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


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?


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.


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.


Monday, September 14th, 2015

Note (28SEP2015): Points to ponder:
1) Between 2009 and 2015, the median income of American households has fallen by $1,748. The real unemployment rate remains at 10.5%. –Washington Times, 14SEP2015, p. 30.
2) In terms of commercial competitiveness, these United States of America rank 32nd out of 34 developed countries. –Wall Street Journal, 28SEP2015, p.A16.
3) 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.

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.


Monday, April 6th, 2015

“The Lord is my strength and shield, In Him hath my heart trusted, And I am helped; Therefore, my heart greatly rejoiced, And with my song will I praise Him.” -Psalms 28:7

Religion, Mathematics, and Science

In times of trouble, who comforts thee? What comforts thee? Whence cometh the comfort?

From religion? Mathematics? Science?

Remove the emotionally warm comfort of religion and the reassuring belief in God. Replace them with what?

The emotionally cold calculations of mathematics? In times of trouble, what comfort can be derived from solving mathematical equations or proving mathematical theorems? From the value of π?

The cold concepts of science? In times of trouble, what comfort can be derived from the concept of being mortal in a continuously expanding universe that, as will all mortals, become totally cold and totally lifeless? From the equation e = mc²?

From the early pre-historic era, in times of trouble mankind has sought relief in religion — in the concept of a god or gods — and the means offered by religion to gain that relief. Robbed of religion, where can you seek solace? In yourself? From others?

“No man is an island.” -John Donne (1572-1631)

In times of trouble, you may discover to your profound dismay that your personal reservoir of inner strength is sorely wanting. You may have been born alone, but do you want to die alone?

Man is a gregarious animal deriving emotional strength from others of his kind. Surely, there are exceptions — the hermit and the vagabond are two; mostly social misfits who offer society and themselves little. In times of trouble, what bonds others to you to the point of sacrificing their own interests in favor of yours?

“There are no atheists in foxholes.” -Aphorism

In times of trouble, most people in this world still turn to religion and to their god or gods, rising secular relativism in the West notwithstanding. Religion offers them a bonding with their fellow humans as can no other social interaction. Despite its defects grievously real, its persistence over tens of thousands of years testifies to its biologically adaptive value. Religion bonds the group. Religion generates strength within the group and within its members.

An Atheist’s Criticism of Religion

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

“Biologically adaptive value?” the atheist may chide. “You characterize the murder and mayhem that always has been the hallmark of religion biologically adaptive?”

The atheist has a point. Wherein lies rebuttal?

Firstly, when murder and mayhem occur in the name of religion, generally at fault is not religion but its adherents, especially not Christianity — a religion of peace, at least theologically if not always operationally. Unlike believers in a Mohammedanism created as a religion of war, no rational believer in Christianity today can accept murder and mayhem in the name of religion. As it is said, many roads lead to the House of God, and God hears all prayers from wherever they may come — irrespective of language or format. If the religious, including the Mohammedans, will accept those concepts and respect others’ paths, even the paths of atheists, perhaps mankind can move toward living together without one religious group killing another — living together without disputing whose unproven belief is superior to whose.

Secondly, a fundamental fact is that God and religion are not synonymous. God is God. Religions are merely roads to God — roads constructed by men — roads often poorly paved — roads often running at cross-purposes with one another and even, at times, with themselves.

Shall we judge the wisdom of God by the vileness of mankind? Did not God give mankind free will based upon the biological capacity of our cognition to recognize our own existence and the place that our existence occupies in the cosmos?

Sadly, we have not used that free will always wisely. Consequence? We now may be on the eve of our own destruction.

Thirdly, if not religion, what? Science?

“Exactly!” the atheist may say, “Science has allowed us to progress beyond the mysticism and superstition of God and religion. In doing so, has it not confirmed the position that we’re doomed to eternal oblivion and that religion is nothing but the delusion of the doomed?”

Again, the atheist has a point. Wherein lies rebuttal?

Ironically, on this matter the atheists’ criticism can serve a valid purpose for the religious. By invoking human reason and promoting scientific advances, atheists can prod the religious to incorporate scientific discovery into their interpretations of the Bible. Science, however, is a-theological not anti-theological. Science is not atheistic, and atheism is not scientific. Science is neither the enemy of religion nor its ally. Science describes The How. Religion explains The Why. Science relies on logic and method. Religion relies on faith and hope.

Science offers no absolute truths. It offers descriptions, often hypothetical or theoretical, of natural events. Truly, the empirical physical and biological sciences and their derivative technologies have made magnificent advances; however, mistake not those advances as applicable to the so-called social sciences and economics wallowing in the mire of stagnation. Although empirical biobehavioral science and its technology also have made substantial advances, they remain largely ignored societally and individually with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Given their advances during the 20th-century, have modern science and technology destroyed religious belief among scientists themselves? Apparently not. In 1916, 40% of American scientists expressed a belief in God. In 1997, 40% of American scientists expressed a belief in God (


“As for man, his days are as grass; As a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; And the place thereof knoweth it no more.” -Psalms 103:15


In the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences, two characters discuss religion. One, a physician and an atheist, says the following:

 “So, what did this supposed God of yours supposedly do?” “What do you mean?” “I’ll tell you what I mean! I’ll tell you what He did!” The Doctor was assuming the offense. “He created an intelligent creature … you and me and those such as we … without giving it any objective proof that its Creator even exists but giving it an awareness of itself and plenty of objective proof of its own mortality. He then added to its awareness a hard-wired fear of that mortality. What was the consequence? A creature doomed throughout its brief life-span to a morbid dread of its own inevitable deterioration then eternal demise without the solace of certainty in its Creator’s existence. This God is one to which you would give thanks rather than curses?” “You conveniently omitted that God initially created Adam then Eve as immortal beings. They’d have remained so had they not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.” “What jerks! Why didn’t they eat from the Tree of Life? Anyway, it’s a convenient, Jewish myth concocted to shift the blame from the perpetrator onto the victims of this innate, time-bound misery of the human condition. Then, along came Christians with their added nonsense that this misery … ended only by dying, may I add … can be all to the good because it will gain the gullible … otherwise known as the pious … entry into some mythical paradise they call ‘Heaven’. Good luck! The bitter icing on this rancid cake are Muslims. They invoke their god, ‘Allah’, and a fantasized promise of their version of ‘Heaven’ to wage war upon the rest of the world. How, in God’s name, can you embrace both the superstitious ether of religion and the solid substance of science? They’re incompatible!” “In God’s name, indeed! Methinks the Doctor doth protest too much. Your emotional agitation suggests that you’re scared, disillusioned, and angry. You’re scared of ageing, scared of dying, disillusioned with the hope of an eternal salvation, and angry that you have no choice but to endure this seemingly senseless situation and your anxious anticipation while awaiting your fatal finish. Your behavioral response is to direct your unending frustration and impotent anger toward God by vehemently denying His existence and openly cursing Him at the same time.”

“Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.” -Proverbs 16:18

What mental processes accompany someone’s renouncing God and religion? Anger, as asserted by the Doctor’s dialectical adversary? A sense of superiority? Do atheists and agnostics harbor a prideful sense of superiority to those who remain comforted or even feel affrighted by religion? If so, does that prideful sense of superiority offer them comfort? If so, comfort of what nature?

In times of trouble and denying himself the avenue of God to travel, where has a man to turn but family and friends? Sadly, in this era of Western familial disintegration and social alienation, seeking solace and support from family and friends often yields a poor return. To what extent did familial disintegration and social disorganization create the environmental context for the move away from the bonding power of religion and vice versa?

Christianity, Politics, and the United States of America

“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” -Lord Acton (1834-1902)

Heretofore in the United States of America, Christianity in its various forms functioned as a religious bond. Today, politics with its lust for power and lack of shame has become the new religion. Its consequence? The bitter fruit of a new and even more pernicious political corruption beyond simple graft into a total, tyrannical transformation of the American republic.

Gone is the age-old humility taught by Judeo-Christian religions in favor of the newly-found arrogance of relative secularism. Gone is the code of absolute morals resting firmly upon time and Scripture in favor of self-proclaimed, arbitrary, and fluid standards of conduct — standards shifting capriciously to reflect momentary whims.

In a godless society of self-proclaimed, arbitrary, and fluid values racked by political discord among competing and expanding minorities feeding off an increasingly dispossessed and shrinking majority, those who are troubled often meet only a solipsistic egocentricity characterized by either abandonment or attack. Can so-called social support-groups composed of strangers offer a comfort comparable to that offered by clergy and congregation — clergy and congregation whose solicitude reflects social reinforcement of a belief in absolute values of an eternal nature not relative values of the moment?

“The wicked walk on every side When vileness is exalted among the sons of men.” -Psalms 12:9

Although there are now those who wrongly revise history to claim otherwise, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America created a republic based upon the now-invalid assumption of a moral and religious citizenry. Their newly-created nation represented a fusion of Christian morality and religion with a belief in the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In recent decades, a citizenry continuously shifting in its demographics has strayed from that Road to Redemption in favor of a Path to Perdition led by pied pipers promoting Biblical sin for their own power and profit — promoting it by praising prurient pleasures. They have transformed a nation previously at an admittedly sometimes fretful peace with itself into a nation at war with itself — a nation on fire.

Behavior has its consequences. In the current context characterized by crass commercialism and libertine licentiousness promoting a passion for vulgarity unbridled as if it were a praiseworthy virtue, are not the consequences likely to be the traditional, Biblical wages of sin?

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke (1729-1787)

Given the evolving national context, if not for a belief in God upon which the nation was founded, if not for the absolute moral standards provided initially by Judaism then by Christianity upon which the nation was founded, can this nation now on fire — this nation descending into the pit of mounting debt, serial military defeats, depraved social degradation, and outright tyranny — save social decency, traditional American ideals and values, and republicanism? Yes? How?



Monday, March 16th, 2015

White Supremacy? A concept that won’t die? If not, why not?

Could it be that it won’t die until all Whites die — unless, that is, they commit suicide as a sub-race, which they seem to be in the process of doing voluntarily. Darwinian selection in reverse? For a discussion, see “Genetic Suicide” at the following: .

The “White” In White Supremacy

To begin, let’s be different. Let’s define our terms.

White Supremacy. White is a combination of colors that combines all colors. So, to what does the “White” in White Supremacy refer?

Clearly, it doesn’t refer merely to a dermatological characteristic, given that albino Negroes are white. To what, then, does it refer? It refers to a genetically-based, biological class of Homo sapiens typically with the Nordic sub-type as the ideal model.

Ironically, Whites use of the term, White Supremacy, demeans that which they purports to extol and diminishes their own case for their own supremacy. How so?

Given that “White” refers to only coloration of the skin, the connotation becomes that any argument favoring White Supremacy is only skin-deep. To judge a man only by the color of his skin rather than by the quality of his character, indeed, reflects a pronounced superficiality in judgement. Paradoxically, they prove that which they deny; namely, that Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn’t entirely wrong.

Alright, how about a more accurate, more precise term? Euro-Caucasian. It denotes the intended genetically-based, biological class of Homo sapiens of which the Nordic sub-type is the ideal model.

“Nordic as a model?” a skeptic might scoff. “Let me remind you of the joke in Germany about the Nazis promoting the Nordic model. ‘Tall like Hitler. Slender like Goering. Fit like Goebbels.’”

So, not all Euro-Caucasians resemble the Nordic model. That model, however, is, as stated, only an idealized one. As a group, all Euro-Caucasians display phenotypically a sufficient number of the traits and carry those traits genotypically to be discriminated as a separate sub-race.

God of the White Supremacists

Generally, White Supremacists embrace Christianity. Accordingly, White Supremacists embrace Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God. Therein lurks a problem of dogmatic inconsistency. After all, who was this man, Jesus?

Probably a short, swarthy fellow with dark eyes and dark, curly hair surrounding a prominent proboscis. Not exactly the representation of the Son of God portrayed in Christian churches in Europe and North America. There, the portraits of Jesus depict a tall, blonde, blue-eyed Nordic. Why?

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” -Charles Colton (1780-1842).

Firstly, to have sold Christianity to the Nordic tribes. Even so, let’s face facts. Nordic is the preferred biological type — essentially worldwide, even among Orientals having their eyes widened.

Face facts? Right. First Lady Laura Bush, for example, didn’t transform her hair into an “Afro”. Michelle Obama, who as a youth did sport an “Afro” naturally, now processes her hair, so it will be Nordic-like — straight.

Jews As Whites

Anti-Semitic Euro-Caucasians do not admit to Jews being white. The validity of that exclusion, however, depends upon the use of the term, white. Jews are “white” in the sense that Jews are Caucasians. Jews, however, are not “Whites” in the sense of being Euro-Caucasians. Where does that leave anti-Semitic White Supremacists?

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” -John 8:32

Was Jesus Jewish? Yes.
Was Jesus Caucasian? Yes.
Was Jesus Euro-Caucasian? No.
Was Jesus Semitic-Caucasian? Yes. Condolences to the anti-Semitic White Supremacists, but let the truth set you free.

Yes, the White Supremacists have a problem with religious consistency. They vilify Jews; yet, regard a born-Jew as the Son of God. Their problem reflects one of the liabilities of blind bias — as the foremost anti-Semite of all time, Adolf Hitler, should have admitted before committing suicide after losing his war. Could it be time for White Supremacists to re-consider their anti-Semitism?


What is supremacy? Again, let’s be different. Let’s define our terms.

supremacy n.: the position of being first as in rank, power, or influence. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

For White Supremacists, what is supreme about being Euro-Caucasian? After all, by way of comparison, for centuries prior to the fourteenth century of the Christian era, China was the preëminent culture and power. Even the most fervent, Marxist-oriented egalitarian cannot defend the preposterous proposition that the Chinese are Euro-Caucasians. They aren’t even Caucasians. They are Mongolians unrelated, within the human species, genetically or even linguistically to the original Indo-Europeans who spread from Iceland to India.

Biologically, as the saying goes, “White men can’t jump.” That biological deficit is the reason why less than twenty percent of players in the National Basketball Association is Euro-Caucasian, the remainder being Negroes. Negroes, as a group, jump better than Caucasians.

So, what can Euro-Caucasians do better? Run? No, Negroes can run faster and longer, depending upon genetic sub-types.

Yet, jumping and running aren’t the traits that make humans most human. What trait does? Intelligence.

In the entire cosmos, the human brain is the only lump of matter that is aware of its own existence, can report that existence to itself, and can report the reporting to itself — a phenomenon known as recursive thinking. To house that lump of matter with its enlarged forebrain, we humans have foreheads; the only animals that do.

Well, if intelligence is the trait that makes humans most human, do Euro-Caucasians rank number one in that regard? Not exactly.

Northern Mongolians and Semitic-Caucasians can vie for that claim — sort of. The Mongolians in so-called visual-IQ; they make expert copiers, to which Mercedes-Benz quickly would testify. The Semites in auditory-IQ; they make effective lawyers to the extent that Jews as 2% of the population comprise 40% of American lawyers.

How then can anyone talk of White Supremacy — the supremacy of Euro-Caucasians? Because history confirms that, as a group, Euro-Caucasians have proven themselves superior overall in the arts and sciences.

Taking all of the best of human traits together, cannot a case be made that Euro-Caucasians rank number one among human sub-races? Anatomically, are they not considered the most attractive? Intellectually, in terms of total potential, have they not indicated the greatest; in terms of total achievement, have they not demonstrated the most? With all their proverbial warts, what other group compares to Germans and English alone in terms of total creativity and productivity — achievements that have propelled mankind towards fulfilling its purpose as a species? (For a discussion of human purpose and meaning, visit the following: .)


So, what seem to be the consequences of this White Supremacy? Self-loathing and self-destruction ( Go figure!

Still, maybe if Euro-Caucasoid youth can free themselves from the chains of ill-conceived and misguided, ideological indoctrination by their elders, they can reverse the current course. Then again, maybe not.