Archive for the ‘ABC’s & Cultural Context’ Category

WHAT WOULD FREUD SAY?

Monday, June 19th, 2017

Note (10JUL2017): As though the world required more confirmation of the semi-psychotic state into which these United States of America have degenerated, the U.S. Army reportedly issued new instructions concerning so-called trans-gender personnel. Normal females in the context of a shower-room simply should ignore an abnormal, naked male characterizing himself as “trans-gender”. Those who are religious might view this blatant denial of reality as spitting into the eye of God. Those who are less religious might view it as poking a finger into the eye of Mother Nature. Whatever the case, reality is reality, and perversion is perversion.

Note (03JUL2017): Tomorrow is Independence Day. Independence from what? In 1776, from the British Crown. Today, from social sanity. The following posting offers a commentary on but one aspect of the semi-psychotic state into which this land of the increasingly enslaved and home of the increasingly timid has become.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

“If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” -Camille Paglia (b. 1947)

Radical Feminism: A movement demanding a restructuring of society, so that male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

One element amid the decline of these United States of America has been the rise of “Radical Feminism” devolving into that which might be called “Radical Maternalism”. What is “Radical Maternalism”?

Radical Maternalism: The infecting of normal maternalism with a combination of “Radical Feminism” and perverted “humanitarianism”.

“What fools these mortals be.” -Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC-65 AD)

Envy
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the founder of psychoanalysis may have been off the mark with his non-scientific theories of mental activity, but he was close to the truth in many of his phenomenological descriptions thereof. One of those descriptions addressed human females’ envy of the male sexual organ.

Freud’s explanation revolved around anxiety, often unconscious, among little girls elicited by their father’s manliness, which seemed, even unseen, as dangerously gigantic — capable of ripping them apart. As little boys identify with their father’s organ and, thereby, with their father, given their anxiety little girls identify with their mothers, who as they do lack the frightening member.

Recent trends among many American women give credit to Freud’s observation. Examples?

“And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolk, nor of his friends.” -First Kings 16:11 (King James Bible)

Zippers. Traditionally, women’s slacks had their zippers on the side; thereby, maintaining a smooth and pleasing frontal line. Then, the zipper on women’s slacks migrated to the front to become a “fly” as on men’s slacks; thereby, disrupting that line. What’s the point? Biologically, women do not have the anatomical equipment to require or even make use of a “fly”.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” -George Orwell

Another example? Grammatically, the disappearance of the feminine among nouns; for example, aviatrix and executrix. Even more to the point, the use of the plural pronoun in the third person when its antecedent is singular.

These examples may seem trivial to some. They are not! Their inefficiency symbolizes a confused and conflicted society in decline and on fire.

The War Against Men
“To accuse is to smear.” -Saying

The Radical Maternalists have enjoyed success while the nation suffers failure. They have declared a War Against Men. One of their most potent weapons has been the accusation of sexual harassment. Its mere suggestion forces American men, now emasculated, to cringe — successful companies to disintegrate.

A lone woman, even a known prostitute, accuses; sometimes years after the alleged act. She offers no objective evidence. The accused male is guilty with no way to prove himself innocent. Be he an executive, he is fired or suspended, at best. Be he a student, he is expelled, prevented from even confronting his accuser. Be he key-man to a commercial enterprise, it suffers substantial financial reversal.

Has the accused with the been found guilty in a court of law? No. Has the accused been arrested? No. Has a criminal charge been brought against him? No. His career, nevertheless, is ruined, and his personal life destroyed. All because a lone woman accused him without objective evidence. His possession of a penetrating sexual organ is sufficient.

“Wait!” you say. “After she made her accusation public, other women made the same accusation.”

So? None produced objective evidence. The only confirmation was hearsay.

The following is a true story:
Some years ago, a woman working in an office-building began to complain of generalized itching upon arriving at work. Her complaint became a public accusation that the building was infested with some unknown, unseen vermin and that the callous owners, men of course, had been indifferent to her alleged plight. Immediately, thereafter, her complaint spread among other women. An expert’s investigation of the building revealed nothing. A dermatologist’s examination of the women revealed nothing. Asked for his opinion, a psychiatrist labelled the accusations a sign of “mass hysteria”. The accusing women were advised of his professional opinion. Their complaints faded into a past, for them, best forgotten.

PART TWO

Humanitarianism
Humanitarianism n.: Concern for human welfare. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

A definition reflecting a noble sentiment, indeed. The question arises, however, What form does that “concern” take operationally in terms of actual behavior?

Sadly, “humanitarianism” has become a self-righteous obscenity camouflaging a multitude of sins. Instead of promoting the greatest good for substantially the greatest number, it has degenerated into sacrificing the whole in order to serve a part — often an undeserving part; even a minuscule, undeserving part.

In the name of “humanitarianism, for example, the disestablishmentarians concocted a euphemism for a particular form of sexual perversion; namely, “trans-gender”. Then, to protect the perverts who cloaked themselves in that euphemism, less 0.1% of the population, they destroyed a millenia-old history of basic morality, commonplace decency, and personal privacy of the most intimate kind; infecting even the military. As for ostensibly protecting children characterizing themselves of the opposite sex, the majority of such children revert to normalcy by the time of their adolescence. Beware especially of those claiming to generate social change in order to “protect the children”!

Too often, abstract, idiosyncratic, misguided ideologies without scientific basis promoting outrages of semi-psychotic proportions in the name of so-called humanitarianism and social justice become the basis for law. Currently, we are witnessing such madness sweep the country.

“Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” -Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Normal maternalism places mercy before justice. Normal paternalism places justice before mercy. Combined with moderation, prudence, and charity, together they generate healthy humanitarianism.

In these United States, no longer! The Radical Maternalists and their sycophantic supporters on The Left have accused men of waging a so-called War Against Women. They claim that, in the name of their version of humanitarianism, women must be elevated economically, politically, and socially based upon their sex not upon their abilities.

The strategy is to emasculate men, beginning with little boys in kindergarten. In schools across the nation, both public and private, feminine sympathy has replaced masculine honor. Gone is accepting individual responsibility for one’s own self in favor of shifting collective responsibility to others. Gone is heroic strength among men in their righteous pursuit of riches in favor of cowardly stealth masking perverse deception and treachery. Gone is grace among women in their righteous and proud pursuit of feminine honor in favor of disgrace in a lustful pursuit of dishonor and an impossible pursuit of manhood.

Consequences
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” -Yogi Berra (1925-2015)

B = f(x) under c. Science tells us, “Behavior is a function of its consequences in a given context.”

Ideologues of The Left would have us believe that theory trumps practice. Witness the continued resurrection of Marxism after the collapse of the Soviet Union via messengers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (b. 1941), frighteningly admired by an indoctrinated and misguided American youth. Perhaps, spending a month in the socialist reality of Venezuela might make them realize the actual consequences of “free-this” and “free-that” really mean.

“For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.” – Will Durant (1885-1981)

The rise of Radical Maternalism concurrent with the decline of the nation is no coïncidence. Can women lead a nation? Yes, consider Queen Elizabeth I and Prime Ministeress Thatcher of England and Czarina Catherine the Great of Russia. Should women be given equal opportunity under equal circumstances? Yes. Should women or minorities, for that matter, be given unequal advancement in order to achieve equal outcome? Consider the consequences.

Men and women are not equal and never will be; propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. From top to bottom — inside and outside, they differ biologically in anatomy and physiology. To pretend otherwise is to travel the Path to Perdition, as is Western civilization currently. Conversely, to give each his rightful due is to travel the Road to Righteousness, a route long departed.

Ultimately, however, reality wins. So it will be in these United States; ideologues of both Left and Right notwithstanding. Given current trends, it will be ugly. What then? The aftermath promises to be frightening.

There is a constructive alternative rarely mentioned, if ever. Biobehavioral Science. Shall we employ it? What’s your bet?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

 

A SEMI-PSYCHOTIC SOCIETY

Monday, February 27th, 2017

Note (13MAR2017): As the nation descends into a semi-psychotic depravity promoted by disestablishmentarians, have you wondered what is the primary controlling factor governing the support of such societal insanity by more than one hundred, major corporations? What reïnforces their corporate behavior? A clue resides in the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Psychosis n.: A term formerly applied to any mental disorder now generally restricted to those disturbances of such magnitude that there is personality disintegration and loss of contact with reality. -Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary

Can it not be said that the personality of a society, if you will, originates in its biology and presents itself as its culture? Compare, for example, the African Negroid pygmy with the Scandinavian Euro-Caucasian.

Be such the case, is not the personality of these United States of America, as we have known them, disintegrating? Is not the nation, as a whole, losing contact with reality?

Consider demographics. Has not the exponential increase in racial and ethnic diversity of the nation since 1965 ignited a fire of divisiveness that is disintegrating the prior biological and cultural persona of the nation?

See “Diversity”.

Consider sexual identity. Is not redefining sexual identity no longer as a biologically determined, physical characteristic but as a mentally driven, verbal statement a sign of having lost contact with reality?

Is it any wonder that the Chinese now characterize these United States as a nation in terminal decline? What possible justification can support the American madness? Humanitarianism?

[Note: The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 proved to be one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 20th-century, directly leading to the “multi-culturalism” of the early 21st. The original legislation sponsored by two Democrats called for admission based upon skills. It fell victim to Rep. Michael Feighan (D-OH), who called for admission based upon “family-reunification”. Ironically, anti-immigrant Feighan wrongly believed that the consequence of the change would be to admit fewer immigrants who were not Euro-Caucasians. Instead, the consequence was admission of more — neither Euro-Caucasoid nor skilled.

Both LBJ and Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (1932-2009), younger brother of the late President, supported the change. Kennedy promised that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. He lied.

Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than 1,000,000. He also claimed wrongly that few would be from Asia. -End of Note]

Humanitarianism n.: Concern for human welfare. -Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” -Samuel Adams (1722-1803); essay in The Public Advertiser, c.1749

Humanitarianism has become a self-righteous obscenity camouflaging a multitude of sins. Instead of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number, it has degenerated into sacrificing the whole in order to serve a part, often an undeserving part; even a minuscule, undeserving part.

In the name of “humanitarianism”, while invoking so-called rights that never have existed nor should exist, the disestablishmentarians have concocted a euphemism for a particular form of sexual perversion; namely, “trans-gender”. Then, to protect the perverts who cloaked themselves in that euphemism, less than one-tenth of 1% of the population, the disestablishmentarians are destroying a millenia-old history of basic morality, commonplace decency, and personal privacy of the most intimate kind.

As for ostensibly protecting children characterizing themselves of the opposite sex, the majority of such children revert to normalcy by the time of their adolescence. Beware of those subverting society in the name of “protecting the children”.

The false claim of “trans-gender”as a sexual identity is based upon subjective, cognitively-modulated mental activity. True sexual identity is based upon objective, genetically-determined physical attributes.

PART TWO

The issue is biological not psychological. To deny this fact is to deny reality; which, in turn, furthers this nation on fire in its descent into semi-psychosis — exactly that which the disestablishmentarians desire . Abstract, idiosyncratic, misguided ideologies promoting outrages of semi-psychotic proportions in the name of so-called social justice subvert any sound, rational basis for law, policy, and social intercourse.

Whence comes the recent clamor for legitimizing the illegitimate? From those who ascribe to traditional American ideals and values? From those who ascribe to written Judeo-Christian doctrine? From those who ascribe to the Constitution of the United States of America as written?

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

No. The clamor comes from those atheistic and agnostic secular-relativists who, striving for power, distort history and destroy not only traditional American ideals and values but all of Western civilization. Paradoxically, many are themselves self-loathing Euro-Caucasians whose own biological and cultural heritage they desire to destroy.

Common sense bears witness that any society expecting to survive over generations must provide some format by which to bear and rear children. For millennia, the format worldwide had been families consisting of legal unions sanctioned by government between men and women. Persons violating that format typically received severe condemnation; often ostracism from the rest of society; sometimes death.

Consider the plight of the American Negro as a tragic paradigm. The politicians and bureaucrats, especially the Democrats, intentionally have turned Negroes into serfs dependent upon Big Government. They’ve destroyed the Negroid sub-culture by destroying the Negroid family. Eighty-percent of Negroid births is out-of-wedlock. What future have these children historically considered bastards?

Among American Euro-Caucasians, 38% of births is illegitimate. In 1950, 2% was.

What more effective way to wreck traditional Americana than to destroy the traditional American family? What more effective way to destroy the American family than to abandon common decency in favor of a depravity rarely witnessed before in human history, if ever?

The goal? To have replaced current, concrete reality with an abstract, ill-conceived, quasi-Marxist utopia impossible to achieve.

This declining nation now on fire faces an uncertain and unsettling future. As we descend into the pit of moral anarchy, let us remember that which becomes our ultimate destination — the Hell of tyranny.

Biobehavioral Science tells us that behavior has its consequences. The response of that which remains of a sane society to counter the current attack will determine the ultimate consequences of our behavior as individuals and as a society.

So, what best to do and how to do it? Are there answers to those two questions? Fortunately, yes.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

AMUSING?

Monday, March 28th, 2016

NOTE (17APR2016): Some claim, as some always have claimed, that we are nearing the end of days. Could it be true? Nuclear war? Plague?
     Let us not forget that behavior is a function of context and consequences. Consider the following citation from the Scriptures, worth reading even for atheists:
“Woe unto the wicked! It shall be ill with him;
For the work of his hands shall be done to him.” -Isaiah 3:11

“An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” -Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975)

Mightn’t it be amusing — for the enemies of the West, that is? Amusing to witness Euro-Caucasians in Europe and North America willingly — nay, gleefully — surrender their territory, their resources, their wealth, their culture, and even their very biology to other socio-biological groups.

A Mortal Wound
Too young to remember 1965? Well, it was the year that the Democrats led by President Lyndon B. Johnson and Senator “Teddy” Kennedy drove the stake of diversity through the heart of that which had been a Christian nation for Euro-Caucasians using the gambit of “family reünification”. The legislation for “family-reunification” proved to be one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 20th-century, directly leading to the “multi-culturalism” of the early 21st.

Initially, Johnson, who could lie with abandon — think Tonkin Gulf, wanted to link increased immigration to vocational skills. A congressman from Ohio, Robert Sweeney, balked; affrighted that it would allow too many, non-European immigrants. He persuaded Johnson to link increased immigration to reüniting families, believing wrongly that doing so would reduce the number of such immigrants; given the relatively small, non-European percentage of the American population at the time.

With the deal done, both Johnson and Kennedy promised that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. They lied!

Not only was the late-Senator an adulterer, a drunkard, and a murderer but a liar. Excellent qualifications for modern, American politicians. Think Bill and Hillary.

In this case, Kennedy lied when he claimed, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

In this case, Johnson lied when he claimed, “This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.”

Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000.  Thirty years later, it was more than one million.  Kennedy also claimed falsely that few would be from Asia. Today, the fastest growing demographic groups are from Asia.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

Even to remind anyone of this sordid piece of history is to elicit rage among those who deny truth in the name of ideology; especially younger Americans, the so-called Millenials. An argument, nevertheless, can be made that Johnson, Kennedy, and many of their supporters understood that the opposite of that which they promised would be the case; that they understood that most of the immigrants would be poor and uneducated; and that, once citizens, these immigrants were likely to vote Democratic as such groups tend to do.

In essence, an argument can be made that, in the long term, the Democrats were jeopardizing the entire Euro-Caucasoid heritage of these United States of America in exchange for votes to win a few elections in the short term. Unfashionable as it may be in this age of quasi-Marxist egalitarianism, some Americans, especially older ones, believe that the overwhelming, electoral victory of the Democrats in 1965 led the incipient demise of their nation within two generations. The overwhelming election of Barack Hussein Obama II in 2008 didn’t help much either.

So, let’s briefly mention the consequences of economic, political, and sociological laws and regulations since 1965. A dispossessed majority. Divisiveness linked to diversity. Deepening debt. Expanding government. Lawyerism. Serial military defeats. Abominable social degradation never witnessed previously in history. A nation in decline. A nation on fire. Mightn’t it be amusing for the enemies of the West to witness these events?

PART TWO

The Willingly Dispossessed Majority

The Mulatto of Mohammedan heritage currently occupying the White House to the cheers of those whom he joyfully would destroy — recall his twenty years under the tutelage of the Negroid, pastoral demagogue, Jeremiah Wright shouting “God damn America!” — nominates one Merrick Garland (b. 1952) to replace Antonin Scalia (1936-1016) as a justice on the United States Supreme Court, the most powerful court the world ever has witnessed — a power opposed by the anti-Federalists in1787. Who is this lawyer, Garland? What does he represent?

Garland is not a Euro-Caucasian. He is a Semitic-Caucasian. He is not Christian. He is Jewish.

“The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.” -President John Adams (1725-1836)

Nothing wrong with being Jewish, but the pros and cons of being Jewish aren’t the point. The point is of the current, eight justices on the Court, three already are Jews of The Left with one of the three a known lesbian. Garland would make four Jews out of nine justices. There sits not a single Protestant, male, Euro-Caucasian, the group that founded this nation.

As a religious group, Jews represent less than 2% of the American population. Protestants represent 50% of the population.

Politically, Garland is not as much of The Left as the current, three, Jewish justices, nor is he classically conservative. In fact, he is neo-liberal “progressive” with a long history of rendering decisions siding with Big Labor against Small Business. Clearly, he is no Antonin Scalia. His confirmation to the Court would symbolize the further success of the disestablishmentarians within these United States — success that accelerated with Earl Warren’s Court in the 1950s and 1960s.

See “The Disestablishmentarians”.

Biology and Behavior
It’s the fashion these days to preach falsely that there are no differences among the races and sub-races. Really? No difference between the average Scandinavian and the average African pygmy? Mightn’t one beg to differ?

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell

Once again, let us note that telling the truth has become a dangerous act. Let us, nevertheless, also note that Science has documented that 70% of the variance in human behavior is determined biologically.

What determines basic biology? Genetics. Different races and sub-races are the consequence of different genomes among them.

No, that fact does not fit the current, oppressive fashion of quasi-Marxist, egalitarian ideology, but it is reality. Let’s not forget that Mother Nature cares not one whit about ideology — only about reality.

Ignorant and Indoctrinated
“Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.” -Petronius (1st-century A.D.)

Pity those so-called Millenials. As a group, ignorant and indoctrinated; yet, representing the American future. They are the sorrowful product of the blathering of quasi-Marxist academics, the policies of egalitarian bureaucrats, and the propagandizing of moguls in Big Media. They know little of civics or history, let alone mathematics and science.

“Every nation has the government for which it is fit.” -Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)

The Millenials actually view the old Judeo-Bolshevik, “Bernie” Sanders as offering something new, wonderful, and spiritually liberating instead of that which he really offers — something as old as Karl Marx, as awful as contemporary Venezuela, and as homicidally tyrannical as Mao and Stalin. They live in a world of virtual, digital reality divorced from actual, analog reality. No, their uninformed and misguided behavior may not be their fault, but it is their responsibility. It has its consequences.

PART THREE

An Alternative

Is there not an alternative? If so, what be it?

The four, secular cornerstones of society are government, law, education, and medical delivery. The alternative to the current trend is a society in which these four cornerstones reflect a revised constitution, traditional American ideals and values, and the guidelines of the Scientific Method — namely, specificity, objectivity, and accountability.

Specificity n.: defining events in a way that differentiates those events from other events that may be similar but not identical.
Objectivity n.: referring to events that are observable and measurable, either directly or indirectly; and
Accountability n.: observing and measuring events in a way that is verifiable and can be made public.

Heretofore, these three, simple guidelines have been an anathema to most politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers. It need not be so.

Context and Consequences

Science says, “Behavior occurs in a context and has its consequences. Context and consequences!”

Given the current context, the behavioral trends therein, and the consequences therefrom, we can hope for the best whilst expecting the worst. Whatever the case may be, some will win, and some will lose. Upon whom would you bet to win?

The Christian Euro-Caucasians who’ve demonstrated a relish for their own disenfranchisement and demise? (See “White Supremacy”. )

The Negroes who’ve honed demanding, protesting, and rioting instead of merit to a fine edge? (See “Truth & Consequences”. )

The Mohammedans wedded to a theological doctrine almost a thousand years behind the times and engaged in that which they call a “Silent Invasion” of these United States and a not-so-silent invasion of Europe? (See “Americans?”. )

The Mexicans whose own country represents an exercise in making the least of the most and who are engaged in that which they call “La Reconquista”? (See “Diversity”. )

The Jews? Recall the following, old joke: Put two Jews into a room alone. What do you get? Three opinions.

The Jews of The Left have prospered and expressed their gratitude by undermining the foundation of this nation that allowed them entry by their promoting that which they call “social justice” — think George Soros?

The Jews of The Right who also have prospered but fragmented into “neo-cons” who never met a war that they didn’t like and classical liberals who have shown themselves to be almost impotent in their battle against their landsmen of The Left and the “neo-cons? (See “The Jewish Question”. )

Ultimate Victors

So, in the end, be the end other than total destruction by nuclear war or plague, who will win? Who will rule?

The Asians, primarily the Orientals? Possibly. Don’t scoff.

Don’t the Orientals now represent the fastest growing demographic population in this nation divided by diversity? Aren’t they more intelligent than every other group except the Jews? Aren’t they more industrious? Aren’t they better educated in subjects that matter versus, say, “Black Studies” or “Women’s Studies”? Aren’t they family-oriented in a patriarchal structure amidst a nation where whoring and bastardy have become virtues to be praised in the media and supported by an enslaving government?

There are substantial, biological differences among the races, egalitarian propaganda notwithstanding. Ask any physician about race-related diseases, such as sickle cell anemia.

So, how will this profound economic, political, and sociological saga end? However it ends, context, biological as well as environmental, and consequences following actions will tell the tale. Ideology, will not.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

SAVING THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Monday, September 14th, 2015

Note (28SEP2015): Points to ponder:
1) In terms of commercial competitiveness, these United States of America rank 32nd out of 34 developed countries. –Wall Street Journal, 28SEP2015, p.A16.
2) By 2055, Euro-Caucasians will comprise only 46% of the American population and 31% by 2065, having fallen from 62% today. –Wall Street Journal, 28SEP2015, p.A2.

“God watches out for little children, fools, drunks and the United States of America.” -Otto von Bismark (1815-1898)

Is He still? Our nation has become a nation on fire, consuming itself in the divisiveness of diversity. The Chinese have characterized us as a “nation in terminal decline”. Terminal decline? Terminal, indeed! Alas, could the Chinese be correct?

With regard to nations in decline, Europe, especially Western Europe, is leading the way. No surprise. Forty-five years ago, Jean Raspail predicted it in his dramatic narrative entitled The Camp of the Saints.

Some years ago, the King of Morocco boasted that the Mohammedans would reconquer Europe through the womb. Today, his boast is coming true, paradoxically applauded by the self-loathing victims of the unarmed invasion from Africa and the Middle East.

So, what of these United States of America? Did someone, years ago, predict the current fate that a now apathetic, passive, indifferent, American people — poisoned by that which might be called Radical Maternalism — would bring upon itself? Yes. His name? Adolf Hitler.

In 1937, Hitler held a secret meeting attended by selected leaders of his Nazi Party and officers of his general staff. He presented his vision for the world. No, Germany would not rule the world; only continental Europe while occupying Russia or, at least the eastern part thereof. The British Empire would remain intact to maintain international stability. Japan would control the Orient. These United States would control the Western Hemisphere — temporarily.

Why temporarily? Because the heterogeneity of our population, even then, would undermine this great nation — sapping its strength, wounding its will, and paralyzing its power. Who would save us from ourselves?

In the Koran, Mohammed himself, relating the words of the Archangel Gabriel, described the futility of attempting to save another’s soul from himself. Mohammed was correct. No one else can save us Americans from ourselves.

Was Bismark also correct? Might God save us from ourselves once again. If so, how?

During the Long Peace (aka/the “Cold War”), this nation kept the erstwhile Soviets at bay not because we were so competent — think Korea then Vietnam — but because they were so incompetent. The Soviet Union destroyed itself when President Reagan drove a stake through its evil heart. Why would God save such a brutal, atheistic tyranny, anyway?

Today, Barack Hussein Obama II is provoking Russia as best he can, believing that Vladimir Putin is in no position to wage war against us. Untrue! The issue is not the Russian position but the Russian will.

Putin might taunt us, but would he risk destroying Mother Russia in a worldwide nuclear conflagration? A predecessor, Brezhnev, would not even when facing a weak and incompetent Carter — nor will Putin, now facing Obama. Why should he? Obama, hell-bent on destroying “White America”, will be doing it for him. In the long term, a “Black America” or a “Colored America” will be no match for an increasingly reïnvigorated Russia; especially a Russia in an alliance with China, no matter how uneasy.

More immediately, though, who remains to bring down these United States of America? The Chinese alone?

Admittedly, the Chinese are a proud people and rightly so. Ironically, the self-loathing ideologues of The Left here in these United States derogatorily would call them “racists”, assuming that everyone else in the world believes racism to be bad. They are “racists”. In the last few decades, boasting their relative homogeneity, the Chinese have advanced faster and further than any other people ever.

If the Chinese fail in their quest for a place in the Sun, their failure will be the consequence of pride. Their moving too fast and too far militarily will awaken the remnant of that which Japanese Admiral Yamamoto characterized in 1941 as a “sleeping tiger” and will make us very angry — so angry that nationalism will trump diversity. Consequence? A temporary cohesion among minorities otherwise at war against each other and against a progressively dispossessed, American majority.

Do not believe that China is imploding economically or politically. That which we are witnessing are merely growing pains in the first long-lasting, fascistic state albeit one still labelling itself Communistic. The greatest threat to a people typically comes from within. So it will be with China.

Meanwhile, if the Russians and they merely leave us Americans to ourselves — with our descent into deepening debt, penchant for serial military defeats, and passion for depraved self-degradation and vulgarity, we will destroy ourselves. If, however, Bismark’s remark holds, and God does save us from ourselves, He will do so via the miscalculations of our adversaries.

Who else remains to bring down these United States? Iran?

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36

Clearly, Iranian foreign policy is anti-Israeli. It is anti-American. It is anti-Christian, consistent with the Koran. It is homicidal. Ah, but to what extent is it suicidal? No one knows.

“Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.” -Petronius (1st-century A.D.)

In electing Obama, those voting for him wanted to be deceived although he implicitly and, to some extent, explicitly advised the electorate of his intentions to destroy “White America”. Since his reëlection especially, he has been doing so with abandon — the Constitution be damned!

“Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” -Galatians VI:7

With the recent unconstitutional treaty with Iran, he has surpassed himself, exposing the entire world to nuclear destruction from which no aerobic life will survive. Accordingly, the question arises, Is Obama the final nail in the American coffin? If so, he represents God’s having abandoned us, leaving us to the inescapable consequences of our own foolish, ill-conceived, and misguided behavior.

Note
In 1965, legislation for “family-reunification” was sponsored in 1965 by Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (1932-2009), younger brother of the late President. It proved to be one of the most important and devastating pieces of legislation of the 20th century, directly leading to the “multi-culturalism” of the 21st.

Kennedy promised that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country.  He lied.

“Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it became more than one million. He also claimed wrongly that few would be from Asia.

An argument can be made that the Senator and many of his supporters understood that the opposite of what he promised would be the case; that they understood that most of the immigrants would be poor and uneducated; and that, once citizens, these immigrants were likely to vote Democratic, as such groups tend to do. In essence, an argument can be made that, in the long term, Kennedy and his allies were jeopardizing the entire Anglo-European heritage of these United States of America in exchange for votes to win elections in the short term.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.