Category Archives: Race

‘Conservatives’ & Classical Liberals Can’t Help Contradicting Themselves

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism, Secession

Trying to play nice politically can result in a very confused message. Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet (he works with Alex Jones and InfoWars) has a list of what he’s for and against–a list intended to make him sound like a middle-of-the-road classical liberal.

Check out his list and tell me this: What about the right of ethnics to voluntarily form a collective? Classical liberalism is not in contradiction to nationalism (see David Conway’s work in this regard). Mr. Watson’s politically pleasing logic, below, makes difficult a vital, peaceful secessionist project like the Afrikaner Orania Movement, for instance.

Mercer Facebook readers explain the nuances of political theory:

Comments
Todd Frank
Todd Frank Who is Paul Joseph Watson and why should I care?
 
· Reply ·
Kerry Crowel
Kerry Crowel: He works with Alex Jones and InfoWars.
Todd Frank
Todd Frank Hmmmmm…k
Kerry Crowel
Kerry Crowel Todd Frank Politically, he’s a cross between Jordan Peterson and Dinesh D’Souza and he subscribes to the “Dems are the real racist” line of thinking.

 

The Truth About ‘Charlottesville’ & The-Unite-The-Right Rally You Won’t Get From ANY Media

Conservatism, Constitution, Critique, Free Speech, History, Law, Left-Liberalism, Neoconservatism, Race, Racism, Republicans

Charlottesville comes as close as anything to serving as the criterion, the test, for determining one’s commitment to the Constitution, law and order, free speech, civility, tolerance, and all of the rest. The Big Con[servatism] failed this test miserably.JACK KERWICK 

By Jack Kerwick

On its first anniversary, it is worth revisiting what we may now refer to simply as “Charlottesville.”

Thanks to the assistance of Republican politicians and their apologists in Big Conservative media, the left didn’t hesitate to transform this event into an ideologically and politically-useful weapon.

Of course, Charlottesville could serve the left’s agenda only if the official interpretation of circumstances defies reality—as it does.

On August 12, 2017, hundreds of people gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia for what they called a “Unite the Right” rally.

They would be met by an even greater number of leftists of various sorts, self-described “anti-fascists” and “anti-racists.”

Violence ensued.

Immediately, elites in Washington D.C. and their fellow travelers in Big Media (of both the “mainstream” and “conservative” varieties) laid the blame solely at the feet of “white supremacists.” Every politician, Democrat and Republican alike, and every commentator, Fox News contributors and talk radio hosts no less than their leftist counterparts on the other networks, spared no opportunity to show the world that they were even more repulsed by this exhibition of “white supremacy” than the next person.

Make no mistakes about it, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the fever-pitched waxing of indignation, was political theater at its absolute best—or worst. It is inexcusable that anyone who purports to be in the know, let alone those, like politicians and media figures, who are expected to be knowledgeable of current events, should not have been able to discern from the jump the gist of what occurred in Charlottesville on that fateful day.

President Trump elicited much criticism for claiming at the time that there were good people amongst both the demonstrators and the counter-demonstrators, and that both sides contributed to the violence. The President did misspeak, but not in the ways in which his critics charge:

First, it is manifestly absurd to characterize as “good” those—like the militant leftists who converged upon Charlottesville—who routinely violate the Constitutional rights to speech, assembly, property, and bodily integrity of, not only those of their fellow citizens with whom they disagree, but as well those of their fellow citizens who they deem insufficiently supportive of their “anti-fascist” agenda.

Second, not a single hair on the head of a single person would have been harmed, much less would anyone have been killed, had it not been for the “anti-fascists” and “anti-racists,” the “counter-demonstrators” who initiated the violence.

The facts:

(1) The organizers of the Unite the Right rally acted lawfully, availing themselves of their Constitutional right as Americans to peaceful assembly. The organizers applied for their permit months in advance of their demonstration. It was granted and then withdrawn. The organizers appealed and, thanks in no small part to the American Civil Liberties Union—hardly a right-wing operation—a judge determined that the city of Charlottesville had no legal grounds on which to deny them a permit.

In other words, the organizers of the Unite the Right rally acted in good faith, with fidelity to the law, every step of the way.

(2) The counter-demonstrators, in stark contrast, conducted themselves lawlessly: They had no permit and never even applied for one. Quite the contrary: The “anti-fascists” armed themselves with weaponry—clubs; bricks; bottles and balloons filled with cement, urine, and feces; bear mace; baseball bats; bows and arrows; and a makeshift flamethrower—and, quite literally, hit the streets. They formed mobs and took to intersections, blocking traffic and attacking motorists.

For this reason, because of their lawlessness, their flagrant criminality, it is a misnomer to describe the “anti-fascists” as counter-demonstrators. They composed a mob.

(3) It’s true that a few of the demonstrators were seen sporting KKK and neo-Nazi paraphernalia. It is equally true that the vast majority of the rally-goers who gathered in Charlottesville were doing no such thing, and that several of these endeavored to remove those showcasing KKK and Nazi symbols.

The lion’s share of rally attendees descended upon Charlottesville on that fateful day not to affirm “white supremacy,” “white nationalism,” or any racial fiction that the media would ascribe to them, but, rather, to demonstrate against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, an act that symbolizes to many patriotic Americans the radical left’s ongoing attempt to fundamentally transform Southern culture specifically and that of the United States of America generally into something in the image of their own ideology.

And, to repeat, there weren’t so much as dirty looks exchanged, to say nothing of overt violence, until lawless leftwing mobs, so-called “Antifa” and Black Lives Matter, in particular, arrived and instigated every bit of it.

(4) The foregoing facts were available at the time. Big Media—both the “mainstream” or “liberal” media as well as such “conservative” media as Fox News, talk radio, National Review, The New York Post, etc.—just weren’t interested.

Those who were interested had to go underground, to the internet, to Youtube, to gather eyewitness testimony from those who were actually in Charlottesville. The most reliable testimony comes from the members of several “Patriots’” organizations, self-described “civic nationalists” (as opposed to racial nationalists) who came to Virginia to keep peace and safeguard the Constitutional rights of their fellow American citizens (See here and here).

Most of these men (and some women) are military and police veterans who remain committed to upholding the oath to the American Constitution that they pledged upon embarking upon their careers in law enforcement. These are the same people who those in Big Conservatism (the Big Con) tirelessly “thank” for their service. Yet when these retired soldiers and officers of the law were physically besieged by leftist criminals and corrupt Charlottesville police alike, Big Conservatives were all too eager to side with militant and radical leftists and blame the protestors and these Constitutionalists for the unprovoked violence that they suffered.

(5) This brings us to the next point: As some of us knew then, and as the Heaphy Report has subsequently confirmed, violence would have been averted not only had leftist street thugs shown the same respect for the law as that shown by the Unite the Right demonstrators. It would have been averted had the governments of Virginia and Charlottesville—the governor and mayor, the state and local police—and the University of Virginia conducted themselves more responsibly.

The governor declared a state of emergency, in effect canceling the demonstrators’ permit at the last minute, while the Charlottesville mayor ordered the police commissioner to in turn order his officers to stand down.

But even this way of putting the matter is understatement. The police didn’t just do nothing as innocent citizens were assaulted. They encouraged the violence by forcing the Unite the Right rally attendees to vacate the premises by way of walking through the wall of volatile leftists that were waiting for them.

From these facts, we can deduce another: Contrary to the conventional (Politically Correct) wisdom, far from being aggressors, the only party in this story that is innocent of provoking violence is that of the rally demonstrators.

Fairness, however, forces us to go one step further: It is the rally attendees, and them alone, who showed respect for America, for its traditions, laws, and the Constitution, for preserving the history of their country, civility, free speech, and peaceful assembly. No other actor in this melodrama can claim credit for doing the same. Every other actor, in fact, revealed themselves as decidedly anti-American.

A final point: While the overt left has long ago put us on notice as to its desire to destroy (“fundamentally transform”) America as it has existed, the response of Big Conservatism to Charlottesville proved, if proof was still needed, that Big Cons are but an alt-left. Big Cons incessantly whine over the left’s suppression of free speech whenever it is one of their own—like, say, Ben Shapiro—who is prevented from speaking at a college campus. Yet their eagerness to buy hook, line, and sinker the interpretation of Charlottesville favored by Antifa and Black Lives Matter confirms that they care as much about protecting the free speech rights of those to their right as they care about “supporting the troops” and “blue lives” when law enforcement veterans are lumped in by the left with “racists,” “fascists,” “white supremacists,” and, simply, “the alt-right.”

Never again can anyone within the Big Con be regarded with seriousness when they espouse platitudes concerning the Constitution, free speech, tolerance, civility, or, for that matter, respect for veterans and law enforcement. Though few people have yet to grasp this, the truth is that Charlottesville comes as close as anything to serving as the criterion, the test, for determining one’s commitment to the Constitution, law and order, free speech, civility, tolerance, and all of the rest.

The Big Con failed this test miserably.

****

Beliefnet columnist Jack Kerwick has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Temple University, a master’s degree in philosophy from Baylor University, and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and religious studies from Wingate University. He teaches philosophy at several colleges in the New Jersey and Pennsylvania areas.

UPDATE III (8/15): NEW COLUMN: Obama Ignores Genocide In South Africa

Barack Obama, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, GUNS, Race, Racism, Russia, Secession, South-Africa

Obama Ignores Genocide In South Africa” is the current column, now on WND.com, The Unz Review,  ZeroHedge.com, and Townhall.com.

An excerpt:

Once upon a time there were two politicians.

One had the power to give media and political elites goosebumps. Still does.

The other causes the same dogs to raise their hackles.

The first is Barack Hussein Obama; the second Vladimir Putin.

The same gilded elites who choose our villains and victims for us have decided that the Russian is the worst person in the world. BHO, the media considers one of the greatest men in the world.

Obama leveled Libya and lynched its leader. Our overlords were unconcerned. They knew with certainty that Obama was destroying lives irreparably out of the goodness of his heart.

Same thing when Obama became the uncrowned king of the killer drone, murdering Pakistani, Afghani, Libyan and Yemeni civilians in their thousands. That, too, his acolytes generally justified, minimized or concealed.

In June of 2008, Obama marked his election as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” Media did not mock their leader’s delusions of grandeur.

All the estrogen-oozing amoebas of mainstream media would do in response to the Obama charm offensive was to turn to one another and check, “Was it good for you? Did he make the earth move and the oceans recede for you, too?”

Recently, Obama romped on to the Third World stage “bigly.” He delivered an address in this writer’s birthplace of Johannesburg, South Africa. The occasion: the centennial commemoration of Nelson Mandela’s birth.

On that occasion, Obama praised “the liberal international order,” which is founded on inverted morality: Good is bad and bad is good.

Small wonder, then, that nobody – broadcaster Tucker Carlson excepted – was willing to shame Obama for lauding genial thug Cyril Ramaphosa as an inspiration for “new hope in [his] great country.”

Into the Cannibal's PotOrder columnist Ilana Mercer’s brilliant polemical work, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa”


President hope-and-change Ramaphosa has gone where his four peer predecessors had not dared to go. He led a wildly fruitful effort to tweak the already watered-down property-rights provision in the South-African Constitution. Theft of land owned by whites will now be permitted.

Other than their modern-day-messiah status, BHO and his hero Mandela share something else. Both were silent about the systematic ethnic cleansing and extermination, in ways that beggar belief, of South African farmers in particular, and whites in general. …

… READ THE REST.

Obama Ignores Genocide In South Africa” is now on WND.com, The Unz Review,  ZeroHedge.com, and Townhall.com.

(The graphic and wording are WND’s.)

UPDATES (8/13):

Orania:

License to murder:

Cruelty to animals:

Lions and Live Stock:

Methods of torture:

As I say in Into The Cannibal’s Pot, the ANC expects people will eat cake, when the farmers are no longer feeding them.

Suffer the children:

Thanks G-d for social media.

Just another day in SA:

Russia to the rescue:

UPDATES (8/15/018): Is there a Farm List?

Far better to drop the invader like Indiana Jones dispatched the keffiyeh-clad swordsman. WITH A GUN.

 

NEW COLUMN: Whites, Men, Republicans And Other Scum

Feminism, Left-Liberalism, Race, Racism, Republicans

NEW COLUMN IS UP AT WorldNetDaily and the Unz Review.

An excerpt from “Whites, Men, Republicans And Other Scum”:

To listen to political psychologists and demographers, women are “abandoning the Republican Party” and voting for progressive policies because “they care about reproductive rights.”

Get it?  Women “care.” What do they care about? “Rights.”

The implication, at least, is that “the gender gap in American politics” is related to something women possess in greater abundance than men: virtue.

Put bluntly, women believe they have a right to have their uteruses suctioned at society’s expense. For this, they are portrayed favorably by those citing these proclivities.

Whereas women are depicted as voting from a place of virtue, men are described by the same cognoscenti as “sticking with the Republicans” for reasons less righteous.

Men are “buttressing the Republican party,” complained the Economist, in an article claiming to “mansplain” why male voters—young even more so than old—are sticking with the GOP.

If not for men, the party “would otherwise be falling over.” As spare and as strong as the Economist’s text always is; the writer was unmistakably cross.

Academics conducting surveys no longer stick to reporting the trends observed in their often-dubious data, but attach value judgments thereto.

Their default bias in the matter of the yawning “gender gap in American politics” is this: Support for the Republican Party is wrong, perhaps even wicked. By leap of illogic, the reasons for such support must surely lie in the dark recesses of the male mind.

In search of such confirmation-bias, you have to wonder how would our brainiacs dismiss Republican women? Let me guess: Unlike men, women are good. Therefore, if they vote Republican it must be because they’re still oppressed by the patriarchy (if only).

Research methodology has moved away from impartially reporting emerging trends, and toward attaching value-judgments to them. These come in the shape of fancy sounding constructs. Most are purely political.

The nebulous concept of “status threat,” in this case, is galvanized by ill-intentioned and intellectually ill-equipped academics, to cast men as bad actors.

When men depart from the “righteous” electoral choices taken by females, and exhibit a preference for the Republican Party—they are said to be acting because of an unseemly fear that women will usurp them to take their rightful place in the world of work. Or so researchers posit.

As any researcher worth his salt should know, there are reasons other than “status threat” to vote for the Republican Party (in as much as these men don’t yet recognize the GOP for what it is: a party of quislings who seldom keep promises).

For instance, men are being crowded out of colleges; 56 percent of college students are women. And, merit be damned, company human-resource departments now put a premium on recruiting women over men.

Survival, not necessarily status, is at stake. That sort of thing.

From the smart set comes the same type of response to the demographic implications of mass migration. …

… READ THE REST. “Whites, Men, Republicans And Other Scum” IS AT WorldNetDaily and the Unz Review.