Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2007

"Ode to Abe"

He became as a mighty man of old:
There in effigy sits the great man,
Dark his glower, knotted his hand,
Forgotten are the lies he told.

A towering megalith of stone:
Like an idol of heathen forge,
On bloody sacrifice does he gorge,
At his feet, vassals prone.

His gaze is fixed with furrowed brow:
He peers ‘tween Grecian columns,
A deity in his temple most solemn,
All is his plantation now.

His emancipation made slaves of all:
In the din of war and children’s screams,
Fruition found he his imperial dreams,
A nation in his thrall.

Enthroned in perpetuity he sits:
Forgotten are his rapine and ruin,
Covenanters’ blood and bone strewn,
Despised he the Covenant and Holy Writ.

Many bewitched he by his Gettysburg incantation:
A man of Law keenly graspt,
He rewrote the Law and our past,
Powerful be a Tyrant with canons and imagination.

His was a work of unmaking:
Family, church and social institutions,
All he devoured in Socialist revolution,
He beheld the Creation and sought its breaking.

With a frigid northern wind all order shaking, families over Union coals raking, Patriots fought, all their lives staking, ‘til the end—their very lives’ taking.

But a remnant remains afield,
They shall not turn,
Not until their kinsmen learn,
Never shall they yield.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I grew up in a southern California city called Paramount. This is the story of the “civil uprising” (race war) which took place there in the nineteen-eighties and which was summarily expunged from public record. I am among a handful of the remaining witnesses to these events. I write this in order to sound the alarm—to warn the rest of these United States of what has already taken place in my home-town, its purposeful cover-up by the media and what may well be in store for you. As strange as some of it will likely sound, all of what you are about to read is true.

My family moved to Paramount in 1983; I was seven years old. We’d come from Bell Gardens Ca. where I’d been of such an extreme minority in the public school system that I was forced to attend Kindergarten and first grade classes taught entirely in Spanish. As the only non-Spanish-speaker, I was regarded more or less as furniture, completely ignored.

The move to Paramount allowed me to attend second grade in an English-taught class. Though a stark improvement from whence I’d come, as a Caucasian, I was still in the minority and the racial disparity of Whites still proved to be a problem. As young as they were, the Hispanic children were well-versed in anti-White epithets but to be honest, as young as I was, I thought little of it.

At the time, Paramount was still about 30% White but that percentage was comprised mainly of an elderly population. The younger generation was by and large Mexican. In 1984 the Rand Corporation would designate Paramount as “the 14th worst city in the United States,” at which time it was declared by the Federal government to be a disaster area.

Things grew worse year by year: I came to be attacked perpetually on the basis of my skin color—not just by other kids mind you, but adults also. I was beaten, berated, harassed and yes, hated. I would come to have dogs sicked on me, be shot at and slashed at with knives. It became so bad that to step out your front door was to take your life in your hands.

The more well-to-do families and law and order types naturally moved away. (The media and Academia call this phenomenon “White Flight” but it’s actually just being a concerned parent.)

I entered middle school at age eleven. The year was 1987 and the number of Whites had by that time plummeted to less than 10% of the population. But the remaining Whites kids were of a distilled group of lower class families—true roughnecks (of which, I was the youngest). They weren’t really a gang, just the rag-tag remnant of a once White community, who bonded for the sake of self-preservation. They ranged in age from mid-twenties down to me at eleven years old. They were called “Hessians,” “Woods,” “Stoners,” “White-trash,” and “Trailer-trash,” but most commonly, they were just referred to as “los Wetos” (the White-boys).

They weren’t clean-cut but if left alone, they would have been more or less a benign group of slackers. The problem was that they were never left alone. Their lives were a perpetual fight for survival. All travel, even house to house, was of necessity, relegated to back alleys and along train tracks and mostly by the cover of darkness. The day lit streets allowed too much exposure—too much risk. They weren’t fearful, just realistic. Their enemies outnumbered them many times over and the failure to consider such things always brought painful lessons—beatings, stabbings and/ or worse.

Then it happened. She transferred in from Arkansas when I was twelve—a beautiful girl with long, blonde hair, whom we’ll call Hanna. She’d only been there a week when the Mexican girls decided to jump her with the help of their respective boyfriends (a group of more than fifty). I didn’t witness the assault firsthand but I saw the aftermath. Aside from the mass of contusions and abrasions, they tore out all of her hair and knocked out I know not how many teeth. The beating apparently went on the entire distance from the school to her front door over a period of some forty-five minutes (she couldn’t remember at what point her blouse and bra had come off.). Her parents were beside themselves. The thought that such a thing could happen to their daughter in broad daylight over a period of nearly an hour with no abatement and no aid or intervention from onlookers—it was beyond belief.

Though the assailants’ motives were demonstrably racial (their barrage of ethnic slurs bearing witness) and the beating was severe, the police were unwilling to do anything about it. The idea of lynch mobs attacking young girls was not PC, especially when racially motivated against Whites. Hanna’s family quickly and quietly moved away. Though I never saw her again I still think of her on occasion and of the injustice done her.

Since they’d proven themselves’ above the law and proven once and for all that Whites were second-class citizens in the eyes of the law, the mob took great pride in their accomplishment. Over the following month the Mexican kids in both the middle and High schools began threatening to do the same to all Whites caught out alone. The events which followed were multiple assaults of young White kids by groups of both juvenile and adult gang-bangers.

Then, clearly abandoned by the system and the law, the little motley band of Whites made a stand. The older guys (16-23 yrs. old) came to the middle school after class to walk the younger kids home.

And that harmless, even benevolent action is what touched off a full scale race-war/ riot in the streets of Paramount. Twenty Whites were swarmed by what I approximate to have been at least thirteen hundred Mexican juveniles and adults. Thankfully, the vast majority of the mob was unwilling to engage the Whites directly (as I said, the last remaining Anglo families were roughnecks and naturally quite formidable). But despite the reticence of the throng, they attacked in intermittent waves, darting in and out of the little circle of Whites, striking with rocks and bottles.

The intersection of Paramount Blvd. and Rosecrans Ave. became impassable to all through traffic. It remained so for the next two hours during which time more and more adult gang-bangers arrived with jail-house tattoos on arms, necks and faces. They, unlike the rest, weren’t afraid of the Whites. Bike chains with locks were the preferred weapon but some boards, bats and a pair of brass knuckles were also brandished. The presence of these jail-house thugs infused the crowd with courage. They gleefully stomped any White who momentarily buckled to the ground under blows from their champions.

Some will reckon the Whites’ stubbornness as foolish but their lack of retreat in the face of such fatalistic circumstances was the fruit of an iron resolve, itself forged by a decade of community acquiescence and concession. Really, they would have sooner died than run because there was nowhere left for them to retreat; their city was gone.

As the mayhem escalated, a clearly visible Police line formed at every access to the intersection but there they simply halted and watched. The mob was wholly undeterred by their presence. Again, the system and the law had failed—all authority was abdicated to a howling sea of foreign invaders who so despised the people of their host nation that they had determined with one accord to either drive the tiny remnant out or to kill them.
I could take this time to laud the courage and constitution of this tough little band of Whites but that would be rather vainglorious in the broader scope of these events. After all, this is the story of my community’s collapse, not a vindication—yes, they fought hard that day and though they didn’t succumb to their enemies’ blows, they still lost.

Certainly, that little group of neighborhood kids gave a good account of themselves in the face of overwhelming odds but every drop of blood spilt and every broken bone was an indictment of their fathers’ collective apathy. Worse than their extensive physical injuries was the knowledge of their abandonment by their community, their country, the law and most of all—the preceding generation. It isn’t a hero’s tale, but a tragedy.

The police did finally get involved but only to disperse the crowd with helicopters and night-stick wielding men in riot gear. The older White participants would be picked up by the cops in the days to follow but none of the Mexican participants were arrested. The rationale was that if not for the presence of these few Whites, the whole affair wouldn’t have transpired at all. All questions of self-defense were considered moot by the law when the alternative would precipitate further unrest. The mob of illegal alien thugs was thereby officially extended legal immunity but the White kids were locked away for an act of self-defense.

I’m told that some four or five were murdered in jail by thugs seeking vengeance for the collective injuries to “Chicano Pride.” Others never got out as their lives inside became one violent entanglement after another in recurring acts of self-defense. But of course, the system being as prejudicial as it proved itself to be, regarded the victims as perpetrators.
I write this many years after the events in question because it is apparent to me now as an adult that the dynamics which brought on the destruction of my community and the lives of so many of my childhood friends are no longer confined to a small geographical area; they’re moving, crossing county lines and state borders. It’s no longer the story of Paramount—it’s becoming the American story. As such, I plead with you America; do not shirk your responsibility to your people, condemning your posterity to such a pitiable end. Think of your children and your grandchildren and please remember that innocent young girl who suffered so much pain and public indignity, remember Hanna.

Read Full Post »

“10For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.” (Titus 1:12-13)

Though this passage broaches many subjects, one is now more or less ignored, no, suppressed: All political correctness aside, it begs the question — in what possible context might we construe the Apostle’s words so as to avoid calling him a racist? Or better yet — is there any possible way that a modern believer, especially if Caucasian, could say such things and not be labeled a racist and a bigot? Suppose a white minister said such a thing in regard to a local ghetto population without any ethnic specification; regardless of all tender inflections and softening of its delivery, the man would fall in a reductio ad Hitlerum firestorm. And the church would likely make up the vanguard of those calling for his defrocking, excommunication and/ or imprisonment. That the reverend was quoting from scripture would be little justification to the new “social orthodoxy” and by extension we would presume them to stand in condemnation of the Apostle himself.

To begin with, the Apostle treats the Cretans as a genuine and identifiable group of people (this is over and against the modern assertion that ethnicity and race be figments of the imagination) and he proceeds to make generalizations about them as an ethnic group, even going so far as to equate them with animals (viz. “evil brutes”). His collective address and generalization of them flies in the face of evangelical thought this side of the civil rights movement. But that’s just to say that the modern Christian guilt-culture refuses to interact with the world as it is. However, a cursory survey of Calvin, Henry, Kuyper, Luther, the Puritans, et. al., reveals no such egalitarian compunctions. They tend to be quite P.C. free in Sociology as well as Anthropology:

“Now, we see, as in a camp, every troop and band hath his appointed place, so men are placed upon earth, that every people may be content with their bounds, and that among these people every particular person may have his mansion. But though ambition have, oftentimes raged, and many, being incensed with wicked lust, have past their bounds, yet the lust of men hath never brought to pass, but that God hath governed all events from out of his holy sanctuary. For though men, by raging upon earth, do seem to assault heaven, that they may overthrow God’s providence, yet they are enforced, whether they will or no, rather to establish the same. Therefore, let us know that the world is so turned over through divers tumults, that God doth at length bring all things unto the end which he hath appointed.”
(Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 17:26)

“Two things he considered:—[1.] Their oneness, as a reason why they must be scattered: “Behold, the people are one, and they have all one language…it is decreed that they must not be one… The project of some to frame a universal character, in order to a universal language, how desirable soever it may seem, is yet, I think, but a vain thing to attempt; for it is to strive against a divine sentence, by which the languages of the nations will be divided while the world stands.” (Matthew Henry Comm. On Genesis 11)

“The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers…” (Gresham Machen—Christianity and Liberalism)

The fact is that there are certain cultures and yes, even ethnicities which the Christian must recognize as mentally and morally inferior by way of their natural proclivities and predispositions. But at this point someone will claim that I’m speaking the language of Biological Determinism. To which I must respond that all confessionally orthodox believers acknowledge some such form of determinism by way of original sin and federal theology. That is, we know that we’ve all sinned in Adam and as descendants of that federal representative we all now carry in us certain predispositions to sin. Accordingly, we find throughout scripture that different lines of descent maintain their own distinct sinful proclivities. Such was the case with the descendants of Cain, Ham, Lot, Esau, etc. We all have, according to family, tribe and yes, race — our own unique propensities toward sin.

But due to our subtle, yet deep indoctrination in the Jacobin-Marxist culture of self deprecation and White-guilt we see now a radical disparity between sanctioned racism, i.e., against Anglos, and the politically incorrect sort, which is to say against anyone but Anglos (and oriental Asians in some cases). Case in point: The Irish. Their tendency toward rowdiness and alcoholism is fair game for anyone to bring up. Now comparing apples with apples, if I imply that Amerindians are fond of the bottle or state that Blacks universally maintain the highest rates of violent crime in all countries in which they’re found, it would not go nearly so well for me.

It is a patent truism that Germans are viewed as cold, grudge-holding stoics. Similarly, Scandinavians are regarded as self-involved and aloof. Italians are verbose and loud. Scotts are dour. So what? None of said groups seem to have much of a problem with their attendant stereotypes— there are I believe atleast two reasons for this: 1) Caucasians, as a race, share in the general trait of being self-effacing. In the context of Christian Ethics this tendency is easily tempered toward respect for the lawful rights and property of others. Absent the continuum of Christian Ethics, it fosters guilt, introspective morbidity and a societal trend toward every form of misanthropic self-loathing. 2) As a consequence of our own self-effacing disposition we acknowledge the validity of certain tribal generalizations among Caucasians but it is for this same reason that we now avoid generalization of non-white ethnicities— because we recognize how much they dislike it— atleast whenever coming from us. That is to say that our current unwillingness to engage in outward cultural and racial generalization of other groups is precisely because we inwardly generalize them. We know that they aren’t quite like us in regard to self-effacement. It’s the same reason that white liberals laud the urban public schools but take out second mortgages to ensure that their own children never attend such “wonderfully diverse” institutions. Political Correctness with its doctrine of the “universal brotherhood of man” makes hypocrites of us all.

The above scripture also makes use of a phraseology that could land a modern White Christian in jail in many countries for Anti-Semitic hate speech: “…and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth…they are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.” But the current question isn’t so much how “secular” so-called governments appraise Christian doctrine; rather, the issue is how Christians relate to these aspects of biblical social theory. And the answer is that modern Christians reject them and if pressed, the Apostle with them.

But the current view of these things is as previously stated, a relatively new phenomenon in Christendom. Prior to the Civil Rights movement miscegenation and/ or amalgamation of the races was a hallowed taboo of all denominations back of which lies the forgotten biblical doctrines of Kinship and Nationhood (which I will elaborate elsewhere) as aspects of the created order and of the Covenant.

Even if modern Evangelicals would presume to repackage the Apostle’s words so as to make him say the opposite of what is his clear intention, they must still reconcile to themselves the fact that like Feminism, their new multicult social theory was taught us not through the church but singularly through the social deconstruction of Marxist thought. As a matter of uncontested history the world-wide secular Unificationist Movement of the 1850s, 1930s and 1960s, having gained control of the American government, education system, media and entertainment influenced the church toward their leveling sentiments. The American church was thus brought under the collective thrall of this false god, Egalitarianism.

Among the results are the “equal-partnership marriage”, “undocumented-workers rights”, “Black history month”, “Reproductive rights”, the “Pan-American Union”, “affirmative action” and what John Piper calls the “ideal marriage”— a black man and a white woman.

We have now come about so far in this suicidal pathology that while minorities are applauded for creating their own segregated institutions, proclaiming love for their respective peoples, and achieving communal solidarity, Whites are castigated for any inklings of doing likewise. Infact, Anglos are considered reprobate Nazis unless they are redeemed by inordinately promoting non-whites in the workplace, the church, the Government, the Media or what-have-you. This manic deference to “the other” is now a guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario for Caucasians. Even the benign idea that a man desires for his children, as a matter of community and inheritance, to look like his family is now, for Whites, considered an act of abject evil— a veritable hate-crime. This would have come as quite a surprise to Church Fathers such as Cyprian who wrote:

“If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children like to themselves— and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny responds to the parent with like lineaments–how much greater is the gladness in God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the divine eminence of race is announced!” ~ St. Cyprian, church father (Treatise No.10 on Envy and Jealousy)

More importantly, the Apostle says:

“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1Tim.5:8)

“His own” is and always has been taken to be those of one’s extended family, tribe and ethno-nation. He therefore was free to proclaim his unique affinity for his race, saying that he could “wish [himself] accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of [his] brethren, [his] kinsmen according to the flesh.” (Rom. 9:3) Clearly, Paul was unconcerned with being called a bigot or the Hellenic equivalent thereof, because that’s exactly what I’d be called were I to publicly speak such words of my “kinsmen according to the flesh”.

The church must come to its senses in these matters because if left to run its course unobstructed, the new social theory ends in the blending away or expunging of all that made our people, Europeans specifically and Japhethites generally, distinct in God’s created order. Since the origination of the term “genocide”, amalgamation has been recognized as one of its primary vehicles. In the spirit of Nuremburg the 1948 world-wide conference on Genocide unanimously regarded the blurring of national borders between ethnic groups, mass immigration and amalgam to be wholesale forms of ethnic cleansing. The Western world has since amended this view but only in regard to the the Caucasian. Bob Whitaker sums up the new social protocols nicely in what has since been called “Bob’s Mantra”:

Bob’s Mantra:
”Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing racial engineering experiments against my people, white people, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white racists.“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white racist.”

Mr. Whitaker is right of course but the only answer to this modern “White man’s burden” is a return to the candid realism of biblical Sociology and Anthropology.

Read Full Post »