil, but under a difference paradigm immigrants would be immigrants, rather than settlers, and therefore appellants to the established authority, whose prerogative it would be to grant or deny admission on the basis of the incomers? potential for assimilation. Diverse regions or nations would be seen as inimical to a diversity of regions or nations, for the ability for each to define themselves on their own terms would be a precondition for that diversity.

Secondly, an earthquake in a country like Haiti would not be a call for reconstruction. Haiti cannot be regarded as a Western nation, even if it is geographically in the West and was originally a European colony, for it is not populated or run by descendants of Europeans. At the same time it is right and proper, and often advantageous, that nations cooperate with one another. Under a difference paradigm, Haiti?s economic performance and political instability would not be seen as a failure, as it is under an equality paradigm, but rather the result of artificially imposing Westernisation on what is essentially a remote West African outpost. Any international assistance, therefore, would aim at de-escalating Westernisation and facilitating convergence with West Africa?s historical baselines. (I say historical, because West Africa is presently also still suffering from a European colonial syndrome.) Efforts would aim at environmental recovery and Haiti?s gradual, managed conversion to a sustainable non-industrial society. It would then no longer be measured or included in international corruption, transparency, or ?development? indices because these Western parametres would have become irrelevant. Should at any point Haitians decide to pursue a Western-style model, it would be their prerogative, but they would be left to do it?indeed succeed or fail?on their own terms, not by terms imposed by any Western nation.

Thirdly, while it would be possible for a Black African-descended student to apply for admission at any Western university, admission would be conditional on the availability of spaces and on meeting the same minimum standards of academic aptitude as those of the White European-descended students. The curriculum would be defined by Whites, for Whites, and it would be assumed that any non-White student attending the university was there to study that curriculum and to be measured against Western academic criteria. No effort would be made to increase the proportion of Blacks simply on the basis of statistical under-representation, as all else being equal this would be considered the result of difference, rather than a problem. Tests would be revised for accuracy of measuring the academic aptitude of Whites, not for improving the academic performance of Blacks or any other group?s. Conversely, Black-run universities would not be expected to meet criteria set up by Whites for other Whites, but rather to meet criteria set up by Blacks for other Blacks.

Finally, a non-Western nation?s success or failure would not necessarily be a function of their degree of Westernisation. A prehistoric society could well be considered successful if it thrived on its own terms; its prehistoric nature would not necessarily be seen as a deficiency, for it may well be that a recorded history, complex organisation, and techno-industrial development are not relevant to, or needed, in that society, in its particular environment. We would no longer use the euphemism ?underdeveloped? or ?developing? or even ?poor? to refer to nations that do not meet Western baselines of wealth and complexity. In fact, techno-industrial or economic development would not be an objective measure applicable to all nations, for difference theory would in many cases regard these as irrelevant. A desirable consequence would probably be the reduction of debt, for many regions of the world would eventually fall off the horizon of the money system?a matter with significant ramifications.

Concluding Remarks

This, and the theory of difference in general, is a big topic and I can only sketch it out here in very general?and for some perhaps vague or overly abstract?terms. It will need much more serious elaboration across a range of contexts and disciplines, so for now it will be up to the reader to tease out the talking points and formulate them in ways that resonate emotionally. The potential benefits, however, are huge, for if the morality of equality were to be dismantled completely, the egalitarian Left would be delegitimised in the public discourse as an untenable proposition, and the equality project would implode as evil and absurd.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/equality-as-an-evil/

HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency
By Charles Hurt Thursday, March 29, 2012

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The past seven brutal days will go down as one of the worst weeks in history for a sitting president. It certainly has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.

Somehow, Mr. Obama managed to embarrass himself abroad, humiliate himself here at home, see his credentials for being elected so severely undermined that it raises startling questions about whether he should have been elected in the first place ? let alone be re-elected later this year.

Consider:

? Last Friday, Mr. Obama wandered into the killing of Trayvon Martin. Aided by his ignorance of the situation, knee-jerk prejudices and tendency toward racial profiling, Mr. Obama played a heavy hand in elevating a tragic situation in which a teenager was killed into a full-blown hot race fight.

Americans, he admonished, need to do some "soul-searching." And then, utterly inexplicably, he veered off into this bizarre tangent about how he and the poor dead kid look so much alike they could be father and son. It was election-year race-pandering gone horribly wrong.

? By the start of this week, Mr. Obama had fled town and was racing to the other side of the planet just as the Supreme Court was taking up the potentially-embarrassing matter of Obamacare. While in South Korea he was caught on a hidden mic negotiating with the president of our longest-standing rival on how to sell America and her allies down the river once he gets past the next election.

? Meanwhile, back at home, the Supreme Court took up the single most important achievement of Mr. Obama's presidency and, boy, was it embarrassing. The great constitutional law professor, it turns out, may not quite be the wizard he told us he was.

By most accounts, Mr. Obama and his stuttering lawyers were all but laughed out of the courthouse. They were even stumbling over softball questions lobbed by Mr. Obama's own hand-picked justices.

? Mr. Obama closed his week pulling off a nearly unimaginable feat: He managed to totally and completely unify the nastily-fighting Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Late Wednesday night, they unanimously voted ? 414 to zip ? to reject the budget Mr. Obama had presented, leaving him not even a thin lily's blade to hide behind.

So, in one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.

It was as if you lumped Hurricane Katrina and the Abu Ghraib abuses into one week for George W. Bush. And added on top of that the time he oddly groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and got caught cursing on a hot mic.

Even then, it wouldn't be as bad as Mr. Obama's week. You would probably also have to toss in the time Mr. Bush's father threw up into the lap of Japan's prime minister. Only then might we be approaching how bad a week it was for Mr. Obama.

Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.

? Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com.

HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency