Jews and Jewish organizations lead the gun control campaign

Given the Parkland shootings, I thought it appropriate to rerun this article, originally posted on January 1, 2013. See also Andrew Joyce’s article, “Jews and gun control: A reprise.” 

In Cooper Sterling’s TOO article (“Guns, profiling and White males“), he notes

The Left’s irrational obsession with gun control goes beyond the latest mass shooting. It is endemic among the cosmopolitan literati, who loathe Middle America, to dwell on the risks associated with firearms while disregarding or minimizing the benefits of firearm ownership. …

Anyone monitoring the national scene since Newtown is witnessing an emotional antipathy toward the last trace of political leverage among an identifiable demographic: an overwhelmingly White male gun culture. What the MSM and gun control advocates ultimately detest is the gun culture in America, which is too White, too male, and too conservative. …

The tradition of gun ownership is as old as the Republic. It reflects the pre-1965 demographic of America as an overwhelmingly White—and more civilized—nation. As a native Midwesterner, guns were rampant in our neighborhoods where few homes didn’t have some sort of firearm. We came of age hunting with our fathers, uncles and cousins, acquiring rifles and shotguns in our mid-teens.

An article from The Forward notes that the Jewish community has taken the lead in gun control and that part of it is hostility toward the  gun culture of White America that is especially apparent in rural White America. Jews “instinctively recoil” from this culture (“After Newtown Jews lead renewed push on guns“).

Jewish organizations pride themselves on gun control stances that date back to the early days of the debate, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and of President Kennedy. Most played a supportive role in passing legislation then limiting access to weapons, and have since reaffirmed their commitment to reducing the availability of guns.
One reason for broad Jewish support of gun control, Mariaschin said, has to do with the community’s sense of security, “which perhaps leads us to feel that the possession of assault weapons is completely unneeded.”
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former head of the Reform movement, listed in a recent Haaretz article several reasons for Jews siding with supporters of gun control: the community’s affiliation with the Democratic Party; the fact that Jews are urban people and detached from the culture of hunting or gun ownership, and suspicion toward the NRA, which is “associated in the minds of many Jews with extremist positions that frighten Jews and from which they instinctively recoil.”

Although Jews certainly attacked and eventually overcame the elite WASP culture of pre-1965 America (e.g., by displacing WASPs at elite universities), another critical point of conflict between Jewish organizations and the main Jewish intellectual movements has been with rural America. This conflict can be most clearly seen among the New York Intellectuals, a group that is discussed in Chapter 6 of The Culture of Critique. 

The New York Intellectuals were attacking populism in favor of themselves as an intellectual elite. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with

nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Cooney 1986, 267–268; italics in text)

The last line bears repeating. The New York Intellectuals were engaged in a profoundly anti-democratic enterprise given that they rejected and felt superior to the culture of the majority of Americans. The battle between this urbanized intellectual and political establishment and rural America was joined on a wide range of issues. Particularly important was the issue of immigration. In this case and in the entire range of what became mainstream liberal politics, the New York Intellectuals had the enthusiastic support of all of the mainstream Jewish organizations. (Review of Eric Kaufmann’s  The Rise and Fall of Anglo America“)

The gun culture of traditional America, especially rural America has been particularly loathed by Jewish intellectuals. There is also a deep fear of Christian culture that is most vibrant in rural America.  For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams  acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas.

And by successfully changing immigration policy, Jews have reduced the political power of the rural White subculture of America to the point that even though roughly 7 in 10 White males voted Republican (and ~60% of White females), Obama and the Democrats won the recent election. Even if the current push for gun control fails, we can expect that Jewish organizations will continue the push to disarm White males.

Jewish organizations are not at all against guns when they are in the hands of the police and other authorities. The ADL (see the ADL’s Law Enforcement Agency  Resource Network) and the SPLC (Law Enforcement Training and Law Enforcement Resources) have made strong alliances with law enforcement in America.

Further, it has often been observed that Jewish organizations have historically favored a strong central government rather than states’ rights. For example, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education (see here), notes that “Jewish voters …  prefer cities and federal governments to backwaters and volatile statehouses. … All things equal, Jews like strong central governments, not a pastiche of local decision makers catering to majorities.”

Although Jewish organizations would not phrase it this way, the net result is that the thrust of Jewish activism has been to favor a strong central government with a monopoly on lethal force. Given Jewish hostility to the traditional people and culture of White America, this is a very foreboding combination as we head into the era of a non-White majority America.

Originally posted here:

Jews and Jewish organizations lead the gun control campaign

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

Marketing Miscegenation

Since “cutting the cable” several years ago, I have felt secure behind my own personal immigration wall, free of the barrage of marketing demands and political poltroons upon my time and money. During the Christmas holidays, however, I ventured onto the major networks (NBC, ABC, and CBS) with an external antenna affixed to the TV to satisfy my curiosity of what had been happening in the “real” world since my self-imposed exile.

My attention was immediately attracted to a commercial featuring the Paddington Bear. In the commercial a non-traditional looking Santa is aided by Paddington Brown in sorting Christmas presents for one particular family. At the end, all is well as Santa and Paddington peer through the window at the family enjoying opening presents under the tree in their living room.

The family was composed of the mother, who was an auburn-haired White woman, the father, who was Black, and their mixed-race children, a boy and a girl.

I was not shocked or even surprised at this portrayal of miscegenated merriment, as I naively assumed it was an isolated attempt by the commercial’s creator to appeal to two different segments of the consuming public with one commercial.

I was wrong.

As I continued to watch TV that day, it didn’t take long for the intrusive appeal of the commercials to outweigh that of the programs. There were simply so many of these commercials featuring mixed-race families and couples that I suspected something else was being presented.

Next, I watched a Taco Bell commercial featuring a young Black man and a White woman in what appeared to be a shared living space during which she eats all the junk food to the chagrin of her Black wannabe taco eater.

Later in the day, there was a commercial for the movie The Mountain Between Us starring Kate Winslet, a White actress (I suppose I should say “actor” to be PC), and Idris Elba, a Black actor. The film is about the crash of a private plane in a snow-covered mountain range and the couples’ ensuing battle to survive. Apparently, their battle did not employ fighting very hard against having sexual intercourse with each other, but perhaps they were using a deliberate survival strategy to stay warm.

I was beginning to form the opinion that corporations and their ad creators had decided that there was a preference for portraying a couple’s mise en scene of chirpy inter-racialism with a Black man and White woman. But then appeared the sepia-noir-ambiance of the Calvin Klein Eternity cologne commercial, which featured the White looking though Jewish Jake Gyllenhaal and Black model/actress Liya Kebede and their four-year-old son.

So, it seemed that I might be mistaken and this could be an equal opportunity Yule season for actors of both races and both genders. Sure enough, about that time there appeared on my screen, Amazon’s commercial for their somewhat creepy Echo. This commercial featured a Black woman, a White man, and their two children, a boy and girl, seated at the breakfast table as the woman purrs to the Echo assistant named Alexa to play some “wake-up music.”

But lest older Whites are calcified to the acceptance of inter-racial romance, the marketers have begun rolling out not only interracial commercials, but also novels and soap opera TV shows depicting the hormone-fueled joy of jungle fever between our youth.

But Madison Avenue knows when promoting miscegenation advances its agenda and when it doesn’t. Thus, it seems that they have thrown in the towel in order to pitch Chrysler’s 300C to the car’s primary buyers—Black people. I cannot explain the ubiquitous appeal of this car to Blacks, but the consequence of this promotion has left no doubt that White flight not only occurs in neighborhoods but on car dealer showroom floors as well. As if by default, Motown Records’ Barry Gordy is the new non-singing commercial representative for the Chrysler 300C.

The promotion of race mixing over sales is not limited to US television commercials. The giant corporation that controls TJ Maxx has a British doppelganger named TK Maxx that this past Christmas promised to deliver real snow to your front door. The commercial featured the White grandfather as the family patriarch stoking the home fire and passing out the presents to his White wife and son, Black daughter-in-law and her Black mother, and the two bi-racial children. It was refreshing, however, to see that the TK Maxx dump truck delivered white, not beige snow to their door—at least Mother Nature has retained the colors of her true nature.

I bet my White girlfriend that every pro-Black and every anti-White identity ad in our subway was produced by Jews, who profit from racial coalition politics. She didn’t believe me.

If I’m a Jewish guy and notice this, how exactly do you think most White people feel? pic.twitter.com/FDU9qNoEFs

— Frame Game Radio () (@FrameGames) February 7, 2018

What is happening here?

There is no debating the immense influence of advertising on the human mind and its capacity to influence buying in a predetermined direction. But can Madison Avenue tell you to “buy,” not just a physical product, but rather a certain manufactured culture with the goal that the advertised culture become normative? Clearly, if marketers did not believe that they could change the culture, our TV screens, computer CPUs, and print media would not be deluged by images of happy, racially blended couples. As Dana Wade, president of Spike DDB, a New York ad agency that uses multiracial images in most of its advertising said, “For so long, speaking to consumers of color has been absent from the landscape. It’s important to correct  that.”

Underlying the billions of dollars spent to make this propaganda a reality there is the assumption that there is something wrong, even psychologically diseased, about a White man and a White woman marrying and having White children. Since the Black nuclear family, however, is nearly extinct with 70 percent of Black children raised in single-parent homes, this marketing campaign is not directed at Blacks.

Once they assume that there’s something wrong with Whites marrying Whites, there has to be a collusion among Madison Avenue, K-Street, globalists, and Wall Street, to push this agenda—a global unified goal of the destruction of the White family. In recognition that only about 7 percent of US families are to some degree miscegenated, we are witnessing a glorification of open borders, more immigration, and zombification of White brains about race mixing.

And what better entity to organize this effort than the European Commission. Let us hear it emanating from the horse’s rear end:

Frans Timmermans, a Dutch diplomat and Vice-President of the European   Commission, urged all members of the EU parliament to increase efforts to “erase single, monocultural nation states” and accelerate the process in which “every single nation on earth must eventually become diverse.” [sic] During his speech in the EU Fundamental Rights Colloquium 2015 he put special emphasis on the importance of “not allowing even the remotest places on the planet to exist without diversity.“ [sic]

Timmermans believes that “race” is a social construct and any contrary belief is narrow-minded. Never mind the genetic data.

Almost overnight a plethora of beige children has appeared before us. On our TV screens they seem to be well-adjusted but what world are they adjusting to—the White world of one parent or the Black world of the other? There is scant peer-reviewed research on this issue, but anecdotally from what we read about the lives of famous children of mixed race parents and based on our own observations of people we know, the children adopt the speech patterns, the dress, and the behavior of Blacks. Moreover, they select their friends from their Black associates. More research will have to be done on the genetic heritability of the dominance of Black racial characteristics before these kinds of questions can be answered.

There is research showing that the children of Black-White interracial marriages are more likely to grow up in a single-parent home than children of White couples, and a great deal of research indicates that this is a risk factor for a wide variety of negative outcomes for children (low academic achievement, drug use,  behavior problems, etc.). Andrew Joyce summarizes the data from the UK:

The Runnymede Trust [a leftist NGO that promotes diversity] argues that at least “61% of mixed race children are being raised in single mother households. … African Caribbean fathers are twice as likely as white fathers to live apart from their children.” Black men are also the demographic least likely to enter into marriage, which accounts well for the fact that despite the rising number of mixed-race births, “interethnic marriages account for only 2% of all marriages in England and Wales. … Caribbeans have very low partner rates by comparison with other ethnic groups.” The overwhelming tendency then is for very short-term, low-commitment, sexual relationships between Black males and White females, resulting in high numbers of mixed-race children being raised in low-income single mother households. This is of course just one of the dark aspects of miscegenation that is left out of the panegyrics of its promoters.

In the meantime, outlier academics have postulated that bi-racial children have unique problems that need to be remedied—not by discouraging miscegenation but by providing more resources to the bi-racial community and increasing their numbers. How does it make sense to remedy a recognized behavior problem by encouraging the creation of more children with the problem? This field of scholarship is so biased and tainted with double-speak that it is impossible to separate the bull from the manure.

One study claimed that:

higher levels of perceived racial discrimination were related to lower levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., higher distress symptoms and negative affect). Also, higher levels of multiracial identity integration with low racial conflict was related to higher levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., lower distress symptoms and negative affect), whereas higher levels of multiracial identity integration with low racial distance was related to higher levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., lower negative affect).

That makes sense. It simply posits that you are happier if you don’t think you are being discriminated against and don’t have conflict that you attribute to your racial identity. But one of the problems with these kinds of studies is the researchers’ observation of the subjects’ perceptions of behavior. If the members of Black Lives Matters perceive that cops shoot and kill a greater number of Blacks than other racial groups, then the facts as gathered from real data do not matter to them. It is their perception that provides them with cohesiveness and racial bonding.

Another problem is that most of these studies start out with a hypothesis, and then gather information to support the hypothesis. Thus, we typically see these words, or a phrase like it, at the beginning of the abstract of the study—“as predicted or as hypothesized.” In the above quote, I purposely omitted the introductory two words—“As hypothesized…”

It has been stated that adolescents who do not have a stable racial identity show lower self-esteem. As such, it is vital for “mixed-race families to speak to their biracial or multiracial children about their mixed race and foster pride in their background.” But what background do they take pride in—the contribution of Western European people to the high culture of modern civilization or the phony narrative of ancient Egyptians being Black?

And how do these multiracial pimping researchers explain that mixed-race children perform better on standardized tests than Blacks? Could it be due to the contribution of their White parent’s genes? Of course not. It is because the multiracial testing “participants are more likely to understand that race is not biological, but rather, is a social construct.” There’s never an end to the rationalizations that academic activists can come up with.

Another example of questionable inference is that research has shown “that multiracial identity increases an appreciation and empathy for cultural diversity among others.” What does this even mean? When you take the time to parse all the double-speak in this study, it supports the idea that ethnic or racial groups tend to like sharing company with members of their same group. Didn’t we already know this? Similarity among friends has been replicated in hundreds of studies. In the words of the study:

Stigmatized group members experience greater wellbeing in the presence of similar others, which may be driven by the perception that similar others value their shared stigmatized identities (i.e., high public regard).

But the most telling statements are those that have paved the way for the tremendous increase in TV programming, commercials, and advertisements that portray the joy of being a member of a bi-racial family. The following is typical: “As a result of [being members of a] small population [subjected to] lack of media representation, multiracial youth may feel that they do not have a multiracial community and lack role models to help them understand their mixed identity.” (Italics added).

Not only are the advertisers showing more diversity—they have been doing that for a long time—now they are depicting pleasant scenes of domestic tranquility and promoting intimate romantic attachments between Black and White young adults. These commercials are fantasy models of racial utopias that have no counterpart in reality—at least not yet. According to the US Census Bureau, 80 percent of Whites still live in neighborhoods that are more than 95 percent White.

But this social chasm doesn’t bother Sonya Grier, a professor in the Department of Marketing at American University in Washington, D.C. She maintains her buoyed optimism on the thought that “ads reflect our aspirations, what we can be.” She obviously puts her money where her mouth is because this Spring she is teaching a class (one of two she teaches—being a professor—it’s a great life) on Marketing for Social Change. This course is, “Designed for students whose career goals involve working in or with organizations who desire to promote social change, or who are interested in understanding the role and application of marketing beyond commercial gain.”

So, there you have it.

If the media can only increase the “representation” of the multiracial community, there will be fewer objections to race mixing, more multiethnic neighborhoods, greater immigration, and many more well-adjusted mixed-race children.  That is what the media is doing; that is their role in combination with the EU, the global elite, our own government, and the George Soros- funded non-governmental organizations of the world is to dumb us down to the lowest common denominated consumer.

As far back as 1993, Noel Ignatiev a Jewish professor of American history at Massachusetts College sounded the clarion call of anti-White rhetoric when he declared “the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race.”

Behind the high-sounding slogans and colorful commercials portraying miscegenation as morally beneficial, the motivation of its proponents is clear—they are telling us in every way possible: the intention is not to “save” or “redeem” the White race, but to destroy them. The only way to prevent this from happening is to know that this is being done to us and know who is doing it.

Read the original post:

Marketing Miscegenation

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

Greek Biopolitics and Its Unfortunate Demise in Western Thinking

Mika Ojakangas, On the Origins of Greek Biopolitics: A Reinterpretation of the History of Biopower
London and New York: Routledge, 2016

Mika Ojakangas is a professor of political theory, teaching at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland. He has written a succinct and fairly comprehensive overview of ancient Greek thought on population policies and eugenics, or what he terms “biopolitics.” Ojakangas says:

In their books on politics, Plato and Aristotle do not only deal with all the central topics of biopolitics (sexual intercourse, marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, childcare, public health, education, birthrate, migration, immigration, economy, and so forth) from the political point of view, but for them these topics are the very keystone of politics and the art of government. At issue is not only a politics for which “the idea of governing people” is the leading idea but also a politics for which the question how “to organize life” (tou zên paraskeuên) (Plato, Statesman, 307e) is the most important question. (6)

The idea of regulating and cultivating human life, just as one would animal and plant life, is then not a Darwinian, eugenic, or Nazi modern innovation, but, as I have argued concerning Plato’s Republic, can be found in a highly developed form at the dawn of Western civilization. As Ojakangas says:

The idea of politics as control and regulation of the living in the name of the security, well-being and happiness of the state and its inhabitants is as old as Western political thought itself, originating in classical Greece. Greek political thought, as I will demonstrate in this book, is biopolitical to the bone. (1)

Greek thought had nothing to do with the modern obsessions with supposed “human rights” or “social contracts,” but took the good to mean the flourishing of the community, and of individuals as part of that community, as an actualization of the species’ potential: “In this biopolitical power-knowledge focusing on the living, to repeat, the point of departure is neither law, nor free will, nor a contract, or even a natural law, meaning an immutable moral rule. The point of departure is the natural life (phusis) of individuals and populations” (6). Okajangas notes: “for Plato and Aristotle politics was essentially biopolitics” (141).

Prof. Mika Ojakangas

In Ojakangas’ telling, Western biopolitical thought gradually declined in the ancient and medieval period. Whereas Aristotle and perhaps Plato had thought of natural law and the good as pertaining to a particular organism, the Stoics, Christians, and liberals posited a kind of a disembodied natural law:

This history is marked by several ruptures understood as obstacles preventing the adoption and diffusion of the Platonic-Aristotelian biopolitical model of politics – despite the influence these philosophers have otherwise had on Roman and Christian thought. Among these ruptures, we may include: the legalization of politics in the Roman Republic and the privatization of everyday life in the Roman Empire, but particularly the end of birth control, hostility towards the body, the sanctification of law, and the emergence of an entirely new kind of attitude to politics and earthly government in early Christianity. (7)

Ojakangas’ book has served to confirm my impression that, from an evolutionary point of view, the most relevant Western thinkers are found among the ancient Greeks, with a long sleep during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, a slow revival during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and a great climax heralded by Darwin, before being shut down again in 1945. The periods in which Western thought was eminently biopolitical — the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. and 1865 to 1945 — are perhaps surprisingly short in the grand scheme of things, having been swept away by pious Europeans’ recurring penchant for egalitarian and cosmopolitan ideologies. Okajangas also admirably puts ancient biopolitics in the wider context of Western thought, citing Spinoza, Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Heidegger, and others, as well as recent academic literature.

At the core of the work is a critique of Michel Foucault’s claim that biopolitics is a strictly modern phenomenon growing out of “Christian pastoral power.” Ojakangas, while sympathetic to Foucault, says the latter’s argument is “vague” (33) and unsubstantiated. Indeed, historically at least, Catholic countries with strong pastoral power tended precisely to be those in which eugenics was less popular, in contrast with Protestant ones.

It must be said that postmodernist pioneer Foucault is a strange starting point on the topic of biopolitics. As Ojakangas suggests, Foucault’s 1979 and 1980 lecture courses The Birth of Biopolitics and On the Government of the Living do not deal mainly with biopolitics at all, despite their titles (34–35). Indeed, Foucault actually lost rapidly lost interest in the topic.

Okajangas also criticizes Hannah Arendt for claiming that Aristotle posited a separation between the familial/natural life of the household (oikos) and that of the polis. In fact: “The Greek city-state was, to use Carl Schmitt’s infamous formulation, a total state — a state that intervenes, if it so wishes, in all possible matters, in economy and in all the other spheres of human existence” (17). Okajangas goes into some detail citing, contra Arendt and Foucault, ancient Greek uses of household-management and shepherding as analogies for political rule.

Aristotle appears as a genuine forerunner of modern scientific biopolitics in Ojakangas’ account. Aristotle’s politics was at once highly conventional, really reflecting more widespread Greek assumptions, and his truly groundbreaking work as an empirical scientist, notably in the field of biology. For Aristotle “the aim of politics and state administration is to produce good life by developing the immanent potentialities of natural life and to bring these potentialities to fruition” (17, cf. 107). Ojakangas goes on:

Aristotle was not a legal positivist in the modern sense of the word but rather a representative of sociological naturalism, as for Aristotle there is no fundamental distinction between the natural and the social world: they are both governed by the same principles discovered by empirical research on the nature of things and living beings. (55–56)

And: “although justice is based on nature, at stake in this nature is not an immutable and eternal cosmic nature expressing itself in the law written on the hearts of men and women but nature as it unfolds in a being” (109).

This entailed a notion of justice as synonymous with natural hierarchy. Okajangas notes: “for Plato justice means inequality. Justice takes place when an individual fulfills that function or work (ergon) that is assigned to him by nature in the socio-political hierarchy of the state — and to the extent that everybody does so, the whole city-state is just” (111). Biopolitical justice is when each member of the community is fulfilling the particular role to which he is best suited to enable the species to flourish: “For Plato and Aristotle, in sum, natural justice entails hierarchy, not equality, subordination, not autonomy” (113). Both Plato and Aristotle adhered to a “geometrical” conception of equality between humans, namely, that human beings were not equal, but should be treated in accordance with their worth or merit.

Plato used the concepts of reason and nature not to comfort convention but to make radical proposals for the biological, cultural, and spiritual perfection of humanity. Okajangas rightly calls the Republic a “bio-meritocratic” utopia (19) and notes that “Platonic biopolitico-pastoral power” was highly innovative (134). I was personally also extremely struck in Plato by his unique and emphatic joining together of the biological and the spiritual. Okajangas says that National Socialist racial theoriar Hans F. K. Günther in his Plato as Protector of Life (1928) had argued  that “a dualistic reading of Plato goes astray: the soul and the body are not separate entities, let alone enemies, for the spiritual purification in the Platonic state takes place only when accompanied with biological selection” (13).[1]

Okajangas succinctly summarizes the decline of biopolitics in the ancient world. Politically this was related to the decline of the intimate and “total” city-state:

It indeed seems that the decline of the classical city-state also entailed a crisis of biopolitical vision of politics. . . . Just like modern biopolitics, which is closely linked to the rise of the modern nation-state, it is quite likely that the decline of biopolitics and biopolitical vision of politics in the classical era is related to the fall of the ethnically homogeneous political organization characteristic of the classical city-states. (118)

The rise of Hellenistic and Roman empires as universal, cultural states naturally entailed a withdrawal of citizens from politics and a decline in self-conscious ethnopolitics.

While Rome had also been founded as “a biopolitical regime” and had some policies to promote fertility and eugenics (120), this was far less central to Roman than to Greek thought, and gradually declined with the Empire. Political ideology seems to have followed political realities.  The Stoics and Cicero posited a “natural law” not deriving from a particular organism, but as a kind of cosmic, disembodied moral imperative, and tended to emphasize the basic commonality of human beings (e.g. Cicero, Laws, 1.30).

I believe that the apparently unchanging quality of the world and the apparent biological stability of the species led many ancient thinkers to posit an eternal and unchanging disembodied moral law. They did not have our insights on the evolutionary origins of our species and of its potential for upward change in the future. Furthermore, the relative commonality of human beings in the ancient Mediterranean — where the vast majority were Aryan or Semitic Caucasians, with some clinal variation — could lead one to think that biological differences between humans were minor (an impression which Europeans abandoned in the colonial era, when they encountered Sub-Saharan Africans, Amerindians, and East Asians). Missing, in those days before modern science and as White advocate William Pierce has observed, was a progressive vision of human history as an evolutionary process towards ever-greater consciousness and self-actualization.[2]

Many assumptions of late Hellenistic (notably Stoic) philosophy were reflected and sacralized in Christianity, which also posited a universal and timeless moral law deriving from God, rather than the state or the community. As it is said in the Book of Acts (5:29): “We must obey God rather than men.” With Christianity’s emphasis on the dignity of each soul and respect for the will of God, the idea of manipulating reproductive processes through contraception, abortion, or infanticide in order to promote the public good became “taboo” (121). Furthermore: “virginity and celibacy were as a rule regarded as more sacred states than marriage and family life . . . . The dying ascetic replaced the muscular athlete as a role model” (121). These attitudes gradually became reflected in imperial policies:

All the marriage laws of Augustus (including the system of legal rewards for married parents with children and penalties for the unwed and childless) passed from 18 BC onwards were replaced under Constantine and the later Christian emperors — and even those that were not fell into disuse. . . . To this effect, Christian emperors not only made permanent the removal of sanctions on celibates, but began to honor and reward those Christian priests who followed the rule of celibacy: instead of granting privileges to those who contracted a second marriage, Justinian granted privileges to those who did not  (125)

The notion of moral imperatives deriving from a disembodied natural law and the equality of souls gradually led to the modern obsession with natural rights, free will, and social contracts. Contrast Plato and Aristotle’s eudaimonic (i.e., focusing on self-actualization) politics of aristocracy and community to that of seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes:

I know that in the first book of the Politics Aristotle asserts as a foundation of all political knowledge that some men have been made by nature worthy to rule, others to serve, as if Master and slave were distinguished not by agreement among men, but by natural aptitude, i.e. by their knowledge or ignorance. This basic postulate is not only against reason, but contrary to experience. For hardly anyone is so naturally stupid that he does not think it better to rule himself than to let others rule him. … If then men are equal by nature, we must recognize their equality; if they are unequal, since they will struggle for power, the pursuit of peace requires that they are regarded as equal. And therefore the eighth precept of natural law is: everyone should be considered equal to everyone. Contrary to this law is PRIDE. (De Cive, 3.13)

It does seem that, from an evolutionary point of view, the long era of medieval and early modern thought represents an enormous regression as compared with the Ancients, particularly the Greeks. As Ojakangas puts it: “there is an essential rupture in the history of Western political discourse since the decline of the Greek city-states” (134).

Western biopolitics gradually returned in the modern era and especially with Darwin, who himself had said in The Descent of Man: “The weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.”[3] And: “Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care.”[4] Okajangas argues that “the Platonic Aristotelian art of government [was] more biopolitical than the modern one,” as they did not have to compromise with other traditions, namely “Roman and Judeo-Christian concepts and assumptions” (137).

Okajangas’ book is useful in seeing the outline of the long tradition of Western biopolitical thinking, despite the relative eclipse of the Middle Ages. He says:

Baruch Spinoza was probably the first modern metaphysician of biopolitics. While Kant’s moral and political thought is still centered on concepts such as law, free will, duty, and obligation, in Spinoza we encounter an entirely different mode of thinking: there are no other laws but causal ones, the human will is absolutely determined by these laws, freedom and happiness consist of adjusting oneself to them, and what is perhaps most essential, the law of nature is the law of a self-expressing body striving to preserve itself (conatus) by affirming itself, this affirmation, this immanent power of life, being nothing less than justice. In the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche, this metaphysics of biopolitics is brought to its logical conclusion. The law of life is nothing but life’s will to power, but now this power, still identical with justice, is understood as a process in which the sick and the weak are eradicated by the vital forces of life.

I note in passing that William Pierce had a similar assessment of Spinoza’s pantheism as basically valid, despite the latter’s Jewishness.[5]

The 1930s witnessed the zenith of modern Western biopolitical thinking. The French Nobel Prize winner and biologist Alexis Carrel had argued in his best-selling Man the Unknown for the need for eugenics and the need for “philosophical systems and sentimental prejudices must give way before such a necessity.” Yet, as Okajangas points out, “if we take a look at the very root of all ‘philosophical systems,’ we find a philosophy (albeit perhaps not a system) perfectly in agreement with Carrel’s message: the political philosophy of Plato” (97).

Okajangas furthermore argues that Aristotle’s biocentric naturalist ethics were taken up in 1930s Germany:

Instead of ius naturale, at stake was rather what the modern human sciences since the nineteenth century have called biological, economical, and sociological laws of life and society — or what the early twentieth-century völkisch German philosophers, theologians, jurists, and Hellenists called Lebensgesetz, the law of life expressing the unity of spirit and race immanent to life itself. From this perspective, it is not surprising that the “crown jurist” of the Third Reich, Carl Schmitt, attacked the Roman lex [law] in the name of the Greek nomos [custom/law] — whose “original” meaning, although it had started to deteriorate already in the post-Solonian democracy, can in Schmitt’s view still be detected in Aristotle’s Politics. Cicero had translated nomos as lex, but on Schmitt’s account he did not recognize that unlike the Roman lex, nomos does not denote an enacted statute (positive law) but a “concrete order of life” (eine konkrete Lebensordnung) of the Greek polis — not something that ‘ought to be’ but something that “is”. (56)

Western biopolitical thought was devastated by the outcome of the World War II and has yet to recover, although perhaps we can begin to see glimmers of renewal.

Okajangas reserves some critical comments for Foucault in his conclusion, arguing that with his erudition he could not have been ignorant of classical philosophy’s biopolitical character. He speculates on Foucault’s motivations for lying: “Was it a tactical move related to certain political ends? Was it even an attempt to blame Christianity and traditional Christian anti-Semitism for the Holocaust?” (142). I am in no position to pronounce on this, other than to point out that Foucault, apparently a gentile, was a life-long leftist, a Communist Party member in the 1950s, a homosexual who eventually died of AIDS, and a man who — from what I can make of his oeuvre — dedicated his life to “problematizing” the state’s policing and regulation of abnormality.

Okajangas’ work is scrupulously neutral in his presentation of ancient biopolitics. He keeps his cards close to his chest. I identified only two rather telling comments:

  1. His claim that “we know today that human races do not exist” (11).
  2. His assertion that “it would be childish to denounce biopolitics as a multi-headed monster to be wiped off the map of politics by every possible means (capitalism without biopolitics would be an unparalleled nightmare)” (143).

The latter’s odd phrasing strikes me as presenting an ostensibly left-wing point to actually make a taboo right-wing point (a technique Slavoj Žižek seems to specialize in).

In any event, I take Ojakangas’ work as a confirmation of the utmost relevance of ancient political philosophy for refounding European civilization on a sound biopolitical basis. The Greek philosophers, I believe, produced the highest biopolitical thought because they could combine the “barbaric” pagan-Aryan values which Greek society took for granted with the logical rigor of Socratic rationalism. The old pagan-Aryan culture, expressed above all in the Homeric poems, extolled the values of kinship, aristocracy, competitiveness, community, and manliness, this having been a culture which was produced by a long, evolutionary struggle for survival among wandering and conquering tribes in the Eurasian steppe. This highly adaptive traditional culture was then, by a uniquely Western contact with rationalist philosophy, rationalized and radicalized by the philosophers, untainted by the sentimentality of later times. Plato and Aristotle are remarkably un-contrived and straightforward in their political methods and goals: the human community must be perfected biologically and culturally; individual and sectoral interests must give way to those of the common good; and these ought to be enforced through pragmatic means, in accord with wisdom, with law where possible, and with ruthlessness when necessary.


[1]Furthermore, on a decidedly spiritual note: “ rather than being a Darwinist of sorts, in Günther’s view it is Plato’s idealism that renders him a predecessor of Nazi ideology, because race is not merely about the body but, as Plato taught, a combination of the mortal body and the immortal soul.” (13)

[2] William Pierce:

The medieval view of the world was that it is a finished creation. Since Darwin, we have come to see the world as undergoing a continuous and unfinished process of creation, of evolution. This evolutionary view of the world is only about 100 years old in terms of being generally accepted. . . . The pantheists, at least most of them, lacked an understanding of the universe as an evolving entity and so their understanding was incomplete. Their static view of the world made it much more difficult for them to arrive at the Cosmotheist truth.

William Pierce, “Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future,” speech delivered in Arlington, Virginia 1977.

[3] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: Appleton and Company, 1882), 134.

[4]Ibid., 617. Interestingly, Okajangas points out that Benjamin Isaac, a Jewish scholar writing on Greco-Roman “racism,” believed Plato (Republic 459a-b) had inspired Darwin on this point. Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004), 128.

[5]Pierce, “Cosmotheism.”

The rest is here:

Greek Biopolitics and Its Unfortunate Demise in Western Thinking

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

William Pierce and Cosmotheism

During the early 1970s, the late white activist Dr. William Pierce formulated a religious orientation he called Cosmotheism to provide the spiritual basis for the direction he was taking in his racial work.  Pierce had serious reservations about Christianity’s appropriateness for white people and wanted to offer an alternative to it.  The following material is drawn from my book on Pierce, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.

 *   *   *

“As I see it,” Pierce told me, “Christianity has a number of elements that are harmful to our people.   One of them is its egalitarianism.  You know: ‘the meek shall inherit the earth,’ ‘the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.’  It’s the whole Sermon-on-the-Mount idea of putting people down and pulling down those on the top of the heap regardless of how they got there.  It is a fundamental part of Christian doctrine, and I think it is detrimental to an ordered society.  When you look at Christianity you have to get beyond the requirements and rituals—you shall be baptized, you shall observe the marriage sacrament, and so forth—and see underlying things, like the egalitarian, Bolshevik message in this religion, which is really dangerous and has helped move us to this destructive democratic age.

“There is the universalistic message in Christianity, that we are all alike, that fundamentally there is no difference among people, that the only thing that counts is whether you are in or out of Jesus’ flock.  The ‘we are all one in Christ Jesus’ idea—man and woman, white and black, Greek and Jew.  We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord.  The truth of the matter is that we aren’t all one, and we are different from one another, and some individuals and cultures are better than others.  Anything that obscures that reality and its implications holds things back.

Dr. William Pierce

“Another idea inherent in Christianity is that what we do here on earth doesn’t really matter.  This life is just a testing ground; the real action will go on someplace else, after our death.  There is the notion that we don’t have to really stay on the case because God has everything under control.  He is watching us all the time and looking out for us, and He can push this button or that one and make anything happen He wants.  We aren’t in control, and in any case, we don’t need to be because it’s not really our responsibility, it’s God’s.  To me, that comes down to an abdication of responsibility.

“There is all the superstition and craziness in Christianity. When they had their chance, Christians burned free thinkers, stifled intellectual development for centuries, and led people off to those suicidal Crusades.  I see Christianity as more than a basically harmless aberration; it’s a really dangerous one.  At the same time I say that, I acknowledge that most Christians are reasonable and decent people.  It’s just that they haven’t thought things all the way through.  They aren’t the problem—it’s the doctrine.

“The European spirit is much more expressed in the pagan tradition of northern Europe.  There was more of the idea that man is responsible for the world around him. He is responsible for his own actions.  He’s answerable to nobody but himself and his kinsmen.  To live up to the European concept of honor and responsibility is to me far more in accord with our nature than trying to follow Christianity.  I realize it is a complex subject because for a thousand years Christianity has been modified by European feeling, tradition, and religious ideas.  That is how Christianity succeeded in gaining such a grip on Europe, by adapting itself to the conditions there.”

I have some familiarity with the northern European pagan religions before the Christian influx, including Odinism.   Odin is the father deity of Norse mythology.  He rules over a pantheon of gods and goddesses, including Thor, the god of thunder.  He is depicted as a fearless fighter who carries a spear and inspires fearless human warriors called berserkers.  Along with being a fierce warrior, Odin is also the wisest god, having given an eye to drink from the spring of wisdom.  I commented to Pierce that I could understand how the Odinist image of a big, burly, bearded Viking-type wielding a spear or a battle-ax would have appeal to some people.

“Well, I can understand how the idea of a Viking with his battle-ax charging into a monastery and splitting some monk’s skull and grabbing a silver crucifix off the altar and melting it down to make bracelets would be appealing.  But really, that is a very one-sided picture.  Raiding was one activity of the Vikings among many, and of course the Vikings were only one part of European culture and civilization.  Although I will say I can relate to that Viking image much more than the idea of the crucifix, which seems so alien as a symbol of a religion.  A man nailed to a cross, crucified.   That just seems weird to me.  It is hard for me to have a good feeling about that.  It doesn’t seem European to me.  It would take somebody with a really alien mindset to choose something like that as a symbol for a religion.  It is an execution scene.  It’s like if I were to start a new religion and chose as a symbol a man hanging from a gallows, or in an iron cage with crows pecking at his skeleton.

World Tree

“One of the principal symbols of pagan religion is the tree of life, it’s called The World Tree, which represents their cosmology.  To me, The World Tree is a much more fitting symbol for a religion for our people.”

The World Tree is a symbol for the continual creation of new life on earth amid the forces and creatures that tear at its roots—roots that remain, through it all, ever green. The World Tree also represents nature as the source of nourishment and healing to mankind.   In The World Tree symbol there is the focus on this earthly world and man’s embeddedness in nature and dependence on it.  And there is the theme of renewal and growth amid struggle and adversity.  

“There are a lot of people,” Pierce offered, “who say, ‘Where would we be without Christianity.  We’d be raping and killing each other.’  Well, we are raping and killing each other as it is.   The fact of the matter is that before the dominance of Christianity, Europeans kept that sort of thing pretty much under control through the ways communities were set up.  They had rules that made sense in terms of their survival and way of life, and the rules were enforced, and more or less people respected the rules.  There doesn’t have to be some kind of supernatural sanction to keep people in line.

“One of the things I quote often comes from northern European non-Christian writings and it goes something like this: ‘Cattle die and kinsman die, and so too must one die oneself.  But there is one thing I know that never dies, and that is the fame of a dead man’s deeds.’ [It is from the Hávamál, a group of disconnected, fragmentary poems composed by unknown Norse poets between 800 and 1100 A.D.]  Fame here doesn’t mean fame in the way we think of it today—notoriety, having people know who you are, being a celebrity.  In this case, fame means your reputation, the impression you make on the world and your fellow men while you are alive.  If you live in a way that warrants it, your people will remember you for generations as a person who did great things or was exceptionally wise or just or courageous, whatever it was.  That is the only immortality that is real, and that is a kind of immortality that can matter to people and really affect how they live.  You don’t need the promise of a life-after-death kind of immortality to get people to be good people.”

Pierce needed a name for the spiritual orientation—or religion, or life philosophy, whatever best to call it—he had put together, and he came up with Cosmotheism.   He can’t remember where he got the term.  I did some investigating and found that the English Romantic poet, critic, and philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge used it in the early nineteenth century.   In Coleridge’s writings, in one instance he referred to an identification of God with the universe and in another to the worship of the world as God.   The writer D.H. Lawrence was quoted as saying, “We and the cosmos are one.  The cosmos is a vast living body of which we are all parts.  The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve center from which we quiver forever.  All this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.”  It could be that reading Coleridge or Lawrence was Pierce’s inspiration.   But it was a long time ago, and he doesn’t remember.

I asked Pierce to help me understand Cosmotheism.  He rose from his desk and went to a file drawer and pulled out some pamphlets, sorted through them a bit, and then handed three of them to me.  “You can look these over.  I wrote them on Cosmotheism back in the late 1970s.”

I read through the three pamphlets and listened to a tape of a talk Pierce gave back in 1976 at one of the Sunday evening meetings he conducted called “Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future.”  I concluded that what Pierce calls Cosmotheism is a version of the religious orientation called pantheism.  I won’t go into the particulars of Cosmotheism in this context, which would get us into considerations of George Bernard Shaw’s play Man and Superman, Plato’s Republic, and the ideas of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and take us far afield.  Basically, it comes down to aligning with, and serving, a “life force” that propels the upward development of the white race.   It’s enough here to place Cosmotheism in its pantheistic context.

Pantheism as a religious perspective and tradition differs from three others more familiar to us: theism (Judaism and Christianity are examples), atheism, and humanism.  Even though pantheism doesn’t have a strong foothold in Western society, it is far from a rare phenomenon in the world: Taoism, forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, the religions of American Indian tribes, and the pagan religions of northern Europe all embody a pantheistic outlook.  Many Greek philosophers reflect a pantheistic outlook, including Plato and Aristotle and the Stoics, as did philosophers such as Spinoza, Fichte, and Hegel.  Prominent literary figures whose work reveals a pantheistic perspective include William Wordsworth, Ralph Waldo Emerson, D.H. Lawrence, Robinson Jeffers, and Gary Snyder.

What is this perspective on the world?  The words used to express the pantheistic orientation vary greatly, but what they all share is a picture of how everything fits together.  Pantheists get beyond the particulars, this discrete entity and that one, to a perception of an all-encompassing and unified order to things.  Pantheism is the view that everything that exists—nature, animals, human beings, everything—forms an integrated whole.  To the pantheist, everything is interrelated.  Human life is not independent and self-contained but rather an integral part of the world.

This stress on wholeness should not be taken to mean that pantheists contend that “all is one,” that there aren’t separate entities in the world, that the perception of distinctions is an illusion.  Rather, pantheists—or most of them, anyway—say that the various elements that comprise the world are not merely distinct, and that most fundamentally, most importantly, they are not distinct.  When pantheists look at the world, they see connectedness, they see unity.

What makes pantheism a religion and not simply a philosophy is that this unity that pantheists see is divine—it is sacred.  To pantheists, the world isn’t simply a set of interrelated concrete phenomena.  There is more—call it God—and this “something more” infuses, permeates, the world.  It is part of everything, and everything is part of It.  It divinizes the world and makes it holy.  When pantheists look at the world, they see God.

Pantheism can be better understood if it is contrasted with theism—again, Christianity and Judaism fall in this category.  The theistic tradition is characterized by the belief in a personal god—that is to say, a god with the characteristics of a human being.  This theistic god has a personality and bearing—like that of a commanding father perhaps.  This is a god who can hear and see and pass moral judgment and make decisions and take purposeful action.  He is focal: all power and holiness flow from him.  He was so powerful that he had the power to create the universe, a universe which he now in a parent-like or monarch-like way oversees.  He is separate, distinct from nature and mankind.  He is not of this world.  He is apart, above, transcendent, looking down on us all.

The appropriate relationship to the theistic god is deferential and devotional.  He is prayed to.  He is an object of worship—the sole object of worship.  The worshipper does not identify himself with God or seek to merge with God or become God; that would be blasphemous.  Rather, the fundamental objective of religious practice in the theistic tradition is to establish a proper relationship with God.  Cultivating this proper relationship gives the worshipper direction in living in accordance with God’s will and in escaping God’s displeasure or wrath.  The worshipper gains strength and guidance from God—perhaps with the assistance of a messiah—in the lifelong task of achieving salvation, peace, and happiness, and perhaps ecstatic joy, in this life, and bliss and serenity in the next life.

In theistic traditions, there is the belief in personal immortality.  The faithful will survive death in some form.  Death is regrettable to be sure, but that regret is softened by the conviction that the next world will be a better place than this one is.  In fact, in theistic traditions existence on earth is in large measure perceived as a time of preparation for the afterlife.

Like theists, pantheists believe in God; pantheism is not a disguised form of atheism or a substitution of naturalism for religious faith.  Where the difference lies is that pantheists do not perceive of God as a person or anything like a person. The pantheistic God doesn’t have a personality.  It doesn’t have a mind.  It doesn’t perceive as does a human being.  It doesn’t formulate intentions and carry out actions in response to circumstances in the manner of a person.  Pantheistic religions tend not to play up the creator-of-the-universe conception of God as do theistic religions.  There is more of a tendency in pantheism to attend to God and world—however they/it came to be—simply as realities to be encountered and taken into account at this time and in this life.

Pantheism denies the beyondness, the otherness, of God.  God isn’t up there, over there, someplace else, transcendent.  God is here, a part of all this, immanent.  God penetrates everything in the universe.   God is in nature.   God is in human beings.  God and man and nature are not distinct—or at least not totally distinct, or only distinct.  What makes things a bit complicated is that while pantheism emphasizes God’s immanence, there is also a tendency within this tradition to view the being of God as if it were not completely exhausted by the universe.  That is to say, God has a transcendent dimension as well as an immanent one.  Some have used the term panentheism (note the “en” in the middle) to distinguish the strand of pantheism that stresses both the immanent and transcendent quality of God.  So we need to be careful not to set up rigid dichotomies.  Still, however, the most useful distinction to keep in mind for our purposes is the basic one between a transcendent God (theism) and an immanent God (pantheism).

If God exists but isn’t a person, then what is It?  (To have used He at the end of this last sentence would have personalized God and been at variance with pantheistic thinking.)  One finds a variety of words used to describe God within pantheism.  God is described variously as The Force, The Divine Spark, The Principle of the World, The Plan for the Universe, The Spirit of the World, The Soul of the World, and The Divine Unity.  These aren’t the clearest of terms, but then again cloudiness of meaning is not unheard of in matters of religion, and they do communicate a basic sense of how pantheism conceives of God.

What is the proper relationship of human beings to the pantheistic god?  Since God is not a person or separate from everything, it isn’t a personal relationship in the way two people would relate to one another.  There isn’t a deferential posture toward this god.  Rather than a worshipful response to the presence of God as one finds in theism, in pantheism there is respect, awe, wonderment.  And rather than devotional practice, in pantheistic religions there is an emphasis on the search for knowledge of The Unity and the development of personal resources of a certain kind: namely, the understanding and wisdom and personal strength that will contribute to one’s living a life in accordance with The Unity or, another way to say it, that will allow one to integrate with the cosmos.  Thus, meditative and contemplative activities are more consistent with pantheism than prayer.  Really, any activity, intellectual or non-intellectual, that brings people into closer contact with things as they actually are and to a better understanding of how it all goes together and where they fit in the larger scheme of things, including a walk in the woods, is an appropriate religious practice within the pantheistic tradition.

Within pantheism, there is more of a focus on integrating into this world than winning forgiveness of sin or a place in the next world.  In contrast to theism, this integration may include merging with God, coming to a realization of one’s identity with, or sameness with, God.  The result may be happiness and joy, but more likely it will be more along the lines of a thoroughgoing peace of mind or sense of being truly home.

Most pantheists deny the possibility that they will survive death in some conscious form, so they aren’t seeking personal immortality through their religion.  They tend to believe that whatever happens must happen in this lifetime and with no help from God or a messiah.  For them, death is regrettable because it deprives us of experience and the possibility of doing further good on this earth.

It needs to be underscored that most pantheists are not monists.  They aren’t saying All is One.  They aren’t contending that there is only one Being and that all reality is either identical with it or modes of it.  They are pluralists.  They believe that there are many kinds of things.  They don’t regard the existence of real, finite entities as inimical to unity.   As pluralists, pantheists don’t see just one human nature but various human natures.  Pierce carried this idea over to race.  Where some would see one human race, he sees a number of human races.

In line with this pluralist mentality, pantheists don’t believe there is just one way to live in accordance with The Unity.  They don’t insist on one lifestyle or set of activities for everyone.  They believe that personal wellbeing and the welfare of the whole will best be attained by people living within the parameters dictated by their own essential natures.  The idea is to do what is natural to you given the reality of the whole of which you are a part.

Along this same line, pantheists don’t hold up any human attribute as being on a higher plane than the others.  A good mind, for example, can be positive and it can be negative depending on the use to which it is put.  In fact, one picks up a coolness toward intellectual prowess in pantheism; or anyway, that it is not essential to a good life, and may actually interfere with it.

Pantheists are critical of humanism.  They reject its secularized, human-centered worldview.  In their eyes, humanism sets man up as the sole concern, as being all-important.  Pantheists contend that humanists have substituted worship of man for the worship of God.  This contradicts the pantheistic view of man as a part of nature, and that the meaning and purpose of life cannot, should not, be made with reference to human beings alone.

Pantheists usually believe in free will.  Most often, they aren’t determinists.  They don’t believe man’s actions and fate are determined by either God’s will or earthly circumstances.  They believe in the power of choice and moral responsibility.  They derive their concept of morality from the nature of the Divine Unity, not from the nature of a personalized God and His word.  A person’s conduct cannot be assessed apart from his overall context, pantheists believe.   Pantheists judge the goodness of an individual act, and a total life, with reference to the individual’s relationship to the Unity.   Pantheists believe living in harmony with the Unity to be morally good, and living in discordance with it to be morally bad.

While pantheists believe in free will, they disagree with the existentialist posture that would have man alone determine the meaning of his life.  They hold that there are dictates inherent in man’s being and in his context that impose restraints and obligations on him and thus limit the scope of his freedom to simply choose his own path in life.  Man is what he is and is a part of everything, and these realities to a great extent direct how one should live.  Man should not, say the pantheists, be viewed merely as an end in himself.

Pantheists are critical of a reliance on science as the source of answers to the questions of existence.  Contend the pantheists, there is more to the world than can be accounted for by the natural sciences and their ways of knowing, their epistemologies.  Pantheists don’t claim to know all there is to know about the Divine Unity.  They still have questions about creation, immortality, and the meaning and purpose of life, but they don’t believe that science has the answers to them either.

Pantheists tend to love nature and seek to establish a relationship to things natural.  They tend to believe that if one doesn’t connect with nature, one is less likely to come to the pantheistic worldview.  If one never hikes in the wilderness or gazes at the sunset or sails on the water, if one never gets out of his own little human orbit, he is less likely to see the pantheistic truths.

Pantheists live more in an ethical than mystical relation to nature.  They perceive that living in proper relation to nature presupposes its preservation and protection.  They tend to be environmentalists.  They tend to be of a mind that technology despoils the environment and separates people from It.  They tend to see urban life as averse to both personal well-being and the well-being of the Unity.  At the same time, however, they tend to think of pantheism as an approach to life that can be lived out in any locale, including urban settings.

Pantheists regard organized churches and religious leaders with suspicion.  They doubt that the life that pantheism seeks to attain can be facilitated by hierarchically organized, clergy-centered, empire-building religions.

Pierce had a doctorate in physics and had been a tenured university professor in that field.  Modern science, he noted, has moved us from a static to a dynamic view of the universe, and pantheism aligns with that paradigm more than churches’ conception of the world as a finished creation.  Since Darwin, Pierce points out, the world has come to be viewed as undergoing a continuous and not-yet-finished change or evolution. Cosmotheism is more in line with this perspective, he asserted, than theistic religions such as Christianity.

The rest is here:

William Pierce and Cosmotheism

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

“The New Jim Crow” As Seen from the Right.

Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is a text I’ve come across many times over the years. In fact, I don’t know if there is a single time I have walked into a major bookstore and have not seen the book displayed in prominence on an end cap or center aisle table. I’ve encountered all the arguments made within the text over the years in articles, during debates, and in university classrooms as an undergraduate. Perhaps the significance of Alexander’s work is best assessed in the foreword by Cornel West: “The New Jim Crow is the secular bible for a new social movement in the early twenty-first-century America.” Although the data and arguments found within have been seen both before and after Alexander’s work, this is perhaps the most definitive and comprehensive work on the topic of Black crime and mass incarceration in America, as seen from the left.

The overarching premise is that mass incarceration, Jim Crow laws, and slavery have been the three primary measures adopted as public policy in the U.S. as a means to control the Black population. Several of Alexander’s contentions jumped off the page at me from the very beginning of the introduction, where she states that an essential goal of the Founding Fathers was to ensure citizenship to Blacks would be denied. In a way, I was thoroughly impressed, aghast even. I hear noxious phrases like “we are a nation of immigrants,” “America is for everybody,” and “this is a homeland for all,” almost daily, be it on social media, from politicians, the press, or in the media. And to see an author who has declared her goal is an “egalitarian democracy,” to be so honest, so frank, and so correct, is in many ways to be welcomed. Alexander displays from page one that she has a grasp of historical racialism as it pertains to the foundation of the U.S. and the Founders’ intentions. She finds this to be an unacceptable position, of course, but her admission that the U.S. was founded as a White nation is exceedingly rare nonetheless.

She notes the disparity of Whites and Blacks in prison for drug crimes and suggests that these disparities cannot be explained by respective rates of involvement in the drug trade (7). As evidence of this claim, Alexander cites studies that show Whites and Blacks both use and sell drugs at the same rates; therefore, disparities in incarceration must be due to racism. At first glance, this seems like a reasonable argument. However, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, 99.5% of the 94,678 people in federal prison for drug crimes are in prison for trafficking.[1] So the people incarcerated for drug crimes are not in prison for simple use, or selling low quantities of drugs, but for trafficking, manufacturing, and distribution. Drug usage and selling of small quantities are simply not equivalent to drug trafficking. It would be similar to saying that every person who drank alcohol during prohibition was also likely to be in the business of bootlegging, rum-running, and operating speakeasies. Further, for her claim to be correct, it would essentially amount to a vast understanding from the highest levels of the Justice Department, down to beat cops, that White drug traffickers are to be ignored, while Black ones are to be arrested. I have a very hard time believing that the U.S. government is so racist, and so pro-White, that this would be their public policy.

Alexander makes another astute claim, with which I half-agree: “The widespread belief that race no longer matters has blinded us to the realities of race in our society and facilitated the emergence of a new caste system” (11–12). She is correct; the current brand of “colorblind” nationalism is incredibly harmful, especially to us. People who are unwilling to view our current social ills in terms of race realism have a very difficult time understanding much of what is happening, particularly White dispossession. Although I disagree with Alexander that lack of racial awareness is responsible for the caste system she says seeks to hold down Blacks, I can see her view that there is an emerging caste system — one that allows Blacks to play the “knockout game” with unsuspecting Whites, and not be called racists by the mainstream press.

Alexander claims that economic mobility is difficult, and in many cases, simply impossible (13). She further claims that Blacks are plagued by poverty and not free to move up in society, and that mass incarceration plays a key role in creating the Black underclass. According to the Brookings Institute, only 2% of Americans who finish high school, maintain a full-time job, and wait until they are 21 to get married or have kids will live in poverty. Further, 75% of Americans who follow those three rules earn $55,000 per year or more.[4] Mass incarceration is hardly responsible for people choosing to drop out of school, have children out of wedlock, and not work.

Chapter 1 is a tendentious historical overview of Black history, beginning with slavery through the crime policies of the Clinton Administration. Alexander’s telling of the Atlantic Slave Trade would have one believe that slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon, despite that the majority of slaves would end up in South America and the Caribbean, and that slavery was common throughout the non-European world, and still is in many places[5] As historian Seymour Drescher notes, “freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution” at the time that Britain ended slavery in the early nineteenth century.[6]

Alexander goes on to hail Lyndon Johnson, the civil rights movement, and the abolition of miscegenation laws, which led to the increase of interracial marriages. Without citing data on actual Black criminality, she further argues that the emergence of “tough on crime” rhetoric from Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, were not responding to legitimate fears of an increasing crime rate, but were less-than-subtle appeals to racial discrimination against Blacks.

Alexander claims that Nixon’s and Reagan’s use of language such as “welfare queen,” “lazy,” “ghetto,” and the like, were actually messages to working-class Whites that they would reform welfare and stop transferring wealth to Blacks. Alexander never really dives into these issues further; they are dismissed as irrational fear mongering and racism, for which there is no need for support with actual data. In reality, there is legitimate cause for fear of Black on White crime, and there is a legitimate grievance Whites have in terms of welfare use and taxes paid. In 85% of violent interracial crimes between Whites and Blacks, Blacks are the attackers, amounting to over half a million violent crimes per year against our people.[7] In an analysis of fiscal impacts between races that account for taxes paid and services consumed, we see that Blacks and Hispanics both use far more tax dollars than they contribute, resulting in a net negative, which Whites are forced to subsidize.[8] Criticism of crime and tax burdens that are placed on Whites by others is not merely some racist, fear mongering talking point — it is an objective reality.

Reading the second chapter of The New Jim Crow was somewhat of a peculiar experience for me, in that I do not think Alexander made any substantive argument where I disagreed or noticed any faults. She discusses in depth the “evisceration” of the Fourth Amendment, which has been wrought in part by the War on Drugs. Alexander briefly discusses the historical impetus behind the Amendment, which she characterizes as “[t]he routine police harassment, arbitrary searches, and widespread police intimidation of those subject to English rule…” (62). She goes on to describe the creeping normality of living under a police state under the guise of a drug war: no-knock warrants, warrants obtained through anonymous informant information, expanded surveillance, and nearly anything being “probable cause” to justify search and seizure.

Alexander cites Terry v. Ohio as an erosion of Fourth Amendment rights, reducing “probable cause” to “reasonable articulable suspicion,” which was a colossal shift in policy. Terry effectively moved public policy away from the rights of individual citizens, in favor of allowing police to use their “discretion” to protect themselves from potentially dangerous criminals, granting agents of the state the “right” to safety, over the citizen’s right to be free of unreasonable searches. (63)

She is also critical of Florida v. Bostick, a Supreme Court case which held that information voluntarily given to police will not be a legal basis for a Fourth Amendment violation. What came of this is the policy of police starting seemingly benign interviews, which lead to the police asking if they can search a person or asking a question like “do you have any drugs or weapons on you?” even when there is no reasonable suspicion. Here, Alexander argues (and I think accurately) that when accosted by police, most people are nervous, unaware of their rights, and will “consent,” although reluctantly. Most people, criminal or not, comply with police questions and consent to searches. As a result, the general lack of legal knowledge is leveraged by police to circumvent the most fundamental purposes of the Fourth Amendment. (64)

Alexander describes the incredible cost and inefficiency of the drug war, as well as the policy of civil forfeiture. When police suspect a person of being involved in a crime, they may seize things they suspect were also involved in the crime, such as cash they suspect was ill-gotten, or a car police suspect was used to transport drugs. The burden of proof for civil forfeiture is incredibly low — the state needs to only establish a “preponderance of evidence,” a far cry from “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Worse, if alleged perpetrators are not ultimately charged with a crime, they are afforded no legal aid to retrieve their property from the state, as civil matters do not entitle one to the right of legal representation. Of course, in many cases, this means it would be less costly to allow the state to steal your property than to hire a lawyer and seek justice. (83)

The chapter rounds out with a discussion of the inadequacy of state-provided legal aid, as many court-appointed defense attorneys are dealing with a tremendous number of cases while being paid on the lower end of what attorneys earn. Alexander also discusses the plea-bargaining system, which lends itself to prosecutors overcharging cases — even charging crimes on which they know they can’t convict — as leverage to force the accused to take a plea bargain instead of risking the uncertainty and expense of a jury trial. This is definitely a legitimate concern.

The only real oddity I found in the second chapter was how Alexander opened her book describing the United States as a nation founded for Whites and claiming the entire system needs a radical overhaul as a result, to becoming an originalist a few pages later when discussing the Fourth Amendment. She clearly does not like the idea that Whites have some sort of claim on the country they built, but she does want to keep the Fourth Amendment preserved as it was from the same era that biased immigration toward Western Europe. On one hand, she seems to be in support of the Bill of Rights as it was written, while on the other hand wanting to see equally important aspects of our nation destroyed and scattered to the wind.

The remainder of the book was a bit of a letdown. Although I had anticipated the typical Leftist argument that Whites were oppressing non-Whites, I was hoping there would be more well-thought out legal arguments and a better theoretical bases, as in the second chapter. What came was mostly a victim mentality, constantly invoking Martin Luther King Jr. and the argument that drug laws create a de facto caste system in America based on race.

Alexander brings up the argument over and over again, that because Whites and Blacks use and buy drugs at the same rate, the representation in prison should also be similar. Not once did Alexander note the incredible leap from drug use to drug trafficking. Nor did she note that the vast majority of those incarcerated for drug crimes are for trafficking, not simple possession. She repeatedly states that the racist American system is the reason for the overrepresentation of Blacks in prison for drugs. However, she never considers that in England, Blacks are also over-represented in crime per their population percentage and as compared to Whites, although I suppose she would blame the White British for that.[9] Alexander also does not bother to mention the fact that Blacks in America commit a disproportionate amount of crime of every type, not merely drug crime.[10]

Alexander suggests that the reason so many Black children grow up without fathers is due to mass incarceration, which the War on Drugs perpetuates. “Hundreds of thousands of Black men are unable to be good fathers for their children, not because of a lack of commitment or desire but because they are warehoused in prisons, locked in cages” (180–181). Alexander notes that about one million Black men are behind bars in prisons and jails currently but fails to investigate what percentage of them have children or whether they were supporting the children until they became incarcerated. According to the Kid Count Data Center, as of 2011, there were over 6.5 million Black children being raised by single parents. A rate of nearly 70%.[11] To suggest that the reason 6.5 million children are being raised without a father is due to one million Black men in prison is patently absurd.

A recurring theme through the book is that the rise of U.S. prison population is due largely to the drug war. However, the federal and state prison data does not support this claim. If every person that was incarcerated for only drug offenses in both federal and state prison were released, the total prison population would drop by about 14 percent.[12]

The “crack vs. cocaine” argument was forwarded as well. Alexander alleges that because cocaine has a connotation of being used by wealthy White people, it carries lower sentences than crack, which is seen as used more widely by the Black community (112). When we compare crack sentences to meth or PCP — both seen as more “White person” drugs — the disparity in grams needed to land you a 5-year prison stay nearly disappears.[13] The majority of people in jail for meth are White, with only a small amount being Black.[14] Nobody claims that meth laws target poor Whites but they claim crack laws target poor Blacks. They always use the erroneous “cocaine vs. crack” dichotomy to make their invalid argument. Alexander is eerily silent on the widespread use of meth, heroin, and opioids in the White community.

The final chapter of the book opens with the story of the Jena Six, a group of six Black teenagers who beat a White student so badly he was hospitalized. The beating was said to have been “provoked” by a racial joke or the connection to rising racial tensions that involved nooses being hanged from courtyard trees. Alexander praises the Black community’s response to the “plight” of the six Black attackers. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and MLK III were all in attendance, along with rappers, and thousands of protesters who joined in the fight against the “racial bias” leveled against the Jena Six, as they were initially charged with attempted second-degree murder (pp. 221-222). The Jena Six story is used as an example of “successful” civil rights advocacy; the kind Alexander urges is necessary for this next era of civil rights and ending oppression.

A civil war had to be waged to end slavery; a mass movement was necessary to bring a formal end to Jim Crow. Those who imagine far less is required to dismantle mass incarceration and build a new, egalitarian racial consensus reflection a compassionate rather than punitive impulse toward poor people of color fail to appreciate the distance between Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream and the ongoing racial nightmare for those locked up and locked out of American society. (235)

An eternal victim mentality permeates the pages of The New Jim Crow. At no point in the entire work is the notion that Blacks might be committing a high rate of crime entertained or perhaps that they should stop involvement in drug trafficking. Alexander writes that despite affirmative action, unemployment rates in the Black community are similar to those of Third World countries (246). This level of unemployment is of course attributed to the alleged racial caste created via mass incarceration in the U.S., and not the shared social attitudes, academic achievement, and behavior among Blacks. For Blacks, education is the royal road to the middle class, but the reality is that relatively few of a population, half of which has an IQ of less than 85, is unable to take advantage of this.

The final sub-chapter opens by reaffirming that the United States was created by White men, for White men (255), and then quickly asks Whites to “sacrifice their racial privilege” (257). “Whites should prove their commitment to dismantling not only mass incarceration, but all of the structure of racial inequality that guarantee for whites the resilience of white privilege” (257).

This plea struck me as outrageous given that she is speaking on behalf of the group that is the aggressor in 85% of violent interracial crimes between Whites and Blacks. Whites suffer over half a million violent crimes each year at the hands of Blacks. I’m sure Alexander will excuse me if I’m in no hurry to support her aspirations, especially after hailing the Jena Six case as a victory for Blacks.[15]

Something else struck me while reading the book, particularly on page 125, where she remarked that many Blacks refer to police in their neighborhoods as “the occupation,” thus seeing their own neighborhoods as territory occupied by a hostile forces. In her discussion of White police coming into Black parts of town with what they see as bad intentions, I was very sympathetic. Amid Alexander’s constant appeals to more welfare for ex-convicts, pleas for Whites to surrender the remnants of our homeland to Blacks, and complaints that Blacks cannot be given a fair trial in a White nation, I couldn’t help but think the underlying theme to all this was an implicit desire for self-determination—their own Wakanda. Obviously, an ethnostate would be an excellent solution for Whites as well.

I think that Michelle Alexander has a sentiment for something she cannot express in a way that she’s come across in academia or through her legal training. There was certainly a hostile undertone, and sometimes overtone to her work, wanting to “dismantle” what was once our nice White country. Yet I think on a deeper level than that, was the desire for self-determination. The desire for Blacks to decide if they want to legalize the drug trade and drug use. The desire to not operate within a White framework, to conform to White laws, or exhibit White behavior. I could be way off base here, but it seemed to me that Alexander was, on one hand, saying Blacks should not be subjugated to White rule, and on the other hand, asking for White tax dollars for welfare programs and help from those ridden with White guilt.

On some level, I agree with her. I don’t want White tax dollars to be spent looking for marijuana in “ghettos” (a term she uses often) either, or anywhere for that matter. I would much rather the money be spent stopping the drugs from entering the country in the first place, at the border, and would much rather see a drug war waged against Purdue Pharma, as opposed to those smoking weed. Although she seems to think the whole War on Drugs somehow benefits all White people, by making even the poorest and least successful of Whites somehow “above” Blacks, I think her understanding lacks a certain depth. She’s right, the police do not work for the people, and they are very often the trappings of an occupation, but she’s wrong in thinking Blacks are the only ones being subjugated by a hostile elite. She’s right: the entire system is corrupt and oppressive. Alexander made many mentions of social programs that could be used to help the Black community instead of incarcerating them, yet she never bothered to think that it is White people paying the taxes for those programs, while Blacks are a perennial net negative.[16]

Alexander posits many times that this racial caste system somehow benefits all Whites. But nothing could be further from the truth. Taxing Whites at oppressive rates in order to hire people to police, house, monitor, and try Blacks, does not benefit the average White. A handful of people who own stakes in the prison industry benefit, and nobody else apart from Whites spared from the depredations of incarcerated Blacks. The amount of money Whites must spend to have a multi-racial country is astronomical, and we receive zero benefits from policing Blacks.

Cities that have experienced heightened levels of social unrest, Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, and others, have experienced a rise in crime. High profile cases of violent police interaction, followed by protests and riots, has had a chilling effect on policing behaviors, especially of Black communities. The withdrawal of police presence leading to a rise in crime in cities that experiences civil unrest and high profile incidents has been dubbed the “Ferguson Effect”. Although Alexander never indicates that she views police activity in Black neighborhoods as anything but negative, the removal of police has, in at least several cities, led to the murder rate increasing, and more Blacks dying.

I do not foresee the solution that Alexander proposes happening. The idea of having multiple nations trying to exist in one country is proving to be a disaster; “coexisting” is going to be more and more strenuous as this great multicultural experiment continues to unfold. Instead of handing the country to the horde of non-Whites that quite openly hates us, we should offer a mutual separation through a generous repatriation program. If this were my nation to run as I saw fit, I would offer all criminals currently incarcerated or under state supervision a one-time deal, renounce your US citizenship, leave, and never come back, in exchange for a total pardon. Non-white mass incarceration would end overnight. For all those in the country legally, but feel they are owed a reparation, I would gladly pay a one-time, lump-sum, cash settlement in the amount of their lifetime net-burden to White tax-payers to renounce their US citizenship, leave, and never come back.

This whole thing could end peacefully with every group having total self-determination, which I think might have been the subtext to Alexander’s entire work. (more…)

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

Christian terrorism – Wikipedia

Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who profess Christian motivations or goals.[1]

The early modern period in Britain saw religious conflict resulting from the Reformation and the introduction of Protestant state churches.[2] The 1605 Gunpowder Plot was a failed attempt by a group of English Catholics including Guy Fawkes to assassinate King James I, and to blow up the Palace of Westminster, the English seat of government. According to Vahabph D. Aghai, “The beginnings of modern terrorism can be traced back to England and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.”[3][self-published source] Although the modern concept of religious terrorism had not yet come into use in the 17th century, David C. Rapoport and Lindsay Clutterbuck point out that the Plot, with its use of explosives, was an early precursor of 19th century anarchist terrorism.[4] Sue Mahan and Pamala L. Griset classify the plot as an act of religious terrorism, writing that “Fawkes and his colleagues justified their actions in terms of religion.”[5] Peter Steinfels also characterizes this plot as a notable case of religious terrorism.[6]

Orthodox Christian-influenced movements in Romania, such as the Iron Guard and Lncieri, which have been characterized by Yad Vashem and Stanley G. Payne as anti-semitic and fascist, respectively, were involved in the Bucharest pogrom, and in political murders during the 1930s.[7][8][9][10][11]

After the American Civil War of 18611865, former Confederate soldiers organized the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organization originally as a social club, which was taken over in the next year by “night rider” elements. It then began engaging in arson, beatings, destruction of property, lynching, murder, rape, tar-and-feathering, whipping, and voter intimidation. They targeted newly freed slaves, carpetbaggers and scalawags, and the occupying Union army. That iteration of the Klan disappeared by the 1870s, but in 1915 a new Protestant-led[12] iteration of the Klan was formed in Georgia, during a period of xenophobia and anti-Catholicism. This version of the Klan vastly expanded both its geographical reach and its list of targets over those of the original Klan.

Vehemently anti-Catholic, the 1915 Klan had an explicitly Protestant Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in part on a “religious foundation” in Protestant Christianity and targeting Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities,[13] as well as “immoral” practices such as adultery, bad debtors, gambling, and drinking alcohol. The goals of the KKK included, from an early time onward, an intent to “reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible”, and they believed that “Jesus was the first Klansman”.[14] Although members of the KKK swear to uphold Christian morality, virtually every Christian denomination has officially denounced the KKK.[15]

From 1915 onward, Klansmen conducted cross-burnings (adapted from[16] scenes in the 1915 film Birth of a Nation), not only to intimidate targets, but also to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ.[16] The ritual of lighting crosses was steeped in Christian symbolism, including prayer and hymn singing.[16] Within Christianity the Klan directed its hostilities against Catholics. Modern Klan organizations remain associated with acts of domestic terrorism in the United States.[17]

Mark Juergensmeyer, a former president of the American Academy of Religion, has argued that there has been a global rise in religious nationalism after the Cold War due to a post-colonial collapse of confidence in Western models of nationalism and the rise of globalization.[18][19] Juergensmeyer categorizes contemporary Christian terrorists as being a part of “religious activists from Algeria to Idaho, who have come to hate secular governments with an almost transcendent passion and dream of revolutionary changes that will establish a godly social order in the rubble of what the citizens of most secular societies regard as modern, egalitarian democracies”.[20]

According to terrorism expert David C. Rapoport, a “religious wave”, or cycle, of terrorism, dates from approximately 1979 to the present. According to Rapoport, this wave most prominently features Islamic terrorism, but also includes terrorism by Christians and other religious groups that may have been influenced by Islamic terrorism.[21]

Anti-balaka groups destroyed almost all mosques in the Central African Republic unrest.[22][23] In 2014, Amnesty International reported several massacres committed by the Anti-balaka against Muslim civilians, forcing thousands of Muslims to flee the country.[24][25] Other sources report incidents of Muslims being cannibalized.[26][27]

While anti-balaka groups have been frequently described as Christian militias in the media, this has been denied by Church leaders. Bishop Juan Jos Aguirre said: “But in no sense can it be said that the anti-balaka is a Christian group. The anti-balaka are made up of people of all kinds, terribly enraged, and including many people whom we call the ‘dispossessed’ bandits, ex-prisoners, delinquents, criminals who have got involved in these groups and are now extending, like a plague of locusts, across the whole of the CAR, murdering Muslims”.[28] The Tony Blair Faith Foundation has also pointed out the presence of animists in anti-balaka groups.[29] However, there have been reports that many members of Anti-balaka groups have forcibly converted Muslims to Christianity.[30][31][32][33]

On 20 January 2014, Catherine Samba-Panza, the mayor of Bangui, was elected as the interim president in the second round voting.[34] The election of Samba-Panza was welcomed by Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General.[35] Samba-Panza was viewed as having been neutral and away from clan clashes. Her arrival to the presidency was generally accepted by the anti-balaka. Following the election, Samba-Panza made a speech in the parliament appealing to the anti-balaka to put down their weapons.[36]

The next day anti-Muslim violence continued in Bangui,[37] just days after the Muslim former Health Minister Dr. Joseph Kalite was lynched outside the Central Mosque[38] and at least nine other people were killed when attacked when a mob, some of who were from Christian self-defence groups, looted shops in the Muslim-majority Miskine neighbourhood of Bangui.[39] As of 20 January, the ICRC reported that it had buried about 50 bodies within 48 hours.[40] It also came after a mob killed two people whom they accused of being Muslim, then dragged the bodies through the streets and burnt them.[41] Within the previous month, about 1,000 people had died.[42] On 4 February 2014, a local priest said 75 people were killed in the town of Boda, in Lobaye prefecture.[43] In the southwest, anti-balaka militants attacked Guen in early February resulting in the deaths of 60 people, according to Father Rigobert Dolongo, who also said that he had helped bury the bodies of the dead, at least 27 of whom died on the first day of the attack and 43 others the next day. As a result, hundreds of Muslim refugees sought shelter at a church in Carnot.[44]

In May 2014, it was reported that around 600,000 people in CAR were internally displaced with 160,000 of these in the capital Bangui. The Muslim population of Bangui had dropped from 138,000 to 900. The national health system had collapsed and over half of the total population of 4.6 million were said to be in need of immediate aid. Also from December 2013 to May 2014, 100,000 people had fled to neighbouring Cameroon, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo bringing the number of CAR refugees in these countries to about 350,000.[45] Amnesty International blamed the anti-balaka militia of causing a “Muslim exodus of historic proportions.[46] Some Muslims of the country were also weary of the French presence in MISCA, with the French accused of not doing enough to stop attacks by Anti-balaka militias. One of the cited reasons for the difficulty in stopping attacks by anti-balaka militias was the mob nature of these attacks.[47]

The Eastern Lightning is a heterodox new Chinese Christian[48][49][50] movement.[51][52][53] Its official name is the Church of Almighty God,[54] but it is identified by several other names, such as Church of the Gospel’s Kingdom and “The Gospel of the Descent of Kingdom”. The group has been described as a cult[55][56][57] and a terrorist organization.[58][59]

The name “Eastern Lightning” is drawn from the New Testament, Gospel of Matthew 24:27: “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

In 1998 members of the church triggered eight riots which lasted for twelve days in Hetang county, Henan. They reportedly broke the arms and legs, and cut the ears off their victims.

In 2010 members killed an elementary school student, leaving a lightning-like mark on one of the victim’s feet. The police investigation revealed that the boy was killed because one of his relatives, a member of the church, expressed his desire to quit.

In 2012 the church was found to be behind more than 40 riots caused by spreading doomsday rumors and distributing propaganda material. Also in 2012 Ming Yongjun, who said he was motivated by the doomsday prophecies of the church, stabbed an elderly woman and 23 students at a school in Henan province.

In August 2013 in Shanxi the eyes of a boy were pulled out. According to a report in Taiwan’s Want China Times this was one of “several cases of violence in China [which] have been linked to the cult”.

On May 28, 2014, six members who claimed to represent the “Almighty God” sparked a national outcry when they attacked and killed a woman at a McDonald’s restaurant in Zhaoyuan, a city in Shandong Province of China. During an interview with a CCTV journalist, Lidong Zhang, the lead attacker in what became known as the Zhaoyuan McDonald’s Cult Murder, claimed that the subject rejected his daughter’s request for her phone number and was called a “devil” , which prompted the six members to attack. Zhang described in detail how they kept stamping the victim’s head to the ground for about three minutes, and that “he felt great”, but he deliberately avoided questions on the organization to which he belonged and his rank within the religious group. Five of them were convicted and on October 10, two were sentenced to death and later executed, one to life imprisonment, and the other two to 7 and 10 years in prison. The McDonald’s murder was later studied by scholars of new religious movements such as Emily Dunn, David Bromley and Massimo Introvigne.They came to different conclusions, and argued that the assassins were part of a small, independent cult not connected with Eastern Lighting, who used the words “Almighty God” to designate its two leaders, Zhang Fan (who was executed in 2015) and L Yingchun.

The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a rebel group that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and is a proscribed terrorist organization in India. Group activities have been described as Christian terrorists engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.[60][61][62] The NLFT includes in its aims the forced conversion of all tribespeople in Tripura to Christianity.[63] The NLFT says that it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, “but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian”, and “has warned members of the tribal community that they may be attacked if they do not accept its Christian agenda”.[64] The NLFT is listed as a terrorist organization in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.[65] The state government contends that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[66][67][68] Reports from the state government and Indian media describe activities such as the acquisition by the NLFT of explosives through the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura,[68] and threats of killing Hindus celebrating religious festivals.[69] Over 20 Hindus in Tripura were reported to have been killed by the NLFT from 1999 to 2001 for resisting forced conversion to Christianity.[70] According to Hindus in the area, there have also been forced conversions of tribal villagers to Christianity by armed NLFT militants.[70] These forcible conversions, sometimes including the use of “rape as a means of intimidation”, have also been noted by academics outside of India.[71] In 2000, the NLFT broke into a temple and gunned down a popular Hindu preacher popularly known as Shanti Kali.[72]

The Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) is also a Christian[73] Naga nationalist militant group operating in North India.[74][75] The main aim of the organization is to establish a sovereign Christian state, “Nagalim”,[76] unifying all the areas inhabited by the Naga people in Northeast India and Burma.[77] The organization’s slogan is “Nagaland for Christ”.[78][79][80][81][82][83] Its manifesto is based on the principle of Socialism for economic development and a Baptist Christian religious outlook.[84] In some of their documents the NSCN has called for recognizing only Christianity in Nagalim.[85] They believe in Christian theocracy.[86] The NSCN has been declared a terrorist organisation in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.[87] It is believed that the organisation primarily raises funds through trafficking drugs from Burma and selling smuggled weapons to other insurgent groups in the region.[88] The group reportedly indulges in kidnapping, assassination, extortion, forced conversion,[89] and other terrorist activities.[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98]

On 3 August 2015 NSCN leader T. Muivah signed a peace accord with the Government of India in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, and NSA Ajit Doval.[99] However, NSCN also joined with a militia organization named the United Liberation Front of Western South East Asia, along with other Northeast Indian terrorist groups,[100][101] and shortly after broke off peace talks with the Indian government.[citation needed]

Monte Kim Miller formed a group known as the Concerned Christians in Colorado, during the 1980s. Created to combat New Age religious movements and anti-Christian sentiment, it has shifted to more of an apocalyptic Christian movement as the group adopted the less mainstream views of the millennium held by Miller.[102] They believe all Jews should be converted to Christianity.[103]

The Concerned Christians believe that the Fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 signaled “the time of the end.” They interpret many biblical passages regarding the apocalypse through the lens of political events in world history. It is stated that they believe that the office of the United States President is the seat of the Antichrist. For example, in what is titled The Seed of Abraham, the group reports that Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, was the archetypal Antichrist and helped build the Babylonian nation that leads the entire world astray. They see American patriotism as a foolish compromise to their Christian beliefs. Founder, Monte Kim Miller, proclaimed that he was the Prophet of the Lord, and that God spoke through his mouth.[104]

Between 60 and 80 members of the group disappeared from their homes and jobs in Colorado in October 1998 and were the subject of a search. On January 3, 1999, they gained notoriety when they were arrested and deported from Israel as part of an Israeli effort to protect the Al-Aqsa mosque from extremist Christian groups, codenamed “Operation Walk on Water”. According to Israeli police, the Concerned Christians were one of several independent groups who believed it must be destroyed to facilitate the return of Jesus Christ. The group members said that they were law-abiding religious pilgrims there to await the return of Jesus but had no plans to participate in any illegal activity.[105][106]

The group is said to currently reside in Greece or the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area and its potential threat level has since been disputed.[107]

Aum Shinrikyo is the former name of a controversial group now known as “Aleph”. In 1992, Shoko Asahara, the founder of Aum Shinrikyo, published a book in which he declared himself “Christ”, Japan’s only fully enlightened master, and identified with the “Lamb of God”. He outlined a doomsday prophecy, which included a Third World War, and described a final conflict culminating in a nuclear Armageddon, borrowing the term from the Book of Revelation 16:16. His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world, and he claimed he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and take away their sins. He also saw dark conspiracies everywhere promulgated by Jews, Freemasons, the Dutch, the British Royal Family, and rival Japanese religions.

Initially, the Japanese police reported the attack as the cult’s way of hastening an apocalypse. The prosecution said that it was an attempt to bring down the government and install Asahara as the “emperor” of Japan. Asahara’s defense team claimed that certain senior members of the group independently planned the attack, but their motives for this were unexplained.

Aum Shinrikyo began their attacks on 27 June 1994 in Matsumoto, Japan. With the help of a converted refrigerator truck, members of the cult released a cloud of sarin which floated near the homes of judges who were overseeing a lawsuit concerning a real-estate dispute which was predicted to go against the cult. From this one event, 500 people were injured and eight people died.

The Tokyo subway sarin attack was an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated on March 20, 1995, in Tokyo, Japan, by members of the cult movement Aum Shinrikyo.In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on three lines of the present-day Tokyo Metro (then part of the Tokyo subway) during rush hour, killing 12 people, severely injuring 50 and causing temporary vision problems for nearly 5,000 others. It was the deadliest incident to occur in Japan since the end of World War II.

Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon’s 19751990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[108] A British photographer present during the incident said that “People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians.”[109]

The Orange Volunteers (OV) is a Ulster loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland. It was formed in 1998 by loyalists who opposed the Belfast Agreement and the loyalist ceasefires. Over the following year it carried out a wave of bomb and gun attacks on Catholics and Catholic-owned properties in rural areas, but since 2000 has been relatively inactive. The group has been associated with elements of the Orange Order and has a Protestant fundamentalist ideology. Its original leader was Pastor Clifford Peeples. The OV are a Proscribed Organisation in the United Kingdom under the Terrorism Act 2000. One of the group’s first actions was a synchronized attack on 11 Catholic churches. Peeples defended the attack on the grounds that the churches were “bastions of the Antichrist”.[110]

Ilaga is a Catholic Extremist group who are anti-Islam based in southern Philippines. The group is predominantly composed of Visayans (mostly Ilonggo), embracing a form of Folk Catholicism that utilizes amulets and violence. The group committed its bloodiest act on June 19, 1971, when the group killed 70100 Moro civilians inside a mosque. In November 2008, Ilaga killed five Muslim civilians in an ambush in Lanao del Norte.[111]

The Lord’s Resistance Army, a guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.[60][112] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[113][114] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the “Holy Spirit” which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[115][115][116][117] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[113][118][119][120][121][122]

Contemporary American Christian terrorism can be motivated by a violent desire to implement a Reconstructionist or Dominionist ideology.[123] Dominion Theology insists that Christians are called by God to (re)build society on Christian values to subjugate the earth and establish dominion over all things, as a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ.[124] Political violence motivated by dominion theology is a violent extension of the desire to impose a select version of Christianity on other Christians, as well as on non-Christians.

At least 11 people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics in the United States since 1993. After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[125][126][127] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[128] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would “lead them to heaven”.[129][130]

Eric Robert Rudolph carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, as well as subsequent attacks on an abortion clinic and a lesbian nightclub. Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist. James A. Aho, a professor at Idaho State University, argues that religious considerations inspired Rudolph only in part.[131]

Terrorism scholar Aref M. Al-Khattar has listed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (CSA), Defensive Action, the Montana Freemen, and some “Christian militia” as groups that “can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism” that “has a religious (Christian) component”.[132]

In 1996 three menCharles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merellewere charged with two bank robberies and bombings at the banks, a Spokane newspaper, and a Planned Parenthood office in Washington State. The men were anti-Semitic Christian Identity theorists who believed that God wanted them to carry out violent attacks and that such attacks would hasten the ascendancy of the Aryan race.[133]

Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the United States who provided abortions late in pregnancy, was a frequent target of anti-abortion violence and was killed in 2009 by Scott Roeder as he stood in the foyer of his church. A witness who was serving as an usher alongside Dr. Tiller at the church that day told the court that Mr. Roeder entered the foyer, put a gun to the doctors head and pulled the trigger. At trial, Mr. Roeder admitted to killing Dr. Tiller and said he did it to protect unborn babies. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. At his sentencing, he told the court that Gods judgment would sweep over this land like a prairie wind. Dr. Tiller was shot once before, in 1993, by Shelley Shannon, an anti-abortion activist who compared abortion providers to Hitler and said she believed that justifiable force was necessary to stop abortions. Ms. Shannon was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the shooting of Dr. Tiller and later confessed to vandalizing and burning a string of abortion clinics in California, Nevada and Oregon.

James Kopp was convicted of the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian, an obstetrician who provided abortion services in the Buffalo area, and has been named a suspect in the shooting of several abortion providers in Canada. Mr. Kopp hid in the woods behind Dr. Slepians home in October 1998 and shot him through the window with a high-powered rifle, killing him as he stood in his kitchen with his family. Dr. Slepian had just returned from a memorial service for his father when he was killed. Mr. Kopp spent several years on the run in Mexico, Ireland and France before he was captured and extradited to the United States. He was convicted of a state charge of second-degree murder in 2003 and sentenced to 25 years in jail. He was convicted in 2007 on a separate federal charge and sentenced to life in prison. The authorities in Canada also suspect Mr. Kopp in the nonlethal attacks on several abortion providers there who were shot through the windows of their homes. He was charged with the 1995 attempted murder of Dr. Hugh Short, an abortion provider in Ontario, although the charges were dropped after his conviction in New York. The police in Canada also named him a suspect in the 1997 shooting of Dr. Jack Fainman in Winnipeg and the 1994 shooting of Dr. Garson Romalis in Vancouver, which was the first attack on an abortion provider in Canada.

In 2015, Robert Doggart, a 63 year old mechanical engineer, was indicted for solicitation to commit a civil rights violation by intending to damage or destroy religious property after communicating that he intended to amass weapons to attack a Muslim enclave in Delaware County, New York.[134] Doggart, a member of several private militia groups, communicated to an FBI source in a phone call that he had an M4 carbine with “500 rounds of ammunition” that he intended to take to the Delaware County enclave, along with a handgun, molotov cocktails and a machete. The FBI source recorded him saying “if it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds”.[135] Doggart had previously travelled to a site in Dover, Tennessee described in chain emails as a “jihadist training camp”, and found that the claims were wrong. Doggart pleaded guilty in an April plea bargain stating he had “willfully and knowingly sent a message in interstate commerce containing a true threat” to injure someone. The plea bargain was struck down by a judge because it did not contain enough facts to constitute a true threat.[136][137] Doggart stood as an independent candidate in Tennessee’s 4th congressional district, losing with 6.4% of the vote.[138] None of the charges against him are terrorism related.[139][140][141][142]

The November 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, in which three were killed and nine injured, was described as “a form of terrorism” by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper.[143] The gunman, Robert Lewis Dear, was described as a “delusional” man[144] who had written on a cannabis internet forum that “sinners” would “burn in hell” during the end times, and had also written about smoking marijuana and propositioned women for sex.[145][146] He had praised the Army of God, saying that attacks on abortion clinics are “God’s work”.[147] Dear’s ex-wife said he had put glue on a lock of a Planned Parenthood clinic, and in court documents for their divorce she said “He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions. He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.” Authorities said that he spoke of no more baby parts in a rambling interview after his arrest.

In 2016, Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright and Patrick Eugene Stein, 3 Kansas militia men calling themselves Crusaders were arrested plotting a bomb attack and a mass shooting targeting an apartment complex home to a mosque and many Muslim immigrants from Somalia.[148] Stein allegedly told the agent the trio would use ammonium nitrate to make the bombs, a method used in 1995 by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.[149] Dr. John Birky, who works with the Somali community, told the AP about 300 to 500 Somali refugees resided in the area where the attacks were planned.[150]

Christian Identity is a loosely affiliated global group of churches and individuals devoted to a racialized theology which asserts that Northern European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, making them God’s chosen people. It has been associated with groups such as the Aryan Nations, the Aryan Republican Army, the Army of God, the Phineas Priesthood, and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. It has been cited as an influence on a number of terrorist attacks around the world, including the 2002 Soweto bombings.[151][152][153][154]

These groups are estimated to have 2,000 members in the United States,[155] and an unknown number of members in Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth of Nations. Due to the promotion of Christian Identity doctrines through radio broadcasts and later through the Internet, an additional 50,000 unaffiliated individuals are thought to hold Christian Identity beliefs.[155]

Original post:

Christian terrorism – Wikipedia

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Terrorism  Comments Closed

Jewish NGO Simon Wiesenthal Center considers travel …

WARSAW (Reuters) – Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center said on Wednesday it was considering issuing a travel advisory for Jews urging them to limit their visits to Poland after the countrys relations with Israel were strained.

This month Poland sparked international criticism, including from Israel and the United States, when it approved a law that imposes jail terms for suggesting the country was complicit in the Holocaust.

Some three million Jews who lived in pre-war Poland were murdered by the Nazis during their occupation of the country. They accounted for about half of all Jews killed in the Holocaust.

Polands nationalist ruling party says the new law is needed to ensure that Poles are also recognized as victims, not perpetrators, of Nazi aggression. It notes that the Nazis also viewed Slavs as racially inferior and that many Poles were killed or forced into slave labor during the German occupation.

In wake of the controversial new Holocaust Law in Poland and the anti-Semitism it has unleashed that has left the Jewish community shaken, the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) is considering issuing a Travel Advisory for world Jewry, the organization said in a statement issued late on Wednesday.

A Travel Advisory would urge Jews to limit their travel to Poland only to visit ancestral graves and Holocaust-era Death Camps, the NGO named after legendary Nazi hunter who died in 2005 said.

Many Poles believe their nation behaved honorably for the most part during the Holocaust. But research published since 1989 has sparked a painful debate about responsibility and reconciliation.

A 2000-2004 inquiry by Polands state Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) found that on July 10, 1941, Nazi occupiers and local inhabitants colluded in a massacre of at least 340 Jews at Jedwabne. Some victims were burned alive after being locked inside a barn.

The revelation disturbed the Poles belief that, with a few exceptions, they conducted themselves honorably during a vicious war in which a fifth of the nation perished. Some Poles still refuse to acknowledge the IPNs findings.

Anti-Semitism was common in Poland in the run-up to World War Two. After the war, a pogrom in the town of Kielce and a bout of anti-Semitism in 1968 sponsored by the communist authorities forced many survivors who had stayed in Poland to flee.

The SWC with headquarters in Los Angeles is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States.

Reporting by Marcin Goclowski; Editing by Toby Chopra

See the rest here:

Jewish NGO Simon Wiesenthal Center considers travel …

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Simon Wiesenthal  Comments Closed

Simon Wiesenthal Center Mulls Poland Travel Advisory | The …

Photo Credit: Sebastian Karbowiak, courtesy the Anti-Defamation League

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is considering issuing a travel advisory for world Jewry in response to Polands new Holocaust Law and the anti-Semitism it has unleashed in the country.

The travel advisory would urge Jews to limit their travel to Poland only to visit ancestral graves and Holocaust-era Death Camps, said Rabbis Marvin Hier, dean and founder and Abraham Cooper, associate dean and director of global social action.

The two released a statement from the Center, which teaches the lessons of the Nazi Holocaust.

We would take such action with great reluctance, the statement read. We are not enemies of Poland. Our Center has brought hundreds of Jewish and non-Jewish leaders on dozens of missions over the past four decades.

Indeed, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has a long history of solidarity with the forces of democracy in Poland dating back to 1983 when our delegation traveled to Poland to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It came at a time when Poland was under martial law by the communist regime, Hier and Cooper said.

We teach the millions of visitors to our Museum of Tolerance about Righteous Gentiles, including the thousands of Poles who saved Jews during the Shoah, and the Wiesenthal Center has honored WWII Polish hero, Jan Karski and hosted democracy hero Lech Walesa, they said.

But in 2018, we fear for a Poland that has now seen the history of the Holocaust recast by political forces who seek to bury the ugly past that includes the murder of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust and in the immediate aftermath of WWII.

If the anti-Semitism unleashed continues unabated, Jews will face increasing threats, they warned, adding that the Center will be closely monitoring the situation in the coming weeks and months and will act accordingly.

Go here to read the rest:

Simon Wiesenthal Center Mulls Poland Travel Advisory | The …

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Simon Wiesenthal  Comments Closed

White Privilege | Chateau Heartiste

You have to use the Leftoid-to-Human translator to understand that White privilege means White aptitude.

Like Loading…

Related

Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Ugly Truths | 87 Comments

Comments are closed.

See the original post:

White Privilege | Chateau Heartiste

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Privilege  Comments Closed

Jews and Jewish organizations lead the gun control campaign

Given the Parkland shootings, I thought it appropriate to rerun this article, originally posted on January 1, 2013. See also Andrew Joyce’s article, “ Jews and gun control: A reprise .”  In Cooper Sterling’s TOO article (“ Guns, profiling and White males “), he notes The Left’s irrational obsession with gun control goes beyond the latest mass shooting. It is endemic among the cosmopolitan literati, who loathe Middle America, to dwell on the risks associated with firearms while disregarding or minimizing the benefits of firearm ownership. … Anyone monitoring the national scene since Newtown is witnessing an emotional antipathy toward the last trace of political leverage among an identifiable demographic: an overwhelmingly White male gun culture. What the MSM and gun control advocates ultimately detest is the gun culture in America, which is  too  White,  too  male, and  too  conservative. … The tradition of gun ownership is as old as the Republic. It reflects the pre-1965 demographic of America as an overwhelmingly White—and more civilized—nation. As a native Midwesterner, guns were rampant in our neighborhoods where few homes didn’t have some sort of firearm. We came of age hunting with our fathers, uncles and cousins, acquiring rifles and shotguns in our mid-teens. An article from The Forward notes that the Jewish community has taken the lead in gun control and that part of it is hostility toward the  gun culture of White America that is especially apparent in rural White America. Jews “instinctively recoil” from this culture (“ After Newtown Jews lead renewed push on guns “). Jewish organizations pride themselves on gun control stances that date back to the early days of the debate, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and of President Kennedy. Most played a supportive role in passing legislation then limiting access to weapons, and have since reaffirmed their commitment to reducing the availability of guns. One reason for broad Jewish support of gun control, Mariaschin said, has to do with the community’s sense of security, “which perhaps leads us to feel that the possession of assault weapons is completely unneeded.” Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former head of the Reform movement, listed in a recent Haaretz article several reasons for Jews siding with supporters of gun control: the community’s affiliation with the Democratic Party; the fact that Jews are urban people and detached from the culture of hunting or gun ownership, and suspicion toward the NRA, which is “associated in the minds of many Jews with extremist positions that frighten Jews and from which they instinctively recoil.” Although Jews certainly attacked and eventually overcame the elite WASP culture of pre-1965 America (e.g., by displacing WASPs at elite universities ), another critical point of conflict between Jewish organizations and the main Jewish intellectual movements has been with rural America. This conflict can be most clearly seen among the New York Intellectuals, a group that is discussed in Chapter 6 of  The Culture of Critique.  The New York Intellectuals were attacking populism in favor of themselves as an intellectual elite. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply  began  with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. ( Cooney  1986, 267–268; italics in text) The last line bears repeating. The New York Intellectuals were engaged in a profoundly anti-democratic enterprise given that they rejected and felt superior to the culture of the majority of Americans. The battle between this urbanized intellectual and political establishment and rural America was joined on a wide range of issues. Particularly important was the issue of immigration. In this case and in the entire range of what became mainstream liberal politics, the New York Intellectuals had the enthusiastic support of all of the mainstream Jewish organizations. ( Review of Eric Kaufmann’s   The Rise and Fall of Anglo America “) The gun culture of traditional America, especially rural America has been particularly loathed by Jewish intellectuals. There is also a deep fear of Christian culture that is most vibrant in rural America.  For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams   acknowledges  that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in  shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations  is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas . And by successfully changing immigration policy , Jews have reduced the political power of the rural White subculture of America to the point that even though roughly 7 in 10 White males voted Republican (and ~60% of White females), Obama and the Democrats won the recent election. Even if the current push for gun control fails, we can expect that Jewish organizations will continue the push to disarm White males. Jewish organizations are not at all against guns when they are in the hands of the police and other authorities. The ADL (see the ADL’s Law Enforcement Agency  Resource Network ) and the SPLC ( Law Enforcement Training   and Law Enforcement Resources ) have made strong alliances with law enforcement in America. Further, it has often been observed that Jewish organizations have historically favored a strong central government rather than states’ rights. For example, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in  The Chronicle of Higher Education  (see  here ), notes that “Jewish voters …  prefer cities and federal governments to backwaters and volatile statehouses. … All things equal, Jews like strong central governments, not a pastiche of local decision makers catering to majorities.” Although Jewish organizations would not phrase it this way, the net result is that the thrust of Jewish activism has been to favor a strong central government with a monopoly on lethal force. Given Jewish hostility to the traditional people and culture of White America, this is a very foreboding combination as we head into the era of a non-White majority America.

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

Marketing Miscegenation

Since “cutting the cable” several years ago, I have felt secure behind my own personal immigration wall, free of the barrage of marketing demands and political poltroons upon my time and money. During the Christmas holidays, however, I ventured onto the major networks (NBC, ABC, and CBS) with an external antenna affixed to the TV to satisfy my curiosity of what had been happening in the “real” world since my self-imposed exile. My attention was immediately attracted to a commercial featuring the Paddington Bear. In the commercial a non-traditional looking Santa is aided by Paddington Brown in sorting Christmas presents for one particular family. At the end, all is well as Santa and Paddington peer through the window at the family enjoying opening presents under the tree in their living room. The family was composed of the mother, who was an auburn-haired White woman, the father, who was Black, and their mixed-race children, a boy and a girl. I was not shocked or even surprised at this portrayal of miscegenated merriment, as I naively assumed it was an isolated attempt by the commercial’s creator to appeal to two different segments of the consuming public with one commercial. I was wrong. As I continued to watch TV that day, it didn’t take long for the intrusive appeal of the commercials to outweigh that of the programs. There were simply so many of these commercials featuring mixed-race families and couples that I suspected something else was being presented. Next, I watched a Taco Bell commercial featuring a young Black man and a White woman in what appeared to be a shared living space during which she eats all the junk food to the chagrin of her Black wannabe taco eater. Later in the day, there was a commercial for the movie The Mountain Between Us starring Kate Winslet, a White actress (I suppose I should say “actor” to be PC), and Idris Elba, a Black actor. The film is about the crash of a private plane in a snow-covered mountain range and the couples’ ensuing battle to survive. Apparently, their battle did not employ fighting very hard against having sexual intercourse with each other, but perhaps they were using a deliberate survival strategy to stay warm. I was beginning to form the opinion that corporations and their ad creators had decided that there was a preference for portraying a couple’s mise en scene of chirpy inter-racialism with a Black man and White woman. But then appeared the sepia-noir-ambiance of the Calvin Klein Eternity cologne commercial, which featured the White looking though Jewish Jake Gyllenhaal and Black model/actress Liya Kebede and their four-year-old son. So, it seemed that I might be mistaken and this could be an equal opportunity Yule season for actors of both races and both genders. Sure enough, about that time there appeared on my screen, Amazon’s commercial for their somewhat creepy Echo . This commercial featured a Black woman, a White man, and their two children, a boy and girl, seated at the breakfast table as the woman purrs to the Echo assistant named Alexa to play some “wake-up music.” But lest older Whites are calcified to the acceptance of inter-racial romance, the marketers have begun rolling out not only interracial commercials, but also novels and soap opera TV shows depicting the hormone-fueled joy of jungle fever between our youth . But Madison Avenue knows when promoting miscegenation advances its agenda and when it doesn’t. Thus, it seems that they have thrown in the towel in order to pitch Chrysler’s 300C to the car’s primary buyers—Black people. I cannot explain the ubiquitous appeal of this car to Blacks, but the consequence of this promotion has left no doubt that White flight not only occurs in neighborhoods but on car dealer showroom floors as well. As if by default, Motown Records’ Barry Gordy is the new non-singing commercial representative for the Chrysler 300C. The promotion of race mixing over sales is not limited to US television commercials. The giant corporation that controls TJ Maxx has a British doppelganger named TK Maxx that this past Christmas promised to deliver real snow to your front door. The commercial featured the White grandfather as the family patriarch stoking the home fire and passing out the presents to his White wife and son, Black daughter-in-law and her Black mother, and the two bi-racial children. It was refreshing, however, to see that the TK Maxx dump truck delivered white, not beige snow to their door—at least Mother Nature has retained the colors of her true nature. I bet my White girlfriend that every pro-Black and every anti-White identity ad in our subway was produced by Jews, who profit from racial coalition politics. She didn’t believe me. If I’m a Jewish guy and notice this, how exactly do you think most White people feel? pic.twitter.com/FDU9qNoEFs — Frame Game Radio () (@FrameGames) February 7, 2018 What is happening here? There is no debating the immense influence of advertising on the human mind and its capacity to influence buying in a predetermined direction. But can Madison Avenue tell you to “buy,” not just a physical product, but rather a certain manufactured culture with the goal that the advertised culture become normative? Clearly, if marketers did not believe that they could change the culture, our TV screens, computer CPUs, and print media would not be deluged by images of happy, racially blended couples . As Dana Wade, president of Spike DDB, a New York ad agency that uses multiracial images in most of its advertising said, “For so long, speaking to consumers of color has been absent from the landscape. It’s important to correct  that.” Underlying the billions of dollars spent to make this propaganda a reality there is the assumption that there is something wrong, even psychologically diseased, about a White man and a White woman marrying and having White children. Since the Black nuclear family, however, is nearly extinct with 70 percent of Black children raised in single-parent homes, this marketing campaign is not directed at Blacks. Once they assume that there’s something wrong with Whites marrying Whites, there has to be a collusion among Madison Avenue, K-Street, globalists, and Wall Street, to push this agenda—a global unified goal of the destruction of the White family. In recognition that only about 7 percent of US families are to some degree miscegenated, we are witnessing a glorification of open borders, more immigration, and zombification of White brains about race mixing. And what better entity to organize this effort than the European Commission. Let us hear it emanating from the horse’s rear end: Frans Timmermans, a Dutch diplomat and Vice-President of the European   Commission, urged all members of the EU parliament to increase efforts to “erase single, monocultural nation states” and accelerate the process in which “every single nation on earth must eventually become diverse.” [sic] During his speech in the EU Fundamental Rights Colloquium 2015 he put special emphasis on the importance of “not allowing even the remotest places on the planet to exist without diversity.“ [sic] Timmermans believes that “race” is a social construct and any contrary belief is narrow-minded. Never mind the genetic data. Almost overnight a plethora of beige children has appeared before us. On our TV screens they seem to be well-adjusted but what world are they adjusting to—the White world of one parent or the Black world of the other? There is scant peer-reviewed research on this issue, but anecdotally from what we read about the lives of famous children of mixed race parents and based on our own observations of people we know, the children adopt the speech patterns, the dress, and the behavior of Blacks. Moreover, they select their friends from their Black associates. More research will have to be done on the genetic heritability of the dominance of Black racial characteristics before these kinds of questions can be answered. There is research showing that the children of Black-White interracial marriages are more likely to grow up in a single-parent home than children of White couples, and a great deal of research indicates that this is a risk factor for a wide variety of negative outcomes for children ( low academic achievement, drug use,  behavior problems , etc.). Andrew Joyce summarizes the data from the UK: The Runnymede Trust [a leftist NGO that promotes diversity]  argues  that at least “61% of mixed race children are being raised in single mother households. … African Caribbean fathers are twice as likely as white fathers to live apart from their children.” Black men are also the demographic least likely to enter into marriage, which accounts well for the fact that despite the rising number of mixed-race births, “interethnic marriages  account  for only 2% of all marriages in England and Wales. … Caribbeans have very low partner rates by comparison with other ethnic groups.” The overwhelming tendency then is for very short-term, low-commitment, sexual relationships between Black males and White females, resulting in high numbers of mixed-race children being raised in low-income single mother households. This is of course just one of the dark aspects of miscegenation that is left out of the panegyrics of its promoters. In the meantime, outlier academics have postulated that bi-racial children have unique problems that need to be remedied—not by discouraging miscegenation but by providing more resources to the bi-racial community and increasing their numbers. How does it make sense to remedy a recognized behavior problem by encouraging the creation of more children with the problem? This field of scholarship is so biased and tainted with double-speak that it is impossible to separate the bull from the manure. One study claimed that: higher levels of perceived racial discrimination were related to lower levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., higher distress symptoms and negative affect). Also, higher levels of multiracial identity integration with low racial conflict was related to higher levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., lower distress symptoms and negative affect), whereas higher levels of multiracial identity integration with low racial distance was related to higher levels of psychological adjustment (i.e., lower negative affect). That makes sense. It simply posits that you are happier if you don’t think you are being discriminated against and don’t have conflict that you attribute to your racial identity. But one of the problems with these kinds of studies is the researchers’ observation of the subjects’ perceptions of behavior. If the members of Black Lives Matters perceive that cops shoot and kill a greater number of Blacks than other racial groups, then the facts as gathered from real data do not matter to them. It is their perception that provides them with cohesiveness and racial bonding. Another problem is that most of these studies start out with a hypothesis, and then gather information to support the hypothesis. Thus, we typically see these words, or a phrase like it, at the beginning of the abstract of the study—“as predicted or as hypothesized.” In the above quote, I purposely omitted the introductory two words—“As hypothesized…” It has been stated that adolescents who do not have a stable racial identity show lower self-esteem. As such, it is vital for “mixed-race families to speak to their biracial or multiracial children about their mixed race and foster pride in their background.” But what background do they take pride in—the contribution of Western European people to the high culture of modern civilization or the phony narrative of ancient Egyptians being Black? And how do these multiracial pimping researchers explain that mixed-race children perform better on standardized tests than Blacks? Could it be due to the contribution of their White parent’s genes? Of course not. It is because the multiracial testing “participants are more likely to understand that race is not biological, but rather, is a social construct.” There’s never an end to the rationalizations that academic activists can come up with. Another example of questionable inference is that research has shown “that multiracial identity increases an appreciation and empathy for cultural diversity among others.” What does this even mean? When you take the time to parse all the double-speak in this study, it supports the idea that ethnic or racial groups tend to like sharing company with members of their same group. Didn’t we already know this? Similarity among friends has been replicated in hundreds of studies. In the words of the study: Stigmatized group members experience greater wellbeing in the presence of similar others, which may be driven by the perception that similar others value their shared stigmatized identities (i.e., high public regard). But the most telling statements are those that have paved the way for the tremendous increase in TV programming, commercials, and advertisements that portray the joy of being a member of a bi-racial family. The following is typical: “As a result of [being members of a] small population [subjected to] lack of media representation , multiracial youth may feel that they do not have a multiracial community and lack role models to help them understand their mixed identity.” (Italics added). Not only are the advertisers showing more diversity—they have been doing that for a long time—now they are depicting pleasant scenes of domestic tranquility and promoting intimate romantic attachments between Black and White young adults. These commercials are fantasy models of racial utopias that have no counterpart in reality—at least not yet. According to the US Census Bureau, 80 percent of Whites still live in neighborhoods that are more than 95 percent White. But this social chasm doesn’t bother Sonya Grier , a professor in the Department of Marketing at American University in Washington, D.C. She maintains her buoyed optimism on the thought that “ads reflect our aspirations, what we can be.” She obviously puts her money where her mouth is because this Spring she is teaching a class (one of two she teaches—being a professor—it’s a great life) on Marketing for Social Change . This course is, “Designed for students whose career goals involve working in or with organizations who desire to promote social change, or who are interested in understanding the role and application of marketing beyond commercial gain.” So, there you have it. If the media can only increase the “representation” of the multiracial community, there will be fewer objections to race mixing, more multiethnic neighborhoods, greater immigration, and many more well-adjusted mixed-race children.  That is what the media is doing; that is their role in combination with the EU, the global elite, our own government , and the George Soros- funded non-governmental organizations of the world is to dumb us down to the lowest common denominated consumer. As far back as 1993, Noel Ignatiev a Jewish professor of American history at Massachusetts College sounded the clarion call of anti-White rhetoric when he declared “the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race.” Behind the high-sounding slogans and colorful commercials portraying miscegenation as morally beneficial, the motivation of its proponents is clear—they are telling us in every way possible: the intention is not to “save” or “redeem” the White race, but to destroy them. The only way to prevent this from happening is to know that this is being done to us and know who is doing it.

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

Greek Biopolitics and Its Unfortunate Demise in Western Thinking

Mika Ojakangas, On the Origins of Greek Biopolitics: A Reinterpretation of the History of Biopower London and New York: Routledge, 2016 Mika Ojakangas is a professor of political theory, teaching at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland. He has written a succinct and fairly comprehensive overview of ancient Greek thought on population policies and eugenics, or what he terms “biopolitics.” Ojakangas says: In their books on politics, Plato and Aristotle do not only deal with all the central topics of biopolitics (sexual intercourse, marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, childcare, public health, education, birthrate, migration, immigration, economy, and so forth) from the political point of view, but for them these topics are the very keystone of politics and the art of government. At issue is not only a politics for which “the idea of governing people” is the leading idea but also a politics for which the question how “to organize life” (t ou zên paraskeuên ) (Plato, Statesman , 307e) is the most important question. (6) The idea of regulating and cultivating human life, just as one would animal and plant life, is then not a Darwinian, eugenic, or Nazi modern innovation, but, as I have argued concerning Plato’s Republic , can be found in a highly developed form at the dawn of Western civilization. As Ojakangas says: The idea of politics as control and regulation of the living in the name of the security, well-being and happiness of the state and its inhabitants is as old as Western political thought itself, originating in classical Greece. Greek political thought, as I will demonstrate in this book, is biopolitical to the bone. (1) Greek thought had nothing to do with the modern obsessions with supposed “human rights” or “social contracts,” but took the good to mean the flourishing of the community, and of individuals as part of that community, as an actualization of the species’ potential: “In this biopolitical power-knowledge focusing on the living, to repeat, the point of departure is neither law, nor free will, nor a contract, or even a natural law, meaning an immutable moral rule. The point of departure is the natural life ( phusis ) of individuals and populations” (6). Okajangas notes: “for Plato and Aristotle politics was essentially biopolitics” (141). Prof. Mika Ojakangas In Ojakangas’ telling, Western biopolitical thought gradually declined in the ancient and medieval period. Whereas Aristotle and perhaps Plato had thought of natural law and the good as pertaining to a particular organism, the Stoics, Christians, and liberals posited a kind of a disembodied natural law: This history is marked by several ruptures understood as obstacles preventing the adoption and diffusion of the Platonic-Aristotelian biopolitical model of politics – despite the influence these philosophers have otherwise had on Roman and Christian thought. Among these ruptures, we may include: the legalization of politics in the Roman Republic and the privatization of everyday life in the Roman Empire, but particularly the end of birth control, hostility towards the body, the sanctification of law, and the emergence of an entirely new kind of attitude to politics and earthly government in early Christianity. (7) Ojakangas’ book has served to confirm my impression that, from an evolutionary point of view, the most relevant Western thinkers are found among the ancient Greeks, with a long sleep during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, a slow revival during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and a great climax heralded by Darwin, before being shut down again in 1945. The periods in which Western thought was eminently biopolitical — the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. and 1865 to 1945 — are perhaps surprisingly short in the grand scheme of things, having been swept away by pious Europeans’ recurring penchant for egalitarian and cosmopolitan ideologies. Okajangas also admirably puts ancient biopolitics in the wider context of Western thought, citing Spinoza, Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Heidegger, and others, as well as recent academic literature. At the core of the work is a critique of Michel Foucault’s claim that biopolitics is a strictly modern phenomenon growing out of “Christian pastoral power.” Ojakangas, while sympathetic to Foucault, says the latter’s argument is “vague” (33) and unsubstantiated. Indeed, historically at least, Catholic countries with strong pastoral power tended precisely to be those in which eugenics was less popular, in contrast with Protestant ones. It must be said that postmodernist pioneer Foucault is a strange starting point on the topic of biopolitics. As Ojakangas suggests, Foucault’s 1979 and 1980 lecture courses The Birth of Biopolitics and On the Government of the Living do not deal mainly with biopolitics at all, despite their titles (34–35). Indeed, Foucault actually lost rapidly lost interest in the topic. Okajangas also criticizes Hannah Arendt for claiming that Aristotle posited a separation between the familial/natural life of the household ( oikos ) and that of the polis . In fact: “The Greek city-state was, to use Carl Schmitt’s infamous formulation, a total state — a state that intervenes, if it so wishes, in all possible matters, in economy and in all the other spheres of human existence” (17). Okajangas goes into some detail citing, contra Arendt and Foucault, ancient Greek uses of household-management and shepherding as analogies for political rule. Aristotle appears as a genuine forerunner of modern scientific biopolitics in Ojakangas’ account. Aristotle’s politics was at once highly conventional, really reflecting more widespread Greek assumptions, and his truly groundbreaking work as an empirical scientist, notably in the field of biology. For Aristotle “the aim of politics and state administration is to produce good life by developing the immanent potentialities of natural life and to bring these potentialities to fruition ” (17, cf. 107). Ojakangas goes on: Aristotle was not a legal positivist in the modern sense of the word but rather a representative of sociological naturalism, as for Aristotle there is no fundamental distinction between the natural and the social world: they are both governed by the same principles discovered by empirical research on the nature of things and living beings. (55–56) And: “although justice is based on nature, at stake in this nature is not an immutable and eternal cosmic nature expressing itself in the law written on the hearts of men and women but nature as it unfolds in a being” (109). This entailed a notion of justice as synonymous with natural hierarchy. Okajangas notes: “for Plato justice means inequality. Justice takes place when an individual fulfills that function or work (ergon) that is assigned to him by nature in the socio-political hierarchy of the state — and to the extent that everybody does so, the whole city-state is just” (111). Biopolitical justice is when each member of the community is fulfilling the particular role to which he is best suited to enable the species to flourish: “For Plato and Aristotle, in sum, natural justice entails hierarchy, not equality, subordination, not autonomy” (113). Both Plato and Aristotle adhered to a “geometrical” conception of equality between humans, namely, that human beings were not equal, but should be treated in accordance with their worth or merit. Plato used the concepts of reason and nature not to comfort convention but to make radical proposals for the biological, cultural, and spiritual perfection of humanity. Okajangas rightly calls the Republic a “bio-meritocratic” utopia (19) and notes that “Platonic biopolitico-pastoral power” was highly innovative (134). I was personally also extremely struck in Plato by his unique and emphatic joining together of the biological and the spiritual. Okajangas says that National Socialist racial theoriar Hans F. K. Günther in his Plato as Protector of Life (1928) had argued  that “a dualistic reading of Plato goes astray: the soul and the body are not separate entities, let alone enemies, for the spiritual purification in the Platonic state takes place only when accompanied with biological selection” (13). [1] Okajangas succinctly summarizes the decline of biopolitics in the ancient world. Politically this was related to the decline of the intimate and “total” city-state: It indeed seems that the decline of the classical city-state also entailed a crisis of biopolitical vision of politics. . . . Just like modern biopolitics, which is closely linked to the rise of the modern nation-state, it is quite likely that the decline of biopolitics and biopolitical vision of politics in the classical era is related to the fall of the ethnically homogeneous political organization characteristic of the classical city-states. (118) The rise of Hellenistic and Roman empires as universal, cultural states naturally entailed a withdrawal of citizens from politics and a decline in self-conscious ethnopolitics. While Rome had also been founded as “a biopolitical regime” and had some policies to promote fertility and eugenics (120), this was far less central to Roman than to Greek thought, and gradually declined with the Empire. Political ideology seems to have followed political realities.  The Stoics and Cicero posited a “natural law” not deriving from a particular organism, but as a kind of cosmic, disembodied moral imperative, and tended to emphasize the basic commonality of human beings (e.g. Cicero, Laws , 1.30). I believe that the apparently unchanging quality of the world and the apparent biological stability of the species led many ancient thinkers to posit an eternal and unchanging disembodied moral law. They did not have our insights on the evolutionary origins of our species and of its potential for upward change in the future. Furthermore, the relative commonality of human beings in the ancient Mediterranean — where the vast majority were Aryan or Semitic Caucasians, with some clinal variation — could lead one to think that biological differences between humans were minor (an impression which Europeans abandoned in the colonial era, when they encountered Sub-Saharan Africans, Amerindians, and East Asians). Missing, in those days before modern science and as White advocate William Pierce has observed, was a progressive vision of human history as an evolutionary process towards ever-greater consciousness and self-actualization. [2] Many assumptions of late Hellenistic (notably Stoic) philosophy were reflected and sacralized in Christianity, which also posited a universal and timeless moral law deriving from God, rather than the state or the community. As it is said in the Book of Acts (5:29): “We must obey God rather than men.” With Christianity’s emphasis on the dignity of each soul and respect for the will of God, the idea of manipulating reproductive processes through contraception, abortion, or infanticide in order to promote the public good became “taboo” (121). Furthermore: “virginity and celibacy were as a rule regarded as more sacred states than marriage and family life . . . . The dying ascetic replaced the muscular athlete as a role model” (121). These attitudes gradually became reflected in imperial policies: All the marriage laws of Augustus (including the system of legal rewards for married parents with children and penalties for the unwed and childless) passed from 18 BC onwards were replaced under Constantine and the later Christian emperors — and even those that were not fell into disuse. . . . To this effect, Christian emperors not only made permanent the removal of sanctions on celibates, but began to honor and reward those Christian priests who followed the rule of celibacy: instead of granting privileges to those who contracted a second marriage, Justinian granted privileges to those who did not  (125) The notion of moral imperatives deriving from a disembodied natural law and the equality of souls gradually led to the modern obsession with natural rights, free will, and social contracts. Contrast Plato and Aristotle’s eudaimonic (i.e., focusing on self-actualization) politics of aristocracy and community to that of seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes: I know that in the first book of the Politics Aristotle asserts as a foundation of all political knowledge that some men have been made by nature worthy to rule, others to serve, as if Master and slave were distinguished not by agreement among men, but by natural aptitude, i.e. by their knowledge or ignorance. This basic postulate is not only against reason, but contrary to experience. For hardly anyone is so naturally stupid that he does not think it better to rule himself than to let others rule him. … If then men are equal by nature, we must recognize their equality; if they are unequal, since they will struggle for power, the pursuit of peace requires that they are regarded as equal . And therefore the eighth precept of natural law is: everyone should be considered equal to everyone . Contrary to this law is PRIDE. ( De Cive , 3.13) It does seem that, from an evolutionary point of view, the long era of medieval and early modern thought represents an enormous regression as compared with the Ancients, particularly the Greeks. As Ojakangas puts it: “there is an essential rupture in the history of Western political discourse since the decline of the Greek city-states” (134). Western biopolitics gradually returned in the modern era and especially with Darwin, who himself had said in The Descent of Man : “The weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.” [3] And: “Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care.” [4] Okajangas argues that “the Platonic Aristotelian art of government [was] more biopolitical than the modern one,” as they did not have to compromise with other traditions, namely “Roman and Judeo-Christian concepts and assumptions” (137). Okajangas’ book is useful in seeing the outline of the long tradition of Western biopolitical thinking, despite the relative eclipse of the Middle Ages. He says: Baruch Spinoza was probably the first modern metaphysician of biopolitics. While Kant’s moral and political thought is still centered on concepts such as law, free will, duty, and obligation, in Spinoza we encounter an entirely different mode of thinking: there are no other laws but causal ones, the human will is absolutely determined by these laws, freedom and happiness consist of adjusting oneself to them, and what is perhaps most essential, the law of nature is the law of a self-expressing body striving to preserve itself ( conatus ) by affirming itself, this affirmation, this immanent power of life, being nothing less than justice. In the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche, this metaphysics of biopolitics is brought to its logical conclusion. The law of life is nothing but life’s will to power, but now this power, still identical with justice, is understood as a process in which the sick and the weak are eradicated by the vital forces of life. I note in passing that William Pierce had a similar assessment of Spinoza’s pantheism as basically valid, despite the latter’s Jewishness. [5] The 1930s witnessed the zenith of modern Western biopolitical thinking. The French Nobel Prize winner and biologist Alexis Carrel had argued in his best-selling Man the Unknown for the need for eugenics and the need for “philosophical systems and sentimental prejudices must give way before such a necessity.” Yet, as Okajangas points out, “if we take a look at the very root of all ‘philosophical systems,’ we find a philosophy (albeit perhaps not a system) perfectly in agreement with Carrel’s message: the political philosophy of Plato” (97). Okajangas furthermore argues that Aristotle’s biocentric naturalist ethics were taken up in 1930s Germany: Instead of ius naturale , at stake was rather what the modern human sciences since the nineteenth century have called biological, economical, and sociological laws of life and society — or what the early twentieth-century völkisch German philosophers, theologians, jurists, and Hellenists called Lebensgesetz , the law of life expressing the unity of spirit and race immanent to life itself. From this perspective, it is not surprising that the “crown jurist” of the Third Reich, Carl Schmitt, attacked the Roman lex [law] in the name of the Greek nomos [custom/law] — whose “original” meaning, although it had started to deteriorate already in the post-Solonian democracy, can in Schmitt’s view still be detected in Aristotle’s Politics . Cicero had translated nomos as lex , but on Schmitt’s account he did not recognize that unlike the Roman lex , nomos does not denote an enacted statute (positive law) but a “concrete order of life” ( eine konkrete Lebensordnung ) of the Greek polis — not something that ‘ought to be’ but something that “is”. (56) Western biopolitical thought was devastated by the outcome of the World War II and has yet to recover, although perhaps we can begin to see glimmers of renewal. Okajangas reserves some critical comments for Foucault in his conclusion, arguing that with his erudition he could not have been ignorant of classical philosophy’s biopolitical character. He speculates on Foucault’s motivations for lying: “Was it a tactical move related to certain political ends? Was it even an attempt to blame Christianity and traditional Christian anti-Semitism for the Holocaust?” (142). I am in no position to pronounce on this, other than to point out that Foucault, apparently a gentile, was a life-long leftist, a Communist Party member in the 1950s, a homosexual who eventually died of AIDS, and a man who — from what I can make of his oeuvre — dedicated his life to “problematizing” the state’s policing and regulation of abnormality. Okajangas’ work is scrupulously neutral in his presentation of ancient biopolitics. He keeps his cards close to his chest. I identified only two rather telling comments: His claim that “we know today that human races do not exist” (11). His assertion that “it would be childish to denounce biopolitics as a multi-headed monster to be wiped off the map of politics by every possible means (capitalism without biopolitics would be an unparalleled nightmare)” (143). The latter’s odd phrasing strikes me as presenting an ostensibly left-wing point to actually make a taboo right-wing point (a technique Slavoj Žižek seems to specialize in). In any event, I take Ojakangas’ work as a confirmation of the utmost relevance of ancient political philosophy for refounding European civilization on a sound biopolitical basis. The Greek philosophers, I believe, produced the highest biopolitical thought because they could combine the “barbaric” pagan-Aryan values which Greek society took for granted with the logical rigor of Socratic rationalism. The old pagan-Aryan culture, expressed above all in the Homeric poems, extolled the values of kinship, aristocracy, competitiveness, community, and manliness, this having been a culture which was produced by a long, evolutionary struggle for survival among wandering and conquering tribes in the Eurasian steppe. This highly adaptive traditional culture was then, by a uniquely Western contact with rationalist philosophy, rationalized and radicalized by the philosophers, untainted by the sentimentality of later times. Plato and Aristotle are remarkably un-contrived and straightforward in their political methods and goals: the human community must be perfected biologically and culturally; individual and sectoral interests must give way to those of the common good; and these ought to be enforced through pragmatic means, in accord with wisdom, with law where possible, and with ruthlessness when necessary. [1] Furthermore, on a decidedly spiritual note: “ rather than being a Darwinist of sorts, in Günther’s view it is Plato’s idealism that renders him a predecessor of Nazi ideology, because race is not merely about the body but, as Plato taught, a combination of the mortal body and the immortal soul.” (13) [2] William Pierce: The medieval view of the world was that it is a finished creation. Since Darwin, we have come to see the world as undergoing a continuous and unfinished process of creation, of evolution. This evolutionary view of the world is only about 100 years old in terms of being generally accepted. . . . The pantheists, at least most of them, lacked an understanding of the universe as an evolving entity and so their understanding was incomplete. Their static view of the world made it much more difficult for them to arrive at the Cosmotheist truth. William Pierce, “Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future,” speech delivered in Arlington, Virginia 1977. [3] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: Appleton and Company, 1882), 134. [4] Ibid. , 617. Interestingly, Okajangas points out that Benjamin Isaac, a Jewish scholar writing on Greco-Roman “racism,” believed Plato ( Republic 459a-b) had inspired Darwin on this point. Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004), 128. [5] Pierce, “Cosmotheism.”

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

William Pierce and Cosmotheism

During the early 1970s, the late white activist Dr. William Pierce formulated a religious orientation he called Cosmotheism to provide the spiritual basis for the direction he was taking in his racial work.  Pierce had serious reservations about Christianity’s appropriateness for white people and wanted to offer an alternative to it.  The following material is drawn from my book on Pierce, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds .  *   *   * “As I see it,” Pierce told me, “Christianity has a number of elements that are harmful to our people.   One of them is its egalitarianism.  You know: ‘the meek shall inherit the earth,’ ‘the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.’  It’s the whole Sermon-on-the-Mount idea of putting people down and pulling down those on the top of the heap regardless of how they got there.  It is a fundamental part of Christian doctrine, and I think it is detrimental to an ordered society.  When you look at Christianity you have to get beyond the requirements and rituals—you shall be baptized, you shall observe the marriage sacrament, and so forth—and see underlying things, like the egalitarian, Bolshevik message in this religion, which is really dangerous and has helped move us to this destructive democratic age. “There is the universalistic message in Christianity, that we are all alike, that fundamentally there is no difference among people, that the only thing that counts is whether you are in or out of Jesus’ flock.  The ‘we are all one in Christ Jesus’ idea—man and woman, white and black, Greek and Jew.  We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord.  The truth of the matter is that we aren’t all one, and we are different from one another, and some individuals and cultures are better than others.  Anything that obscures that reality and its implications holds things back. Dr. William Pierce “Another idea inherent in Christianity is that what we do here on earth doesn’t really matter.  This life is just a testing ground; the real action will go on someplace else, after our death.  There is the notion that we don’t have to really stay on the case because God has everything under control.  He is watching us all the time and looking out for us, and He can push this button or that one and make anything happen He wants.  We aren’t in control, and in any case, we don’t need to be because it’s not really our responsibility, it’s God’s.  To me, that comes down to an abdication of responsibility. “There is all the superstition and craziness in Christianity. When they had their chance, Christians burned free thinkers, stifled intellectual development for centuries, and led people off to those suicidal Crusades.  I see Christianity as more than a basically harmless aberration; it’s a really dangerous one.  At the same time I say that, I acknowledge that most Christians are reasonable and decent people.  It’s just that they haven’t thought things all the way through.  They aren’t the problem—it’s the doctrine. “The European spirit is much more expressed in the pagan tradition of northern Europe.  There was more of the idea that man is responsible for the world around him. He is responsible for his own actions.  He’s answerable to nobody but himself and his kinsmen.  To live up to the European concept of honor and responsibility is to me far more in accord with our nature than trying to follow Christianity.  I realize it is a complex subject because for a thousand years Christianity has been modified by European feeling, tradition, and religious ideas.  That is how Christianity succeeded in gaining such a grip on Europe, by adapting itself to the conditions there.” I have some familiarity with the northern European pagan religions before the Christian influx, including Odinism.   Odin is the father deity of Norse mythology.  He rules over a pantheon of gods and goddesses, including Thor, the god of thunder.  He is depicted as a fearless fighter who carries a spear and inspires fearless human warriors called berserkers.  Along with being a fierce warrior, Odin is also the wisest god, having given an eye to drink from the spring of wisdom.  I commented to Pierce that I could understand how the Odinist image of a big, burly, bearded Viking-type wielding a spear or a battle-ax would have appeal to some people. “Well, I can understand how the idea of a Viking with his battle-ax charging into a monastery and splitting some monk’s skull and grabbing a silver crucifix off the altar and melting it down to make bracelets would be appealing.  But really, that is a very one-sided picture.  Raiding was one activity of the Vikings among many, and of course the Vikings were only one part of European culture and civilization.  Although I will say I can relate to that Viking image much more than the idea of the crucifix, which seems so alien as a symbol of a religion.  A man nailed to a cross, crucified.   That just seems weird to me.  It is hard for me to have a good feeling about that.  It doesn’t seem European to me.  It would take somebody with a really alien mindset to choose something like that as a symbol for a religion.  It is an execution scene.  It’s like if I were to start a new religion and chose as a symbol a man hanging from a gallows, or in an iron cage with crows pecking at his skeleton. World Tree “One of the principal symbols of pagan religion is the tree of life, it’s called The World Tree, which represents their cosmology.  To me, The World Tree is a much more fitting symbol for a religion for our people.” The World Tree is a symbol for the continual creation of new life on earth amid the forces and creatures that tear at its roots—roots that remain, through it all, ever green. The World Tree also represents nature as the source of nourishment and healing to mankind.   In The World Tree symbol there is the focus on this earthly world and man’s embeddedness in nature and dependence on it.  And there is the theme of renewal and growth amid struggle and adversity.   “There are a lot of people,” Pierce offered, “who say, ‘Where would we be without Christianity.  We’d be raping and killing each other.’  Well, we are raping and killing each other as it is.   The fact of the matter is that before the dominance of Christianity, Europeans kept that sort of thing pretty much under control through the ways communities were set up.  They had rules that made sense in terms of their survival and way of life, and the rules were enforced, and more or less people respected the rules.  There doesn’t have to be some kind of supernatural sanction to keep people in line. “One of the things I quote often comes from northern European non-Christian writings and it goes something like this: ‘Cattle die and kinsman die, and so too must one die oneself.  But there is one thing I know that never dies, and that is the fame of a dead man’s deeds.’ [It is from the Hávamál , a group of disconnected, fragmentary poems composed by unknown Norse poets between 800 and 1100 A.D.]  Fame here doesn’t mean fame in the way we think of it today—notoriety, having people know who you are, being a celebrity.  In this case, fame means your reputation, the impression you make on the world and your fellow men while you are alive.  If you live in a way that warrants it, your people will remember you for generations as a person who did great things or was exceptionally wise or just or courageous, whatever it was.  That is the only immortality that is real, and that is a kind of immortality that can matter to people and really affect how they live.  You don’t need the promise of a life-after-death kind of immortality to get people to be good people.” Pierce needed a name for the spiritual orientation—or religion, or life philosophy, whatever best to call it—he had put together, and he came up with Cosmotheism.   He can’t remember where he got the term.  I did some investigating and found that the English Romantic poet, critic, and philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge used it in the early nineteenth century.   In Coleridge’s writings, in one instance he referred to an identification of God with the universe and in another to the worship of the world as God.   The writer D.H. Lawrence was quoted as saying, “We and the cosmos are one.  The cosmos is a vast living body of which we are all parts.  The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve center from which we quiver forever.  All this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.”  It could be that reading Coleridge or Lawrence was Pierce’s inspiration.   But it was a long time ago, and he doesn’t remember. I asked Pierce to help me understand Cosmotheism.  He rose from his desk and went to a file drawer and pulled out some pamphlets, sorted through them a bit, and then handed three of them to me.  “You can look these over.  I wrote them on Cosmotheism back in the late 1970s.” I read through the three pamphlets and listened to a tape of a talk Pierce gave back in 1976 at one of the Sunday evening meetings he conducted called “Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future.”  I concluded that what Pierce calls Cosmotheism is a version of the religious orientation called pantheism.  I won’t go into the particulars of Cosmotheism in this context, which would get us into considerations of George Bernard Shaw’s play Man and Superman , Plato’s Republic , and the ideas of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and take us far afield.  Basically, it comes down to aligning with, and serving, a “life force” that propels the upward development of the white race.   It’s enough here to place Cosmotheism in its pantheistic context. Pantheism as a religious perspective and tradition differs from three others more familiar to us: theism (Judaism and Christianity are examples), atheism, and humanism.  Even though pantheism doesn’t have a strong foothold in Western society, it is far from a rare phenomenon in the world: Taoism, forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, the religions of American Indian tribes, and the pagan religions of northern Europe all embody a pantheistic outlook.  Many Greek philosophers reflect a pantheistic outlook, including Plato and Aristotle and the Stoics, as did philosophers such as Spinoza, Fichte, and Hegel.  Prominent literary figures whose work reveals a pantheistic perspective include William Wordsworth, Ralph Waldo Emerson, D.H. Lawrence, Robinson Jeffers, and Gary Snyder. What is this perspective on the world?  The words used to express the pantheistic orientation vary greatly, but what they all share is a picture of how everything fits together.  Pantheists get beyond the particulars, this discrete entity and that one, to a perception of an all-encompassing and unified order to things.  Pantheism is the view that everything that exists—nature, animals, human beings, everything—forms an integrated whole.  To the pantheist, everything is interrelated.  Human life is not independent and self-contained but rather an integral part of the world. This stress on wholeness should not be taken to mean that pantheists contend that “all is one,” that there aren’t separate entities in the world, that the perception of distinctions is an illusion.  Rather, pantheists—or most of them, anyway—say that the various elements that comprise the world are not merely distinct, and that most fundamentally, most importantly, they are not distinct.  When pantheists look at the world, they see connectedness, they see unity. What makes pantheism a religion and not simply a philosophy is that this unity that pantheists see is divine —it is sacred .  To pantheists, the world isn’t simply a set of interrelated concrete phenomena.  There is more—call it God—and this “something more” infuses, permeates, the world.  It is part of everything, and everything is part of It.  It divinizes the world and makes it holy.  When pantheists look at the world, they see God. Pantheism can be better understood if it is contrasted with theism—again, Christianity and Judaism fall in this category.  The theistic tradition is characterized by the belief in a personal god—that is to say, a god with the characteristics of a human being.  This theistic god has a personality and bearing—like that of a commanding father perhaps.  This is a god who can hear and see and pass moral judgment and make decisions and take purposeful action.  He is focal: all power and holiness flow from him.  He was so powerful that he had the power to create the universe, a universe which he now in a parent-like or monarch-like way oversees.  He is separate, distinct from nature and mankind.  He is not of this world.  He is apart, above, transcendent, looking down on us all. The appropriate relationship to the theistic god is deferential and devotional.  He is prayed to.  He is an object of worship—the sole object of worship.  The worshipper does not identify himself with God or seek to merge with God or become God; that would be blasphemous.  Rather, the fundamental objective of religious practice in the theistic tradition is to establish a proper relationship with God.  Cultivating this proper relationship gives the worshipper direction in living in accordance with God’s will and in escaping God’s displeasure or wrath.  The worshipper gains strength and guidance from God—perhaps with the assistance of a messiah—in the lifelong task of achieving salvation, peace, and happiness, and perhaps ecstatic joy, in this life, and bliss and serenity in the next life. In theistic traditions, there is the belief in personal immortality.  The faithful will survive death in some form.  Death is regrettable to be sure, but that regret is softened by the conviction that the next world will be a better place than this one is.  In fact, in theistic traditions existence on earth is in large measure perceived as a time of preparation for the afterlife. Like theists, pantheists believe in God; pantheism is not a disguised form of atheism or a substitution of naturalism for religious faith.  Where the difference lies is that pantheists do not perceive of God as a person or anything like a person. The pantheistic God doesn’t have a personality.  It doesn’t have a mind.  It doesn’t perceive as does a human being.  It doesn’t formulate intentions and carry out actions in response to circumstances in the manner of a person.  Pantheistic religions tend not to play up the creator-of-the-universe conception of God as do theistic religions.  There is more of a tendency in pantheism to attend to God and world—however they/it came to be—simply as realities to be encountered and taken into account at this time and in this life. Pantheism denies the beyondness, the otherness, of God.  God isn’t up there, over there, someplace else, transcendent .  God is here, a part of all this, immanent .  God penetrates everything in the universe.   God is in nature.   God is in human beings.  God and man and nature are not distinct—or at least not totally distinct, or only distinct.  What makes things a bit complicated is that while pantheism emphasizes God’s immanence, there is also a tendency within this tradition to view the being of God as if it were not completely exhausted by the universe.  That is to say, God has a transcendent dimension as well as an immanent one.  Some have used the term panentheism (note the “en” in the middle) to distinguish the strand of pantheism that stresses both the immanent and transcendent quality of God.  So we need to be careful not to set up rigid dichotomies.  Still, however, the most useful distinction to keep in mind for our purposes is the basic one between a transcendent God (theism) and an immanent God (pantheism). If God exists but isn’t a person, then what is It?  (To have used He at the end of this last sentence would have personalized God and been at variance with pantheistic thinking.)  One finds a variety of words used to describe God within pantheism.  God is described variously as The Force, The Divine Spark, The Principle of the World, The Plan for the Universe, The Spirit of the World, The Soul of the World, and The Divine Unity.  These aren’t the clearest of terms, but then again cloudiness of meaning is not unheard of in matters of religion, and they do communicate a basic sense of how pantheism conceives of God. What is the proper relationship of human beings to the pantheistic god?  Since God is not a person or separate from everything, it isn’t a personal relationship in the way two people would relate to one another.  There isn’t a deferential posture toward this god.  Rather than a worshipful response to the presence of God as one finds in theism, in pantheism there is respect, awe, wonderment.  And rather than devotional practice, in pantheistic religions there is an emphasis on the search for knowledge of The Unity and the development of personal resources of a certain kind: namely, the understanding and wisdom and personal strength that will contribute to one’s living a life in accordance with The Unity or, another way to say it, that will allow one to integrate with the cosmos.  Thus, meditative and contemplative activities are more consistent with pantheism than prayer.  Really, any activity, intellectual or non-intellectual, that brings people into closer contact with things as they actually are and to a better understanding of how it all goes together and where they fit in the larger scheme of things, including a walk in the woods, is an appropriate religious practice within the pantheistic tradition. Within pantheism, there is more of a focus on integrating into this world than winning forgiveness of sin or a place in the next world.  In contrast to theism, this integration may include merging with God, coming to a realization of one’s identity with, or sameness with, God.  The result may be happiness and joy, but more likely it will be more along the lines of a thoroughgoing peace of mind or sense of being truly home. Most pantheists deny the possibility that they will survive death in some conscious form, so they aren’t seeking personal immortality through their religion.  They tend to believe that whatever happens must happen in this lifetime and with no help from God or a messiah.  For them, death is regrettable because it deprives us of experience and the possibility of doing further good on this earth. It needs to be underscored that most pantheists are not monists.  They aren’t saying All is One.  They aren’t contending that there is only one Being and that all reality is either identical with it or modes of it.  They are pluralists.  They believe that there are many kinds of things.  They don’t regard the existence of real, finite entities as inimical to unity.   As pluralists, pantheists don’t see just one human nature but various human natures.  Pierce carried this idea over to race.  Where some would see one human race, he sees a number of human races. In line with this pluralist mentality, pantheists don’t believe there is just one way to live in accordance with The Unity.  They don’t insist on one lifestyle or set of activities for everyone.  They believe that personal wellbeing and the welfare of the whole will best be attained by people living within the parameters dictated by their own essential natures.  The idea is to do what is natural to you given the reality of the whole of which you are a part. Along this same line, pantheists don’t hold up any human attribute as being on a higher plane than the others.  A good mind, for example, can be positive and it can be negative depending on the use to which it is put.  In fact, one picks up a coolness toward intellectual prowess in pantheism; or anyway, that it is not essential to a good life, and may actually interfere with it. Pantheists are critical of humanism.  They reject its secularized, human-centered worldview.  In their eyes, humanism sets man up as the sole concern, as being all-important.  Pantheists contend that humanists have substituted worship of man for the worship of God.  This contradicts the pantheistic view of man as a part of nature, and that the meaning and purpose of life cannot, should not, be made with reference to human beings alone. Pantheists usually believe in free will.  Most often, they aren’t determinists.  They don’t believe man’s actions and fate are determined by either God’s will or earthly circumstances.  They believe in the power of choice and moral responsibility.  They derive their concept of morality from the nature of the Divine Unity, not from the nature of a personalized God and His word.  A person’s conduct cannot be assessed apart from his overall context, pantheists believe.   Pantheists judge the goodness of an individual act, and a total life, with reference to the individual’s relationship to the Unity.   Pantheists believe living in harmony with the Unity to be morally good, and living in discordance with it to be morally bad. While pantheists believe in free will, they disagree with the existentialist posture that would have man alone determine the meaning of his life.  They hold that there are dictates inherent in man’s being and in his context that impose restraints and obligations on him and thus limit the scope of his freedom to simply choose his own path in life.  Man is what he is and is a part of everything, and these realities to a great extent direct how one should live.  Man should not, say the pantheists, be viewed merely as an end in himself. Pantheists are critical of a reliance on science as the source of answers to the questions of existence.  Contend the pantheists, there is more to the world than can be accounted for by the natural sciences and their ways of knowing, their epistemologies.  Pantheists don’t claim to know all there is to know about the Divine Unity.  They still have questions about creation, immortality, and the meaning and purpose of life, but they don’t believe that science has the answers to them either. Pantheists tend to love nature and seek to establish a relationship to things natural.  They tend to believe that if one doesn’t connect with nature, one is less likely to come to the pantheistic worldview.  If one never hikes in the wilderness or gazes at the sunset or sails on the water, if one never gets out of his own little human orbit, he is less likely to see the pantheistic truths. Pantheists live more in an ethical than mystical relation to nature.  They perceive that living in proper relation to nature presupposes its preservation and protection.  They tend to be environmentalists.  They tend to be of a mind that technology despoils the environment and separates people from It.  They tend to see urban life as averse to both personal well-being and the well-being of the Unity.  At the same time, however, they tend to think of pantheism as an approach to life that can be lived out in any locale, including urban settings. Pantheists regard organized churches and religious leaders with suspicion.  They doubt that the life that pantheism seeks to attain can be facilitated by hierarchically organized, clergy-centered, empire-building religions. Pierce had a doctorate in physics and had been a tenured university professor in that field.  Modern science, he noted, has moved us from a static to a dynamic view of the universe, and pantheism aligns with that paradigm more than churches’ conception of the world as a finished creation.  Since Darwin, Pierce points out, the world has come to be viewed as undergoing a continuous and not-yet-finished change or evolution.  Cosmotheism is more in line with this perspective, he asserted, than theistic religions such as Christianity.

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

“The New Jim Crow” As Seen from the Right.

Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is a text I’ve come across many times over the years. In fact, I don’t know if there is a single time I have walked into a major bookstore and have not seen the book displayed in prominence on an end cap or center aisle table. I’ve encountered all the arguments made within the text over the years in articles, during debates, and in university classrooms as an undergraduate. Perhaps the significance of Alexander’s work is best assessed in the foreword by Cornel West: “The New Jim Crow is the secular bible for a new social movement in the early twenty-first-century America.” Although the data and arguments found within have been seen both before and after Alexander’s work, this is perhaps the most definitive and comprehensive work on the topic of Black crime and mass incarceration in America, as seen from the left. The overarching premise is that mass incarceration, Jim Crow laws, and slavery have been the three primary measures adopted as public policy in the U.S. as a means to control the Black population. Several of Alexander’s contentions jumped off the page at me from the very beginning of the introduction, where she states that an essential goal of the Founding Fathers was to ensure citizenship to Blacks would be denied. In a way, I was thoroughly impressed, aghast even. I hear noxious phrases like “we are a nation of immigrants,” “America is for everybody,” and “this is a homeland for all,” almost daily, be it on social media, from politicians, the press, or in the media. And to see an author who has declared her goal is an “egalitarian democracy,” to be so honest, so frank, and so correct, is in many ways to be welcomed. Alexander displays from page one that she has a grasp of historical racialism as it pertains to the foundation of the U.S. and the Founders’ intentions. She finds this to be an unacceptable position, of course, but her admission that the U.S. was founded as a White nation is exceedingly rare nonetheless. She notes the disparity of Whites and Blacks in prison for drug crimes and suggests that these disparities cannot be explained by respective rates of involvement in the drug trade (7). As evidence of this claim, Alexander cites studies that show Whites and Blacks both use and sell drugs at the same rates; therefore, disparities in incarceration must be due to racism. At first glance, this seems like a reasonable argument. However, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, 99.5% of the 94,678 people in federal prison for drug crimes are in prison for trafficking. [1] So the people incarcerated for drug crimes are not in prison for simple use, or selling low quantities of drugs, but for trafficking, manufacturing, and distribution. Drug usage and selling of small quantities are simply not equivalent to drug trafficking. It would be similar to saying that every person who drank alcohol during prohibition was also likely to be in the business of bootlegging, rum-running, and operating speakeasies. Further, for her claim to be correct, it would essentially amount to a vast understanding from the highest levels of the Justice Department, down to beat cops, that White drug traffickers are to be ignored, while Black ones are to be arrested. I have a very hard time believing that the U.S. government is so racist, and so pro-White, that this would be their public policy. Alexander makes another astute claim, with which I half-agree: “The widespread belief that race no longer matters has blinded us to the realities of race in our society and facilitated the emergence of a new caste system” (11–12). She is correct; the current brand of “colorblind” nationalism is incredibly harmful, especially to us. People who are unwilling to view our current social ills in terms of race realism have a very difficult time understanding much of what is happening, particularly White dispossession. Although I disagree with Alexander that lack of racial awareness is responsible for the caste system she says seeks to hold down Blacks, I can see her view that there is an emerging caste system — one that allows Blacks to play the “knockout game” with unsuspecting Whites, and not be called racists by the mainstream press. Alexander claims that economic mobility is difficult, and in many cases, simply impossible (13). She further claims that Blacks are plagued by poverty and not free to move up in society, and that mass incarceration plays a key role in creating the Black underclass. According to the Brookings Institute, only 2% of Americans who finish high school, maintain a full-time job, and wait until they are 21 to get married or have kids will live in poverty. Further, 75% of Americans who follow those three rules earn $55,000 per year or more. [4] Mass incarceration is hardly responsible for people choosing to drop out of school, have children out of wedlock, and not work. Chapter 1 is a tendentious historical overview of Black history, beginning with slavery through the crime policies of the Clinton Administration. Alexander’s telling of the Atlantic Slave Trade would have one believe that slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon, despite that the majority of slaves would end up in South America and the Caribbean, and that slavery was common throughout the non-European world, and still is in many places [5] As historian Seymour Drescher notes, “freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution” at the time that Britain ended slavery in the early nineteenth century. [6] Alexander goes on to hail Lyndon Johnson, the civil rights movement, and the abolition of miscegenation laws, which led to the increase of interracial marriages. Without citing data on actual Black criminality, she further argues that the emergence of “tough on crime” rhetoric from Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, were not responding to legitimate fears of an increasing crime rate, but were less-than-subtle appeals to racial discrimination against Blacks. Alexander claims that Nixon’s and Reagan’s use of language such as “welfare queen,” “lazy,” “ghetto,” and the like, were actually messages to working-class Whites that they would reform welfare and stop transferring wealth to Blacks. Alexander never really dives into these issues further; they are dismissed as irrational fear mongering and racism, for which there is no need for support with actual data. In reality, there is legitimate cause for fear of Black on White crime, and there is a legitimate grievance Whites have in terms of welfare use and taxes paid. In 85% of violent interracial crimes between Whites and Blacks, Blacks are the attackers, amounting to over half a million violent crimes per year against our people. [7] In an analysis of fiscal impacts between races that account for taxes paid and services consumed, we see that Blacks and Hispanics both use far more tax dollars than they contribute, resulting in a net negative, which Whites are forced to subsidize. [8] Criticism of crime and tax burdens that are placed on Whites by others is not merely some racist, fear mongering talking point — it is an objective reality. Reading the second chapter of The New Jim Crow was somewhat of a peculiar experience for me, in that I do not think Alexander made any substantive argument where I disagreed or noticed any faults. She discusses in depth the “evisceration” of the Fourth Amendment, which has been wrought in part by the War on Drugs. Alexander briefly discusses the historical impetus behind the Amendment, which she characterizes as “[t]he routine police harassment, arbitrary searches, and widespread police intimidation of those subject to English rule…” (62). She goes on to describe the creeping normality of living under a police state under the guise of a drug war: no-knock warrants, warrants obtained through anonymous informant information, expanded surveillance, and nearly anything being “probable cause” to justify search and seizure. Alexander cites Terry v. Ohio as an erosion of Fourth Amendment rights, reducing “probable cause” to “reasonable articulable suspicion,” which was a colossal shift in policy. Terry effectively moved public policy away from the rights of individual citizens, in favor of allowing police to use their “discretion” to protect themselves from potentially dangerous criminals, granting agents of the state the “right” to safety, over the citizen’s right to be free of unreasonable searches. (63) She is also critical of Florida v. Bostick, a Supreme Court case which held that information voluntarily given to police will not be a legal basis for a Fourth Amendment violation. What came of this is the policy of police starting seemingly benign interviews, which lead to the police asking if they can search a person or asking a question like “do you have any drugs or weapons on you?” even when there is no reasonable suspicion. Here, Alexander argues (and I think accurately) that when accosted by police, most people are nervous, unaware of their rights, and will “consent,” although reluctantly. Most people, criminal or not, comply with police questions and consent to searches. As a result, the general lack of legal knowledge is leveraged by police to circumvent the most fundamental purposes of the Fourth Amendment. (64) Alexander describes the incredible cost and inefficiency of the drug war, as well as the policy of civil forfeiture. When police suspect a person of being involved in a crime, they may seize things they suspect were also involved in the crime, such as cash they suspect was ill-gotten, or a car police suspect was used to transport drugs. The burden of proof for civil forfeiture is incredibly low — the state needs to only establish a “preponderance of evidence,” a far cry from “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Worse, if alleged perpetrators are not ultimately charged with a crime, they are afforded no legal aid to retrieve their property from the state, as civil matters do not entitle one to the right of legal representation. Of course, in many cases, this means it would be less costly to allow the state to steal your property than to hire a lawyer and seek justice. (83) The chapter rounds out with a discussion of the inadequacy of state-provided legal aid, as many court-appointed defense attorneys are dealing with a tremendous number of cases while being paid on the lower end of what attorneys earn. Alexander also discusses the plea-bargaining system, which lends itself to prosecutors overcharging cases — even charging crimes on which they know they can’t convict — as leverage to force the accused to take a plea bargain instead of risking the uncertainty and expense of a jury trial. This is definitely a legitimate concern. The only real oddity I found in the second chapter was how Alexander opened her book describing the United States as a nation founded for Whites and claiming the entire system needs a radical overhaul as a result, to becoming an originalist a few pages later when discussing the Fourth Amendment. She clearly does not like the idea that Whites have some sort of claim on the country they built, but she does want to keep the Fourth Amendment preserved as it was from the same era that biased immigration toward Western Europe. On one hand, she seems to be in support of the Bill of Rights as it was written, while on the other hand wanting to see equally important aspects of our nation destroyed and scattered to the wind. The remainder of the book was a bit of a letdown. Although I had anticipated the typical Leftist argument that Whites were oppressing non-Whites, I was hoping there would be more well-thought out legal arguments and a better theoretical bases, as in the second chapter. What came was mostly a victim mentality, constantly invoking Martin Luther King Jr. and the argument that drug laws create a de facto caste system in America based on race. Alexander brings up the argument over and over again, that because Whites and Blacks use and buy drugs at the same rate, the representation in prison should also be similar. Not once did Alexander note the incredible leap from drug use to drug trafficking . Nor did she note that the vast majority of those incarcerated for drug crimes are for trafficking, not simple possession. She repeatedly states that the racist American system is the reason for the overrepresentation of Blacks in prison for drugs. However, she never considers that in England, Blacks are also over-represented in crime per their population percentage and as compared to Whites, although I suppose she would blame the White British for that. [9] Alexander also does not bother to mention the fact that Blacks in America commit a disproportionate amount of crime of every type, not merely drug crime. [10] Alexander suggests that the reason so many Black children grow up without fathers is due to mass incarceration, which the War on Drugs perpetuates. “Hundreds of thousands of Black men are unable to be good fathers for their children, not because of a lack of commitment or desire but because they are warehoused in prisons, locked in cages” (180–181). Alexander notes that about one million Black men are behind bars in prisons and jails currently but fails to investigate what percentage of them have children or whether they were supporting the children until they became incarcerated. According to the Kid Count Data Center, as of 2011, there were over 6.5 million Black children being raised by single parents. A rate of nearly 70%. [11] To suggest that the reason 6.5 million children are being raised without a father is due to one million Black men in prison is patently absurd. A recurring theme through the book is that the rise of U.S. prison population is due largely to the drug war. However, the federal and state prison data does not support this claim. If every person that was incarcerated for only drug offenses in both federal and state prison were released, the total prison population would drop by about 14 percent. [12] The “crack vs. cocaine” argument was forwarded as well. Alexander alleges that because cocaine has a connotation of being used by wealthy White people, it carries lower sentences than crack, which is seen as used more widely by the Black community (112). When we compare crack sentences to meth or PCP — both seen as more “White person” drugs — the disparity in grams needed to land you a 5-year prison stay nearly disappears. [13] The majority of people in jail for meth are White, with only a small amount being Black. [14] Nobody claims that meth laws target poor Whites but they claim crack laws target poor Blacks. They always use the erroneous “cocaine vs. crack” dichotomy to make their invalid argument. Alexander is eerily silent on the widespread use of meth, heroin, and opioids in the White community. The final chapter of the book opens with the story of the Jena Six, a group of six Black teenagers who beat a White student so badly he was hospitalized. The beating was said to have been “provoked” by a racial joke or the connection to rising racial tensions that involved nooses being hanged from courtyard trees. Alexander praises the Black community’s response to the “plight” of the six Black attackers. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and MLK III were all in attendance, along with rappers, and thousands of protesters who joined in the fight against the “racial bias” leveled against the Jena Six, as they were initially charged with attempted second-degree murder (pp. 221-222). The Jena Six story is used as an example of “successful” civil rights advocacy; the kind Alexander urges is necessary for this next era of civil rights and ending oppression. A civil war had to be waged to end slavery; a mass movement was necessary to bring a formal end to Jim Crow. Those who imagine far less is required to dismantle mass incarceration and build a new, egalitarian racial consensus reflection a compassionate rather than punitive impulse toward poor people of color fail to appreciate the distance between Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream and the ongoing racial nightmare for those locked up and locked out of American society. (235) An eternal victim mentality permeates the pages of The New Jim Crow . At no point in the entire work is the notion that Blacks might be committing a high rate of crime entertained or perhaps that they should stop involvement in drug trafficking. Alexander writes that despite affirmative action, unemployment rates in the Black community are similar to those of Third World countries (246). This level of unemployment is of course attributed to the alleged racial caste created via mass incarceration in the U.S., and not the shared social attitudes, academic achievement, and behavior among Blacks. For Blacks, education is the royal road to the middle class, but the reality is that relatively few of a population, half of which has an IQ of less than 85, is unable to take advantage of this. The final sub-chapter opens by reaffirming that the United States was created by White men, for White men (255), and then quickly asks Whites to “sacrifice their racial privilege” (257). “Whites should prove their commitment to dismantling not only mass incarceration, but all of the structure of racial inequality that guarantee for whites the resilience of white privilege” (257). This plea struck me as outrageous given that she is speaking on behalf of the group that is the aggressor in 85% of violent interracial crimes between Whites and Blacks. Whites suffer over half a million violent crimes each year at the hands of Blacks. I’m sure Alexander will excuse me if I’m in no hurry to support her aspirations, especially after hailing the Jena Six case as a victory for Blacks. [15] Something else struck me while reading the book, particularly on page 125, where she remarked that many Blacks refer to police in their neighborhoods as “the occupation,” thus seeing their own neighborhoods as territory occupied by a hostile forces. In her discussion of White police coming into Black parts of town with what they see as bad intentions, I was very sympathetic. Amid Alexander’s constant appeals to more welfare for ex-convicts, pleas for Whites to surrender the remnants of our homeland to Blacks, and complaints that Blacks cannot be given a fair trial in a White nation, I couldn’t help but think the underlying theme to all this was an implicit desire for self-determination—their own Wakanda. Obviously, an ethnostate would be an excellent solution for Whites as well. I think that Michelle Alexander has a sentiment for something she cannot express in a way that she’s come across in academia or through her legal training. There was certainly a hostile undertone, and sometimes overtone to her work, wanting to “dismantle” what was once our nice White country. Yet I think on a deeper level than that, was the desire for self-determination. The desire for Blacks to decide if they want to legalize the drug trade and drug use. The desire to not operate within a White framework, to conform to White laws, or exhibit White behavior. I could be way off base here, but it seemed to me that Alexander was, on one hand, saying Blacks should not be subjugated to White rule, and on the other hand, asking for White tax dollars for welfare programs and help from those ridden with White guilt. On some level, I agree with her. I don’t want White tax dollars to be spent looking for marijuana in “ghettos” (a term she uses often) either, or anywhere for that matter. I would much rather the money be spent stopping the drugs from entering the country in the first place, at the border, and would much rather see a drug war waged against Purdue Pharma, as opposed to those smoking weed. Although she seems to think the whole War on Drugs somehow benefits all White people, by making even the poorest and least successful of Whites somehow “above” Blacks, I think her understanding lacks a certain depth. She’s right, the police do not work for the people, and they are very often the trappings of an occupation, but she’s wrong in thinking Blacks are the only ones being subjugated by a hostile elite. She’s right: the entire system is corrupt and oppressive. Alexander made many mentions of social programs that could be used to help the Black community instead of incarcerating them, yet she never bothered to think that it is White people paying the taxes for those programs, while Blacks are a perennial net negative. [16] Alexander posits many times that this racial caste system somehow benefits all Whites. But nothing could be further from the truth. Taxing Whites at oppressive rates in order to hire people to police, house, monitor, and try Blacks, does not benefit the average White. A handful of people who own stakes in the prison industry benefit, and nobody else apart from Whites spared from the depredations of incarcerated Blacks. The amount of money Whites must spend to have a multi-racial country is astronomical, and we receive zero benefits from policing Blacks. Cities that have experienced heightened levels of social unrest, Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, and others, have experienced a rise in crime. High profile cases of violent police interaction, followed by protests and riots, has had a chilling effect on policing behaviors, especially of Black communities. The withdrawal of police presence leading to a rise in crime in cities that experiences civil unrest and high profile incidents has been dubbed the “ Ferguson Effect ”. Although Alexander never indicates that she views police activity in Black neighborhoods as anything but negative, the removal of police has, in at least several cities, led to the murder rate increasing, and more Blacks dying. I do not foresee the solution that Alexander proposes happening. The idea of having multiple nations trying to exist in one country is proving to be a disaster; “coexisting” is going to be more and more strenuous as this great multicultural experiment continues to unfold. Instead of handing the country to the horde of non-Whites that quite openly hates us, we should offer a mutual separation through a generous repatriation program. If this were my nation to run as I saw fit, I would offer all criminals currently incarcerated or under state supervision a one-time deal, renounce your US citizenship, leave, and never come back, in exchange for a total pardon. Non-white mass incarceration would end overnight. For all those in the country legally, but feel they are owed a reparation, I would gladly pay a one-time, lump-sum, cash settlement in the amount of their lifetime net-burden to White tax-payers to renounce their US citizenship, leave, and never come back. This whole thing could end peacefully with every group having total self-determination, which I think might have been the subtext to Alexander’s entire work. [1] Taxy, Sam, et al. “Drug Offenders in Federal Prison: Estimates of Characteristics Based on Linked Data.” U.S. Department of Justice, Oct. 2015, www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf. [2] contributor, Ron Martinelli opinion. “The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities.”  TheHill , 18 Jan. 2018, thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/329589-the-truth-about-crime-illegal-immigrants-and-sanctuary-cities. [3] “Prison Inmates at Midyear 2009 – Statistical Tables.”  Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) , www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200. [4] Haskins, Ron. “Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class.” Brookings, Brookings, 28 July 2016, www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/. [5] “The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.” Historical Context: Facts about the Slave Trade and Slavery | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, www.gilderlehrman.org/content/historical-context-facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery. [6] Seymour Drescher, Capitalism and Antislavery: British Mobilization in Comparative Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 2. [7] Taylor, Jared. “New DOJ Statistics on Race and Violent Crime.” American Renaissance, 14 Dec. 2016, www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/. [8] Faulk, Ryan. “Fiscal Impact of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics.” The Alternative Hypothesis, 10 May 2016, thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-Blacks-and-hispanics/. [9] Palmer, Alasdair. “Police statistics shed fresh light on link between crime and race.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 27 June 2010, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7856404/Police-statistics-shed-fresh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html. [10] Rubenstein, Edward S. “The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition.” American Renaissance, www.amren.com/archives/reports/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/. [11] “Children in single-Parent families by race | KIDS COUNT Data Center.” KIDS COUNT data center: A project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/867,133,38,35,18/10,9,12,1,185,13/432,431. [12] Roeder, Ollie. “Releasing Drug Offenders Won’t End Mass Incarceration.” FiveThirtyEight, FiveThirtyEight, 15 Mar. 2016, fivethirtyeight.com/features/releasing-drug-offenders-wont-end-mass-incarceration/. [13] Sterling, Eric E. “Drug Laws And Snitching: A Primer.” PBS. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/. [14] “Crack Vs. Meth.” Investor’s Business Daily. July 28, 2011. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/crack-vs-meth/. [15] Taylor, Jared. “New DOJ Statistics on Race and Violent Crime.” American Renaissance, 1 July 2015, www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/. [16] Faulk, Ryan. “Fiscal Impact of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics.”  The Alternative Hypothesis , 11 May 2016, thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-Blacks-and-hispanics/.

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed

Christian terrorism – Wikipedia

Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who profess Christian motivations or goals.[1] The early modern period in Britain saw religious conflict resulting from the Reformation and the introduction of Protestant state churches.[2] The 1605 Gunpowder Plot was a failed attempt by a group of English Catholics including Guy Fawkes to assassinate King James I, and to blow up the Palace of Westminster, the English seat of government. According to Vahabph D. Aghai, “The beginnings of modern terrorism can be traced back to England and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.”[3][self-published source] Although the modern concept of religious terrorism had not yet come into use in the 17th century, David C. Rapoport and Lindsay Clutterbuck point out that the Plot, with its use of explosives, was an early precursor of 19th century anarchist terrorism.[4] Sue Mahan and Pamala L. Griset classify the plot as an act of religious terrorism, writing that “Fawkes and his colleagues justified their actions in terms of religion.”[5] Peter Steinfels also characterizes this plot as a notable case of religious terrorism.[6] Orthodox Christian-influenced movements in Romania, such as the Iron Guard and Lncieri, which have been characterized by Yad Vashem and Stanley G. Payne as anti-semitic and fascist, respectively, were involved in the Bucharest pogrom, and in political murders during the 1930s.[7][8][9][10][11] After the American Civil War of 18611865, former Confederate soldiers organized the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organization originally as a social club, which was taken over in the next year by “night rider” elements. It then began engaging in arson, beatings, destruction of property, lynching, murder, rape, tar-and-feathering, whipping, and voter intimidation. They targeted newly freed slaves, carpetbaggers and scalawags, and the occupying Union army. That iteration of the Klan disappeared by the 1870s, but in 1915 a new Protestant-led[12] iteration of the Klan was formed in Georgia, during a period of xenophobia and anti-Catholicism. This version of the Klan vastly expanded both its geographical reach and its list of targets over those of the original Klan. Vehemently anti-Catholic, the 1915 Klan had an explicitly Protestant Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in part on a “religious foundation” in Protestant Christianity and targeting Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities,[13] as well as “immoral” practices such as adultery, bad debtors, gambling, and drinking alcohol. The goals of the KKK included, from an early time onward, an intent to “reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible”, and they believed that “Jesus was the first Klansman”.[14] Although members of the KKK swear to uphold Christian morality, virtually every Christian denomination has officially denounced the KKK.[15] From 1915 onward, Klansmen conducted cross-burnings (adapted from[16] scenes in the 1915 film Birth of a Nation), not only to intimidate targets, but also to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ.[16] The ritual of lighting crosses was steeped in Christian symbolism, including prayer and hymn singing.[16] Within Christianity the Klan directed its hostilities against Catholics. Modern Klan organizations remain associated with acts of domestic terrorism in the United States.[17] Mark Juergensmeyer, a former president of the American Academy of Religion, has argued that there has been a global rise in religious nationalism after the Cold War due to a post-colonial collapse of confidence in Western models of nationalism and the rise of globalization.[18][19] Juergensmeyer categorizes contemporary Christian terrorists as being a part of “religious activists from Algeria to Idaho, who have come to hate secular governments with an almost transcendent passion and dream of revolutionary changes that will establish a godly social order in the rubble of what the citizens of most secular societies regard as modern, egalitarian democracies”.[20] According to terrorism expert David C. Rapoport, a “religious wave”, or cycle, of terrorism, dates from approximately 1979 to the present. According to Rapoport, this wave most prominently features Islamic terrorism, but also includes terrorism by Christians and other religious groups that may have been influenced by Islamic terrorism.[21] Anti-balaka groups destroyed almost all mosques in the Central African Republic unrest.[22][23] In 2014, Amnesty International reported several massacres committed by the Anti-balaka against Muslim civilians, forcing thousands of Muslims to flee the country.[24][25] Other sources report incidents of Muslims being cannibalized.[26][27] While anti-balaka groups have been frequently described as Christian militias in the media, this has been denied by Church leaders. Bishop Juan Jos Aguirre said: “But in no sense can it be said that the anti-balaka is a Christian group. The anti-balaka are made up of people of all kinds, terribly enraged, and including many people whom we call the ‘dispossessed’ bandits, ex-prisoners, delinquents, criminals who have got involved in these groups and are now extending, like a plague of locusts, across the whole of the CAR, murdering Muslims”.[28] The Tony Blair Faith Foundation has also pointed out the presence of animists in anti-balaka groups.[29] However, there have been reports that many members of Anti-balaka groups have forcibly converted Muslims to Christianity.[30][31][32][33] On 20 January 2014, Catherine Samba-Panza, the mayor of Bangui, was elected as the interim president in the second round voting.[34] The election of Samba-Panza was welcomed by Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General.[35] Samba-Panza was viewed as having been neutral and away from clan clashes. Her arrival to the presidency was generally accepted by the anti-balaka. Following the election, Samba-Panza made a speech in the parliament appealing to the anti-balaka to put down their weapons.[36] The next day anti-Muslim violence continued in Bangui,[37] just days after the Muslim former Health Minister Dr. Joseph Kalite was lynched outside the Central Mosque[38] and at least nine other people were killed when attacked when a mob, some of who were from Christian self-defence groups, looted shops in the Muslim-majority Miskine neighbourhood of Bangui.[39] As of 20 January, the ICRC reported that it had buried about 50 bodies within 48 hours.[40] It also came after a mob killed two people whom they accused of being Muslim, then dragged the bodies through the streets and burnt them.[41] Within the previous month, about 1,000 people had died.[42] On 4 February 2014, a local priest said 75 people were killed in the town of Boda, in Lobaye prefecture.[43] In the southwest, anti-balaka militants attacked Guen in early February resulting in the deaths of 60 people, according to Father Rigobert Dolongo, who also said that he had helped bury the bodies of the dead, at least 27 of whom died on the first day of the attack and 43 others the next day. As a result, hundreds of Muslim refugees sought shelter at a church in Carnot.[44] In May 2014, it was reported that around 600,000 people in CAR were internally displaced with 160,000 of these in the capital Bangui. The Muslim population of Bangui had dropped from 138,000 to 900. The national health system had collapsed and over half of the total population of 4.6 million were said to be in need of immediate aid. Also from December 2013 to May 2014, 100,000 people had fled to neighbouring Cameroon, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo bringing the number of CAR refugees in these countries to about 350,000.[45] Amnesty International blamed the anti-balaka militia of causing a “Muslim exodus of historic proportions.[46] Some Muslims of the country were also weary of the French presence in MISCA, with the French accused of not doing enough to stop attacks by Anti-balaka militias. One of the cited reasons for the difficulty in stopping attacks by anti-balaka militias was the mob nature of these attacks.[47] The Eastern Lightning is a heterodox new Chinese Christian[48][49][50] movement.[51][52][53] Its official name is the Church of Almighty God,[54] but it is identified by several other names, such as Church of the Gospel’s Kingdom and “The Gospel of the Descent of Kingdom”. The group has been described as a cult[55][56][57] and a terrorist organization.[58][59] The name “Eastern Lightning” is drawn from the New Testament, Gospel of Matthew 24:27: “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” In 1998 members of the church triggered eight riots which lasted for twelve days in Hetang county, Henan. They reportedly broke the arms and legs, and cut the ears off their victims. In 2010 members killed an elementary school student, leaving a lightning-like mark on one of the victim’s feet. The police investigation revealed that the boy was killed because one of his relatives, a member of the church, expressed his desire to quit. In 2012 the church was found to be behind more than 40 riots caused by spreading doomsday rumors and distributing propaganda material. Also in 2012 Ming Yongjun, who said he was motivated by the doomsday prophecies of the church, stabbed an elderly woman and 23 students at a school in Henan province. In August 2013 in Shanxi the eyes of a boy were pulled out. According to a report in Taiwan’s Want China Times this was one of “several cases of violence in China [which] have been linked to the cult”. On May 28, 2014, six members who claimed to represent the “Almighty God” sparked a national outcry when they attacked and killed a woman at a McDonald’s restaurant in Zhaoyuan, a city in Shandong Province of China. During an interview with a CCTV journalist, Lidong Zhang, the lead attacker in what became known as the Zhaoyuan McDonald’s Cult Murder, claimed that the subject rejected his daughter’s request for her phone number and was called a “devil” , which prompted the six members to attack. Zhang described in detail how they kept stamping the victim’s head to the ground for about three minutes, and that “he felt great”, but he deliberately avoided questions on the organization to which he belonged and his rank within the religious group. Five of them were convicted and on October 10, two were sentenced to death and later executed, one to life imprisonment, and the other two to 7 and 10 years in prison. The McDonald’s murder was later studied by scholars of new religious movements such as Emily Dunn, David Bromley and Massimo Introvigne.They came to different conclusions, and argued that the assassins were part of a small, independent cult not connected with Eastern Lighting, who used the words “Almighty God” to designate its two leaders, Zhang Fan (who was executed in 2015) and L Yingchun. The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a rebel group that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and is a proscribed terrorist organization in India. Group activities have been described as Christian terrorists engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.[60][61][62] The NLFT includes in its aims the forced conversion of all tribespeople in Tripura to Christianity.[63] The NLFT says that it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, “but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian”, and “has warned members of the tribal community that they may be attacked if they do not accept its Christian agenda”.[64] The NLFT is listed as a terrorist organization in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.[65] The state government contends that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[66][67][68] Reports from the state government and Indian media describe activities such as the acquisition by the NLFT of explosives through the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura,[68] and threats of killing Hindus celebrating religious festivals.[69] Over 20 Hindus in Tripura were reported to have been killed by the NLFT from 1999 to 2001 for resisting forced conversion to Christianity.[70] According to Hindus in the area, there have also been forced conversions of tribal villagers to Christianity by armed NLFT militants.[70] These forcible conversions, sometimes including the use of “rape as a means of intimidation”, have also been noted by academics outside of India.[71] In 2000, the NLFT broke into a temple and gunned down a popular Hindu preacher popularly known as Shanti Kali.[72] The Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) is also a Christian[73] Naga nationalist militant group operating in North India.[74][75] The main aim of the organization is to establish a sovereign Christian state, “Nagalim”,[76] unifying all the areas inhabited by the Naga people in Northeast India and Burma.[77] The organization’s slogan is “Nagaland for Christ”.[78][79][80][81][82][83] Its manifesto is based on the principle of Socialism for economic development and a Baptist Christian religious outlook.[84] In some of their documents the NSCN has called for recognizing only Christianity in Nagalim.[85] They believe in Christian theocracy.[86] The NSCN has been declared a terrorist organisation in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.[87] It is believed that the organisation primarily raises funds through trafficking drugs from Burma and selling smuggled weapons to other insurgent groups in the region.[88] The group reportedly indulges in kidnapping, assassination, extortion, forced conversion,[89] and other terrorist activities.[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98] On 3 August 2015 NSCN leader T. Muivah signed a peace accord with the Government of India in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, and NSA Ajit Doval.[99] However, NSCN also joined with a militia organization named the United Liberation Front of Western South East Asia, along with other Northeast Indian terrorist groups,[100][101] and shortly after broke off peace talks with the Indian government.[citation needed] Monte Kim Miller formed a group known as the Concerned Christians in Colorado, during the 1980s. Created to combat New Age religious movements and anti-Christian sentiment, it has shifted to more of an apocalyptic Christian movement as the group adopted the less mainstream views of the millennium held by Miller.[102] They believe all Jews should be converted to Christianity.[103] The Concerned Christians believe that the Fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 signaled “the time of the end.” They interpret many biblical passages regarding the apocalypse through the lens of political events in world history. It is stated that they believe that the office of the United States President is the seat of the Antichrist. For example, in what is titled The Seed of Abraham, the group reports that Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, was the archetypal Antichrist and helped build the Babylonian nation that leads the entire world astray. They see American patriotism as a foolish compromise to their Christian beliefs. Founder, Monte Kim Miller, proclaimed that he was the Prophet of the Lord, and that God spoke through his mouth.[104] Between 60 and 80 members of the group disappeared from their homes and jobs in Colorado in October 1998 and were the subject of a search. On January 3, 1999, they gained notoriety when they were arrested and deported from Israel as part of an Israeli effort to protect the Al-Aqsa mosque from extremist Christian groups, codenamed “Operation Walk on Water”. According to Israeli police, the Concerned Christians were one of several independent groups who believed it must be destroyed to facilitate the return of Jesus Christ. The group members said that they were law-abiding religious pilgrims there to await the return of Jesus but had no plans to participate in any illegal activity.[105][106] The group is said to currently reside in Greece or the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area and its potential threat level has since been disputed.[107] Aum Shinrikyo is the former name of a controversial group now known as “Aleph”. In 1992, Shoko Asahara, the founder of Aum Shinrikyo, published a book in which he declared himself “Christ”, Japan’s only fully enlightened master, and identified with the “Lamb of God”. He outlined a doomsday prophecy, which included a Third World War, and described a final conflict culminating in a nuclear Armageddon, borrowing the term from the Book of Revelation 16:16. His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world, and he claimed he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and take away their sins. He also saw dark conspiracies everywhere promulgated by Jews, Freemasons, the Dutch, the British Royal Family, and rival Japanese religions. Initially, the Japanese police reported the attack as the cult’s way of hastening an apocalypse. The prosecution said that it was an attempt to bring down the government and install Asahara as the “emperor” of Japan. Asahara’s defense team claimed that certain senior members of the group independently planned the attack, but their motives for this were unexplained. Aum Shinrikyo began their attacks on 27 June 1994 in Matsumoto, Japan. With the help of a converted refrigerator truck, members of the cult released a cloud of sarin which floated near the homes of judges who were overseeing a lawsuit concerning a real-estate dispute which was predicted to go against the cult. From this one event, 500 people were injured and eight people died. The Tokyo subway sarin attack was an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated on March 20, 1995, in Tokyo, Japan, by members of the cult movement Aum Shinrikyo.In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on three lines of the present-day Tokyo Metro (then part of the Tokyo subway) during rush hour, killing 12 people, severely injuring 50 and causing temporary vision problems for nearly 5,000 others. It was the deadliest incident to occur in Japan since the end of World War II. Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon’s 19751990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[108] A British photographer present during the incident said that “People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians.”[109] The Orange Volunteers (OV) is a Ulster loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland. It was formed in 1998 by loyalists who opposed the Belfast Agreement and the loyalist ceasefires. Over the following year it carried out a wave of bomb and gun attacks on Catholics and Catholic-owned properties in rural areas, but since 2000 has been relatively inactive. The group has been associated with elements of the Orange Order and has a Protestant fundamentalist ideology. Its original leader was Pastor Clifford Peeples. The OV are a Proscribed Organisation in the United Kingdom under the Terrorism Act 2000. One of the group’s first actions was a synchronized attack on 11 Catholic churches. Peeples defended the attack on the grounds that the churches were “bastions of the Antichrist”.[110] Ilaga is a Catholic Extremist group who are anti-Islam based in southern Philippines. The group is predominantly composed of Visayans (mostly Ilonggo), embracing a form of Folk Catholicism that utilizes amulets and violence. The group committed its bloodiest act on June 19, 1971, when the group killed 70100 Moro civilians inside a mosque. In November 2008, Ilaga killed five Muslim civilians in an ambush in Lanao del Norte.[111] The Lord’s Resistance Army, a guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.[60][112] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[113][114] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the “Holy Spirit” which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[115][115][116][117] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[113][118][119][120][121][122] Contemporary American Christian terrorism can be motivated by a violent desire to implement a Reconstructionist or Dominionist ideology.[123] Dominion Theology insists that Christians are called by God to (re)build society on Christian values to subjugate the earth and establish dominion over all things, as a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ.[124] Political violence motivated by dominion theology is a violent extension of the desire to impose a select version of Christianity on other Christians, as well as on non-Christians. At least 11 people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics in the United States since 1993. After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[125][126][127] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[128] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would “lead them to heaven”.[129][130] Eric Robert Rudolph carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, as well as subsequent attacks on an abortion clinic and a lesbian nightclub. Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist. James A. Aho, a professor at Idaho State University, argues that religious considerations inspired Rudolph only in part.[131] Terrorism scholar Aref M. Al-Khattar has listed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (CSA), Defensive Action, the Montana Freemen, and some “Christian militia” as groups that “can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism” that “has a religious (Christian) component”.[132] In 1996 three menCharles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merellewere charged with two bank robberies and bombings at the banks, a Spokane newspaper, and a Planned Parenthood office in Washington State. The men were anti-Semitic Christian Identity theorists who believed that God wanted them to carry out violent attacks and that such attacks would hasten the ascendancy of the Aryan race.[133] Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the United States who provided abortions late in pregnancy, was a frequent target of anti-abortion violence and was killed in 2009 by Scott Roeder as he stood in the foyer of his church. A witness who was serving as an usher alongside Dr. Tiller at the church that day told the court that Mr. Roeder entered the foyer, put a gun to the doctors head and pulled the trigger. At trial, Mr. Roeder admitted to killing Dr. Tiller and said he did it to protect unborn babies. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. At his sentencing, he told the court that Gods judgment would sweep over this land like a prairie wind. Dr. Tiller was shot once before, in 1993, by Shelley Shannon, an anti-abortion activist who compared abortion providers to Hitler and said she believed that justifiable force was necessary to stop abortions. Ms. Shannon was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the shooting of Dr. Tiller and later confessed to vandalizing and burning a string of abortion clinics in California, Nevada and Oregon. James Kopp was convicted of the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian, an obstetrician who provided abortion services in the Buffalo area, and has been named a suspect in the shooting of several abortion providers in Canada. Mr. Kopp hid in the woods behind Dr. Slepians home in October 1998 and shot him through the window with a high-powered rifle, killing him as he stood in his kitchen with his family. Dr. Slepian had just returned from a memorial service for his father when he was killed. Mr. Kopp spent several years on the run in Mexico, Ireland and France before he was captured and extradited to the United States. He was convicted of a state charge of second-degree murder in 2003 and sentenced to 25 years in jail. He was convicted in 2007 on a separate federal charge and sentenced to life in prison. The authorities in Canada also suspect Mr. Kopp in the nonlethal attacks on several abortion providers there who were shot through the windows of their homes. He was charged with the 1995 attempted murder of Dr. Hugh Short, an abortion provider in Ontario, although the charges were dropped after his conviction in New York. The police in Canada also named him a suspect in the 1997 shooting of Dr. Jack Fainman in Winnipeg and the 1994 shooting of Dr. Garson Romalis in Vancouver, which was the first attack on an abortion provider in Canada. In 2015, Robert Doggart, a 63 year old mechanical engineer, was indicted for solicitation to commit a civil rights violation by intending to damage or destroy religious property after communicating that he intended to amass weapons to attack a Muslim enclave in Delaware County, New York.[134] Doggart, a member of several private militia groups, communicated to an FBI source in a phone call that he had an M4 carbine with “500 rounds of ammunition” that he intended to take to the Delaware County enclave, along with a handgun, molotov cocktails and a machete. The FBI source recorded him saying “if it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds”.[135] Doggart had previously travelled to a site in Dover, Tennessee described in chain emails as a “jihadist training camp”, and found that the claims were wrong. Doggart pleaded guilty in an April plea bargain stating he had “willfully and knowingly sent a message in interstate commerce containing a true threat” to injure someone. The plea bargain was struck down by a judge because it did not contain enough facts to constitute a true threat.[136][137] Doggart stood as an independent candidate in Tennessee’s 4th congressional district, losing with 6.4% of the vote.[138] None of the charges against him are terrorism related.[139][140][141][142] The November 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, in which three were killed and nine injured, was described as “a form of terrorism” by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper.[143] The gunman, Robert Lewis Dear, was described as a “delusional” man[144] who had written on a cannabis internet forum that “sinners” would “burn in hell” during the end times, and had also written about smoking marijuana and propositioned women for sex.[145][146] He had praised the Army of God, saying that attacks on abortion clinics are “God’s work”.[147] Dear’s ex-wife said he had put glue on a lock of a Planned Parenthood clinic, and in court documents for their divorce she said “He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions. He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.” Authorities said that he spoke of no more baby parts in a rambling interview after his arrest. In 2016, Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright and Patrick Eugene Stein, 3 Kansas militia men calling themselves Crusaders were arrested plotting a bomb attack and a mass shooting targeting an apartment complex home to a mosque and many Muslim immigrants from Somalia.[148] Stein allegedly told the agent the trio would use ammonium nitrate to make the bombs, a method used in 1995 by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.[149] Dr. John Birky, who works with the Somali community, told the AP about 300 to 500 Somali refugees resided in the area where the attacks were planned.[150] Christian Identity is a loosely affiliated global group of churches and individuals devoted to a racialized theology which asserts that Northern European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, making them God’s chosen people. It has been associated with groups such as the Aryan Nations, the Aryan Republican Army, the Army of God, the Phineas Priesthood, and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. It has been cited as an influence on a number of terrorist attacks around the world, including the 2002 Soweto bombings.[151][152][153][154] These groups are estimated to have 2,000 members in the United States,[155] and an unknown number of members in Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth of Nations. Due to the promotion of Christian Identity doctrines through radio broadcasts and later through the Internet, an additional 50,000 unaffiliated individuals are thought to hold Christian Identity beliefs.[155]

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Terrorism  Comments Closed

Jewish NGO Simon Wiesenthal Center considers travel …

WARSAW (Reuters) – Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center said on Wednesday it was considering issuing a travel advisory for Jews urging them to limit their visits to Poland after the countrys relations with Israel were strained. This month Poland sparked international criticism, including from Israel and the United States, when it approved a law that imposes jail terms for suggesting the country was complicit in the Holocaust. Some three million Jews who lived in pre-war Poland were murdered by the Nazis during their occupation of the country. They accounted for about half of all Jews killed in the Holocaust. Polands nationalist ruling party says the new law is needed to ensure that Poles are also recognized as victims, not perpetrators, of Nazi aggression. It notes that the Nazis also viewed Slavs as racially inferior and that many Poles were killed or forced into slave labor during the German occupation. In wake of the controversial new Holocaust Law in Poland and the anti-Semitism it has unleashed that has left the Jewish community shaken, the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) is considering issuing a Travel Advisory for world Jewry, the organization said in a statement issued late on Wednesday. A Travel Advisory would urge Jews to limit their travel to Poland only to visit ancestral graves and Holocaust-era Death Camps, the NGO named after legendary Nazi hunter who died in 2005 said. Many Poles believe their nation behaved honorably for the most part during the Holocaust. But research published since 1989 has sparked a painful debate about responsibility and reconciliation. A 2000-2004 inquiry by Polands state Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) found that on July 10, 1941, Nazi occupiers and local inhabitants colluded in a massacre of at least 340 Jews at Jedwabne. Some victims were burned alive after being locked inside a barn. The revelation disturbed the Poles belief that, with a few exceptions, they conducted themselves honorably during a vicious war in which a fifth of the nation perished. Some Poles still refuse to acknowledge the IPNs findings. Anti-Semitism was common in Poland in the run-up to World War Two. After the war, a pogrom in the town of Kielce and a bout of anti-Semitism in 1968 sponsored by the communist authorities forced many survivors who had stayed in Poland to flee. The SWC with headquarters in Los Angeles is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States. Reporting by Marcin Goclowski; Editing by Toby Chopra

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Simon Wiesenthal  Comments Closed

Simon Wiesenthal Center Mulls Poland Travel Advisory | The …

Photo Credit: Sebastian Karbowiak, courtesy the Anti-Defamation League The Simon Wiesenthal Center is considering issuing a travel advisory for world Jewry in response to Polands new Holocaust Law and the anti-Semitism it has unleashed in the country. The travel advisory would urge Jews to limit their travel to Poland only to visit ancestral graves and Holocaust-era Death Camps, said Rabbis Marvin Hier, dean and founder and Abraham Cooper, associate dean and director of global social action. The two released a statement from the Center, which teaches the lessons of the Nazi Holocaust. We would take such action with great reluctance, the statement read. We are not enemies of Poland. Our Center has brought hundreds of Jewish and non-Jewish leaders on dozens of missions over the past four decades. Indeed, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has a long history of solidarity with the forces of democracy in Poland dating back to 1983 when our delegation traveled to Poland to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It came at a time when Poland was under martial law by the communist regime, Hier and Cooper said. We teach the millions of visitors to our Museum of Tolerance about Righteous Gentiles, including the thousands of Poles who saved Jews during the Shoah, and the Wiesenthal Center has honored WWII Polish hero, Jan Karski and hosted democracy hero Lech Walesa, they said. But in 2018, we fear for a Poland that has now seen the history of the Holocaust recast by political forces who seek to bury the ugly past that includes the murder of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust and in the immediate aftermath of WWII. If the anti-Semitism unleashed continues unabated, Jews will face increasing threats, they warned, adding that the Center will be closely monitoring the situation in the coming weeks and months and will act accordingly.

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Simon Wiesenthal  Comments Closed

White Privilege | Chateau Heartiste

You have to use the Leftoid-to-Human translator to understand that White privilege means White aptitude. Like Loading… Related Posted in Funny/Lolblogs, Ugly Truths | 87 Comments Comments are closed.

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: White Privilege  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."