Articles

Kalergi Plan – The Destruction of the WhiteRace: I can longer stand to hear and read the ongoing “beating around the bush” in the public! You hear it constantly in the mainstream public and the alternative media how Merkel and her regime made a mistake, that she has done what she has done due to humanitarian reasons, being incompetent or other such nonsense.

The flooding of our European Continent with non-White “migrants” from Africa and the Middle East, who are disguised as so-called “Refugees”, is not a MISTAKE, a “Humanitarian Act”, or a matter of “Incompetence”, but a precise, strategic political move of a globally organised and intricate occult network, which is implementing and achieving plans that are decades, if not centuries, old.

No one can claim at this point that we are dealing with a conspiracy theory, because this occult network has disclosed itself and has become clear and visible through their own writings and statements. In other words, they have disclosed themselves by their own quill.

In 2010 GermanChancellor Angela Dorothea “Merkel“ (Kasner/Kazmierczak) was awarded with the European Society by the European SocietyCoudenhove Kalergi.

Already in the year 1925 Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi defined the future for a new Europe in his book “Practical Idealism”. His plan: to create and establish a new race by mixing White Europeans, Asians and black Africans.

More here: http://www.renegadetribune.com/angela-merkel-kalergi-plan-destruction-white-race/

North Sentinel Island, located in the Bay of Bengal, between Myanmar and Indonesia, is home to an isolated tribe that has never been colonised or even made contact with. These people are one of the last Stone Age tribes on Earth whose culture has been completely untouched by modern civilization.

Despite the fact that the island formally belongs to India, no one dares to visit it and approach the Sentinelese tribe. The reason is their extreme violence and hostility – anyone who has ever tried to come ashore the island was attacked or even killed: http://themindunleashed.com/2015/07/the-people-of-this-isolated-tribe-kill-anyone-approaching-their-island.html

Not even conservatives argue that France is a distinctive biological and cultural entity that should be conserved. That’s not the way we are supposed to think about white countries. Korea? Yes. Ghana? Pakistan? Paraguay? Fine. Those places, like all other non-white nations, have the right to maintain their identities and ways of life.

And what about conserving white people biologically? They are a small minority of the world population–7 or 8 percent–and some of them are breeding with other groups. But anyone who says maybe we should think about the long-term prospects of white people–kind of like the way we do with the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle–is no longer a conservationist. He’s a white supremacist.

And so there is not one politician–even among the ones who claim to be deeply conservative–who says he wants to conserve the founding stock of this country.

The funny thing about all this is that it’s the Lefties who act as if they had the corner on conservation. They love government power, and they love to boss us around for our own good in the name of the conserving the environment. Why aren’t they all in a flutter about the prospects for white people exactly the way they are in a flutter about the ozone layer? I can see them browbeating us: “Now, you white people have to live over here, and you have to marry among yourselves.” “Remember: it’s for the children.” That’s just the busy-body sort of thing they love.

Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country European.

There is nothing about the idea of United States (, nor other lands settled by or native to Whites) as a nation of Europeans that is inherently a Left-Right type of political question at all. It should be beyond politics, just like conserving the white rhino or keeping Japan Japanese.

The racial mix of the country is not logically implicated at all in the position you take on the size of the government, the welfare state, abortion, the role of women, homosexual marriage, income distribution, foreign policy, public prayer, how you interpret the Constitution, or any other political question.

You can believe in cradle-to-grave welfare or rugged individualism, but be in complete agreement on wanting to keep the country majority-white. Jack London, for example, was very active as a socialist, but was adamantly opposed to a multi-racial America.

So: Why would anyone want to conserve whites as a distinct people, and want them to remain a majority in the United States(, or other lands settled by or native to Whites)? First of all, these questions shouldn’t even have to be answered. If the Navajo were dwindling in numbers or losing their culture, no one would say they didn’t have the right to do something about it. No one would ever ask the Navajo: Why do you care about surviving as a people? Why do you need a homeland? Why not just fade away? If a white person asked those questions it would be the height of racism.

But for white people? It’s the very opposite. The very desire to survive as a distinct people is “racist.”

Europeans created the modern world. Shouldn’t they have the same rights as the tribes of New Guinea: To be left undisturbed?

Survival is the first law, there is no more fundamental instinct than the desire to protect one’s own kind and to want it to flourish.

That’s obvious when we are talking about any group but whites.

The number of Hispanics is growing very quickly in America, and Hispanics are ecstatic about this. It means their language, their culture, their physical type, their heritage, their aspirations are all gaining ground and could eventually dominate the United States. Hispanics want this very much, and they consistently try to change laws and policies to increase their numbers, and benefit their people. This is considered a sign of healthy collective pride.

But if whites tried to delay their dispossession, if whites proposed steps to maintain their majority status, that would be hate and bigotry. Why? More HERE: http://whitegenocideproject.com/white-genocide-in-one-easy-lesson-2/

PROOF: MUSLIMS CELEBRATED TERROR ATTACK IN LONDON: https://www.infowars.com/proof-muslims-celebrated-terror-attack-in-london/

The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms. The problem is especially acute in the Arab world. Consider: Arabs represent 5% of the world’s population and yet produce only 1% of the world’s books, most of them religious. In fact, Spain translates more books into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century. - Sam Harris

Although Muslims often tell critics of Islam to "read the Quran," they are usually unprepared for what happens when their advice is heeded.

An honest translation of Islam's holiest book generally reinforces negative opinion. The fallback is to then claim that the Quran can only be understood in Arabic.

Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent. Unfortunately, for those Muslims craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Quran and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion.

In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that one "must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Quran are committing a logical fallacy. Either the Arabic of the Quran is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker).

Enter the skeptic. While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable?More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all people in the only language that cannot be understood by all people? Even the vast majority of Muslims and their imams do not speak Arabic.

Even more suspicious is that this amazing linguistic “discovery” was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism. In fact, the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Quranic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) perfectly corresponds with the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Quran!

No other world religion claims that knowledge of a particular language is imperative to understanding itself and its holy texts. Neither is the same level of effort required to massage a primary message into palatability. While the Bible is distributed pretty much as is by various Christian groups, for example, it is rare to find a Quran that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages.

An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways. On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the "perfect book" can't be translated and that Allah's perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters. Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same "necessary" chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable).

Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Quran-toting Osama bin Laden was a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Muslims. In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well - a fact that is often ignored by the apologists, who only find Arabic linguistic skills relevant when they are lacking (not that the same pundits have ever been known to care about whether a critic of the Bible speaks Hebrew or Greek).

At this point there is only one avenue of escape for the beleaguered apologist - the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are - ironically enough - accused of taking the Qur'an 'too literally').

It is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are of such significance that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, but even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more. Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn - and susceptible to such horrible "misinterpretation" on an on-going basis?

Really, it isn't hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates. Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics. Neither do they qualify the claim that "Islam is the fastest growing religion" with the caveat that new converts (or the vast majority of existing Muslims) don't understand Islam since they can't read the Quran in Arabic.

Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that the information age is now making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and the contents are highly embarrassing to both Muslim scholars and their faithful flock.

Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is means of self-assurance and saving face with others. thereligionofpeace.com

George writes, “I admire Muslim women and all women who practice the virtue of modesty, whether they choose to cover their hair or not. There are many ways to honour modesty and practices vary culturally in perfectly legitimate ways.”

Unfortunately he is operating under a misapprehension. The Hijab and the Burka and variations of mandatory female coverings have nothing to do with modesty.

The Koranic verse that mandates covering states, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested” (Koran 33:59)

That’s not modesty. The covering is being worn to avoid rape.

The key words here are “distinguished and not molested”. Whom are these women being distinguished from? Women who don’t cover up and can be molested. One Koranic commentator explicitly makes that very point as I discuss in Muslim Rape Culture.

This isn’t modesty. It’s repression and fear. As Robert Spencer points out, the Hijab is accompanied by repression.

Aqsa Parvez’s Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Amina Muse Ali was a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab. Forty women were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab.

There’s an endless list of similar cases. Robert P. George might want to examine the religious freedom he is really defending.

A survey conducted in France in May 2003 found that 77 percent of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups.

We can’t dismiss a number that large as the work of a handful of extremists. And this isn’t taking place in some Third World country. It’s happening in France.

More often the girls were under orders from their fathers and uncles and brothers, and even their male classmates. For the boys, transforming a bluejeaned teen-age sister into a docile and observant “Muslim” virgin was a rite de passage into authority, the fast track to becoming a man, and more important, a Muslim man…. it was also a license for violence.

Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out “Islamic justice.” Sometimes the girls were gang-raped. In 2002, an unveiled Muslim girl in the cite of Vitry-sur-Seine was burned alive by a boy she turned down.

This isn’t modesty.

The Hijab and the Burka are not voluntary and they have nothing to do with modesty. The various Islamic coverings are motivated by fear, shame and abuse. http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/218135/hijab-has-nothing-do-modesty-daniel-greenfield

If you think that immigrants all just started breaking into Europe in 2014, and that the combined powers of Europe were powerless to stop it, then they have truly deceived you.

From time immemorial, European countries have been able to protect their borders from all immigration they did not want. Laws were deliberately put in place, ignored, or undermined, so that border enforcement were overwhelmed.

Perhaps it might interest you to know that in 2008, EU politicians were secretly trying to arrange “free movement of people in Africa and the EU” so that they could flood Europe with 56 million Africans by 2050.

“Free movement” – I just have to lol so hard at that.

The president of Zimbabwe has said many times that his country is not for White people, and the current Liberian constitution states that you can only be a citizen of the country if you are “a Negro or of Negro descent“.

Globalists, the “Free movement” people, and the so-called “anti-racists” don’t care at all about that.

You see, “free movement” means Africans get to keep their countries; Asians keep theirs, and Arabs keep theirs. It means that White majority countries specifically, must allow the third world to pour in.

And the EU rulers were at it again in November 2015 trying to get Africans to flood in, at a time when ordinary Europeans were growing increasingly worried about mass immigration.

They were going to replace the illegal African and Arab immigrants with legal ones – and they were going to pay African countries 1.4 billion Euros to do it, but in the end, the public found out about it.

Don’t trust what the anti-Whites say. Their agenda has not changed, and though they may pretend to speak for the public interest, their goal has always been White genocide. They want to get rid of us with mass immigration and forced “diversity”: http://whitegenocideproject.com/the-migration-crisis-didnt-just-happen-eu-politicians-were-pushing-for-it-in-2008/

Mainstream Media Finally Exposes Elite Pedophile Rings in a Horrifying Episode of Dr Phil: http://www.anonews.co/dr-phil-show/

A NEW HELL FOR WOMEN: Recent immigrants from certain repressive cultures have sometimes brought with them a number of unwelcome traditions from home, such as honour killings. These types of problems tend mainly to target women within the immigrant communities, although this does not make them any less regrettable. Yet there are plenty of problems and imported multicultural tensions that cause suffering among the native population, too.

It’s not entirely coincidental that the first essay I wrote under the pseudonym Fjordman was about rape in Sweden. In no case is there a worse discrepancy between how Sweden likes to present itself to the world and how the country actually is than when it comes to the question of rape. Its carefully cultivated image as a champion of women’s rights runs counter to the real-life fact that Sweden is becoming a hell for many women.

I no longer write about this subject as often as I once did for the simple reason that I’m tired of it. It’s for the same reason that I sometimes write about science and astronomy whenever I’m fed up with Islam: you get tired of digging into darkness sometimes. Sadly, darkness doesn’t always go away just because you don’t want to talk about it.

The problem of rapes in Sweden is worse now than when I first wrote about it almost a decade ago. The 6,320 reported rapes officially registered in that country in 2012 almost certainly do not represent the full number of such crimes that actually took place that year. In 2,880 of these registered rapes, the victims were minors and children aged between 0-17 years old. A surprising 10% of these victims of child rape in Sweden in 2012 were boys. The male percentage of rape victims is smaller for adults, but still higher than it used to be some time ago.

We know that many rape victims do not report the crime, perhaps partly due to shame and fear. If we assume that 25% of the rapes that are committed are reported to the police authorities, the total number of rapes in Sweden in 2012 would actually be over 25,000 rather than 6,320, which was already bad enough. If we assume that just 10% of the committed rapes are actually reported and recorded, an estimate which some researchers operate with, the number of rapes in Sweden in 2012 alone would be a staggering 63,200.

If we use the lower of these two estimates, that amounts to roughly one hundred thousand rape victims in Sweden in just four years. If we use the higher – but still not totally unrealistic – estimate, that would make a quarter of a million Swedish rape victims within a four-year period, and one million in about sixteen years.

By any estimate, we are in all likelihood dealing with hundreds of thousands of rapes per generation, perhaps between half a million and one million. That’s an incredibly large number for a country with just over nine million inhabitants. It resembles war. Tens of thousands of these victims are children.

It is known that some particularly vulnerable victims are raped more than once. We should also recall that of the roughly 4.5 million females in Sweden, some are quite old and therefore statistically unlikely to be targeted by rape. This makes the percentage of young Swedish women being raped all the worse.

A report from 2011 showed a shocking rise in the number of consummated rapes against children under the age of 15. The number rose from a little over 200 in 1995 to about 1,400 in 2008. The curve was then still rising. It is conceivable that some of this could be related to a change in the legal definition of rape, but the increase is so staggering that is highly likely to reflect a very real increase in the number of rapes in Swedish society.

The Danish author Morten Uhrskov Jensen looked into the official numbers and found that in the first seven months of 2013, Stockholm County alone registered 300 – three hundred – reported rapes of minors under the age of 15. That’s more than 500 a year, if the trend continues. This figure was for a single region only, not for the entire country.

Minors under the age of 15 are children by virtually any definition. Moreover, as mentioned previously we always have to take into account that not all such cases are reported. We are thus dealing with in all probability thousands of child rapes annually in Sweden, and by extension tens of thousands per decade.

As Morten Uhrskov Jensen stated, these figures are nothing less than horrific for what used to be a peaceful Scandinavian country. These victims are not just faceless numbers in a statistic; they are very real human beings. Many of them have their lives destroyed. In some cases, the victims have become so traumatized that they’ve taken their own lives. The families of the victims will also be affected by the trauma of such crimes.

One should keep in mind here that this comes on top of various types of sexual harassment and abuse that are not technically classified as rape. Besides, we have countless other cases of non-sexual abuse, assault, robberies, harassment and violence targeting people of both sexes on a regular basis. In combination, this generates an atmosphere of violence and fear.

There were rapes in this region before non-European mass immigration, of course, but not nearly as many as now. In addition to sheer numbers, the brutality has gotten worse, sometimes involving sadistic torture. Gang rapes used to be exceedingly rare in Scandinavia, but sadly, this is no longer the case. As we have just seen above, the number of rapes involving minors and children has also shown a shocking increase.

Rape of men, too, used to be uncommon in this part of the world. Not anymore. A 17-year-old boy reported being gang raped by several men in the town of Växjö in southern Sweden. In 2012, 132 men in Sweden reported being raped. Once more, we have to assume that quite a few people don’t file a report at all. The humiliation, shame and stigma attached to being a male rape victim are presumably at least as strong as for female victims.

The Swedish mass media and political elites are very careful not to suggest any connection between these rapes and mass immigration from Third World countries. Yet there is every reason to suspect that such a connection exists. We know from other Western European countries that immigrants from certain regions and cultures, particularly from the Islamic world and Africa, are disproportionately represented as perpetrators in rape cases.

In Britain, especially in English cities, a disturbing number of cases have been revealed in which Muslim men prey on girls, some of them as young as ten years old, drug them and sexually abuse them. Most of their young victims are native white girls, but occasionally they will even prey on non-Muslim girls from other immigrant communities. British authorities have been shamefully slow and hesitant in dealing with these widespread child rapes. Yet at the very least, some British newspapers and magazines will occasionally write about this subject in plain words. In Sweden, the media systematically sweep the ethnic identity of such criminals under the rug. 

Eva Agnete Selsing wonders how the “hypocritical” Swedish political and media elites can sleep at night, knowing fully well what kind of nightmare of violence and street crime they are pushing on their own people. Her conclusion is that “If your actions lead to violence, abuse, threats, repression and social control of your fellow citizens (who have never sought the reality that you have put them in), and you refuse to relate to this, then you are an evil person. And the evil empire consists of human beings.”

Perhaps Swedish authorities should worry more about the incredibly large number of rapes in their own country, and less about transsexuals in Serbia or gay adoption rights in Russia. More here: https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/swedens-muslim-rape-epidemic-a-new-hell-for-women/

After college, two developments resulted in a gradual shift in my politics and my understanding of the world: First, I lived abroad in a non-European country for many years, and later I attended graduate school back in the States. Living abroad had the paradoxical effect of both awaking in me a nationalist consciousness while further committing me to a race-blind and egalitarian view of the world. Living abroad in a country that was racially homogeneous, I learned that one could not define oneself for the world: One is inevitably defined by others. No matter how well one learns a foreign language or becomes familiar with a foreign culture, in a highly homogeneous country, you are always viewed as an outsider. I never considered myself particularly patriotic or nationalistic, but being relentlessly treated as an outsider sparked an awareness of, and pride in, being American.

At the same time, having mastered the local language and culture, I felt I should be treated as a local. After all, wasn’t that consistent with what I had been taught and believed my entire life? Moving to America, learning English and following local American customs turned everyone—from all races, ethnicities and cultures—into Americans, didn’t it? That was the basis of the Proposition Nation of which I was a part, and in which I wholeheartedly believed. Why was the opposite not true for an American abroad? On balance, however, I was convinced that we Americans had it right: Everyone should be able to become a member of any nation. Thus, my heightened sense of American identity was accompanied by a doubling down on my belief in the superiority of assimilation, race-blindness, and egalitarianism.

Graduate school back in the States was my first attempt at a somewhat systematic study of economics, and led me to rethink my previously left-leaning politics on questions of labor and class. As I suspect it is with many liberals, it was ignorance of economics that had enabled me to support left-wing policies. Reading and thinking about incentive structures, the morality of redistribution, systems that were more conducive to human freedom and flourishing, and the complexity of economic systems, I moved towards a free-market, free-trade, capitalist view of economics, although not, I should say, due to any such bias among my professors.

This shift in my economic thinking combined with a race-blind, individualistic view of cultural issues and my nascent patriotic bent resulting from my sojourn abroad to bring me mainstream, National Review-style conservatism. I immersed myself in the journals and magazines of the mainstream conservative and libertarian movement. While opening my mind to different points of view on cultural issues that I had never really thought through—abortion, guns, school choice—my encounter with mainstream conservatism did nothing to shake my egalitarian views on race or my belief in the Proposition Nation. And why would it have? No group is more steadfast in its faith in race-blindness, egalitarianism, and anti-racism than the mainstream conservative journals and think-tanks.

When 9/11 occurred, I initially supported the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq, and agreed with the neo-conservative premise that the United States should be spreading democracy. Ultimately, the ideological battles and polemics over the Iraq War in the conservative journals made me aware that there was a radically different political point of view out there which was critical of the conservative movement, but from a position further to the right. It was an odd and disconcerting philosophy to me, because it didn’t fit in with the standard taxonomy of Right and Left. I did not initially seek out that strain of thinking, but I knew that it was out there, and that it was associated with shady and disreputable labels like “isolationist,” “populist,” “traditionalist,” “agrarian,” and “racist.” Given my politics, I had a hard time understanding how a group that was anti-war, anti-free trade, anti-free market, anti-egalitarian, and was vocal on certain issues traditionally associated (so I believed) with the Left—such as environmental protection—could be considered of the Right.

I ordered an issue of The American Conservative that included an in-depth article on environmentalism and animal welfare. This was in the early days of that publication, when it was still very much Pat Buchanan’s magazine. I eventually subscribed and, from there, immersed myself in paleo-conservatism. I encountered thinkers who were willing to question the Enlightenment, question egalitarianism, and essentially engage in a mode of thinking that was more open than anything on the mainstream Left or Right. They didn’t care about ideological labels or litmus tests, and would write about any issue—including race—with a fearless attitude, free of platitudes.

Eventually, my faith in racial equality became untenable. I associate this shift in my thinking with a particular passage in Pat Buchanan’s The Death of the West or State of Emergency (I no longer recall which) in which he critiqued the concept of the Proposition Nation. He argued that America was no different than any other nation. Merely holding certain political tenets did not make one an American. If that were sufficient, why did anyone need to come here at all? America, Buchanan wrote, was created by a particular people, in a particular place, under particular circumstances. No other people could have created it, and no other people would be able to sustain it. I stopped reading, looked up from the page, and said to myself: “He’s right.”

Mr. Buchanan is far less racially explicit in his thinking than many people on the alternative, dissident right, and it may be that the passage was not as starkly laid out as I remember. Nevertheless, I mark that moment as the exact point at which I abandoned racial egalitarian beliefs. Around the same time that I was reading Mr. Buchanan’s books, unsurprisingly, I found my way to VDare and American Renaissance, and to writers such as Steve Sailer, Peter Brimelow, Jared Taylor, Lawrence Auster, and other dissident thinkers.

Once I became willing to look at the evidence and science concerning race, to then analyze nearly any issue through the lens of race and biology exposed the wrongheadedness of the mainstream explanations, both Left and Right. If racial differences were a matter of biological nature, was it not morally wrong—even evil—to teach people that disparate outcomes in crime, education, test scores, even in such innocuous things as hobbies and cultural activities, were the result of racism and intentional exclusion? Such teachings incited hatred, despair, and misguided resentment in people on the basis of falsehoods. Only honesty about racial differences can result in effective policies and peace among peoples.

If there is any lesson I would draw from my own experience, it is that all mainstream American politics are essentially liberal in their values: classical liberal ideas are so pervasive in American culture that it is difficult to see beyond them, even for people who consider themselves conservative. People of all political views are fundamentally informed by liberal ideology. What mainstream conservatism conserves is simply an older form of liberalism. This is unsurprising. The American project traces its ideological sources to Locke, Smith, Montesquieu and other classical liberal thinkers. Almost all American political ideologies derived from that starting point. American “conservatism” was, in its assumptions and basic tenets, a species of liberalism. Its economics is classical liberal economics. Egalitarianism, which is a cornerstone of mainstream conservatism, derives from classical liberalism. Siding with race realism and the alternative right requires escaping from the liberal assumptions underlying almost all American political thought.

My gradual—then sudden—journey to the alternative right is likely a familiar one, particularly to those of a certain generation. Today, the younger generation can reach an accurate understanding on race without the convoluted path I followed. More here: https://www.amren.com/features/2017/03/how-i-saw-the-light-race-red-pill/

“I define intuition as the subtle knowing without ever having any idea why you know it,” explains Sophy Burnham, bestselling author of The Art of Intuition. “It’s different from thinking, it’s different from logic or analysis … It’s a knowing without knowing.”

It’s unconscious reasoning, the guidance that compels you to turn left when all signs may be pointing right. It’s often the whisper inside that can lead you to the best results possible, if you will just learn to let go and give it a chance.

Intuition is commonly associated with New Age mysticism or a metaphysical way of thinking, but it doesn’t have to be so. Our intuition was here long before anyone even gave a word to it, and it will be here long after other fad words expire.

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

~ Albert Einstein

Via - www.HeartCenteredRebalancing.com

 http://themindunleashed.org/2014/04/7-ways-better-listen-intuition.html

On Radio Derb recently I have been promoting a theme of “academic nationalism.” Higher education, I have argued, is a precious resource; and our own citizens should have first call on it.

As I observed in the February 17th podcast:

It’s not as if the universities who admit all these foreign students are doing it from high morality and a sincere desire to improve the world. They’re doing it for money: foreign students pay full tuition. It’s not an open-hearted spirit of national generosity: it’s a cash racket.

So there’s another action point on immigration for you, Mr President: a ceiling on student visas. And here’s a slogan to go with it: “American schools for American citizens!”

I enlarged on this theme March 17th, commenting on an article in The Economist’s bimonthly supplement about Chinese students at the University of Iowa:

The Chinese students are so numerous now, they feel no need to engage with local Americans, they just hang out with each other. The rich ones are very rich, way richer than the rubes of Iowa City, and they flaunt it. Cheating is epidemic, with a whole industry in China supplying academic papers.

Here’s a different angle on the theme of academic nationalism.

A reader sent me this story from CNN about a New Jersey teenager who has been accepted at all eight Ivy League universities.

Ifeoma White-Thorpe said she was shaking when she got the eighth acceptance letter.

“I was like, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, like this might be eight out of eight and I clicked it and it said ‘Congratulations’ and I was like oh my goodness!” White-Thorpe told CNN affiliate WABC-TV.

White-Thorpe, a senior and student government president at Morris Hills High School in Rockaway, has to choose between Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Dartmouth and Brown.

She wants to study biology and pursue a career in global health.

This doesn’t happen often, the CNN story tells us.

Students getting into all of the Ivies is a monumental feat, but it’s happened to a handful of teens over the past couple of years — Kwasi Enin in 2014, Harold Ekeh in 2015 and Augusta Uwamanzu-Nna and Kelly Hyles last year.

These are all black kids who excel in science subjects. As desperate as universities are to admit black students, they are double desperate to admit blacks pursuing STEM subjects.

I don’t think it is any very cynical asperity on my part to assume that this fully explains the fact of all five named students being black, a thing that would otherwise be wildly improbable. (With only one American resident in eight black, the chance of five picked at random all being black is one in 32,768, about 0.003 percent.)

Note further that none of the five has American slave ancestry. All are first- or second-generation immigrants: four from West Africa, one from Guyana.

I’m not going to feign indignation on behalf of black Americans, who in my opinion get far too many breaks, favors and preferences: http://www.vdare.com/posts/academic-nationalism-for-black-americans