Monday, June 29, 2015

Barack Obama’s Swamp of Evil: Part II

As Jean-Luc Picard, captain of the Enterprise, said of the Borg:  "In their collective state, the Borg are utterly without mercy; driven by one will alone: the will to conquer. They are beyond redemption, beyond reason."

This is true of not only Islam and of the Marxist/Progressive agenda for this country, but now of the LGBT movement, whose political agenda has been boosted by the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. To paraphrase Islam authority Robert Spencer’s criticism of Australian Prime Minister’s public statement that divorces Islam from religion and totalitarian theocracy, the Supreme Court’s and the MSM’s responses to the LGBT’S political power play remain “blind, uninformed, and based on falsehood.” The principal falsehood is that homosexuality is not a matter of volition, but of external and/or intrinsic factors beyond the realm of choice. That is, of sociological or biological influences and pressures.

The other falsehood is that the Law of Identity does not apply to one’s sex, and can be defied because one’s sex or “gender” is based on the notion of the primacy of consciousness and not on the primacy of existence. It is the former that governs contemporary thinking, that is, in believing that reality is what the mind makes it to be, fueled by one’s feelings.

The idea that emotions are not tools of cognition is an idea rejected by the whole homosexual advocacy movement. The LGBT movement is moved by a will to conquer, politically and socially, in accordance with Barack Obama’s campaign to “transform” America, and is demonstrably beyond reason.

But, back to the Mexicans, that is, all Central and South Americans who invade the U.S. through Mexico. We left off in Part I by noting that Mexicans can also take another leaf from their Muslim  compañeros de armas in Europe once they become permanent, “legalized” settlers in America who refuse to assimilate, and by highlighting the strategy laid out in the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. I’m sure the National Council of La Raza has a similar organization that researches and describes how the gringo politics and culture can be made to bend to the Hispanic will.

Let’s substitute Mexican for Muslim and see if it rings a bell:

The manifesto could explain "Mexican Minority Affairs" as more than an organization or a social concept, but as a calculated foreign policy of the La Raza Foreign Affairs, designed to achieve these specific goals. Now, don’t start denigrating the immigrating Mexicans. They’re our “friends,” aren’t they?

1) Recruit individual Mexicans who live in a non-Mexican land and transform them as a collective unit by establishing Mexican cultural centers, educational programs, churches, and organizations like La Raza and the Sinoloa and Guadalajara Cartels’ Educational Foundations that serve to discourage and prevent Mexicans from assimilating into the culture of their non-Mexican host nation, namely the U.S.

2) Encourage these Mexican residents of the non-Mexican host nation to shift the demographic scales in their own favor by means of population growth—and by a militant separatism and self-ghettoization — thereby enabling them to more effectively advance an agenda based on fundamentalist anti-West and anti-assimilation doctrines, with special stress on perceived discrimination and career victimhood.

3) Eventually the proliferation of Mexicans in the host nation will hit critical mass, tilting that society toward majority-Mexican or Hispanic status.

4) Ultimately, the host state will join
Los Estados Unidos de México. Well, at least California and most of the Southwest will join it.

As I remarked in Swamp of Evil I, it may be interesting to witness the clash between Muslims and Mexicans over who gets to lord it over a dissolved United States. I have no idea where Mexican and Muslim gays will fit into this scenario, but the Left, which champions and celebrates the submission of America to homosexuality, dismisses or is oblivious to the fact that in Islam homosexuality is forbidden and gays are tossed off of rooftops or hanged as a matter of enforcement of Sharia law.

The National Council of La Raza? What is that? Is it an organization that advocates the supremacy of Hispanics over all other races, as Islam touts itself as superior to all other religions. Discover the Network reports:

The words “La Raza” (Spanish for “The Race”) in NCLR's name have long been a source of considerable controversy. Critics claim that the name reflects an organizational commitment to racial separatism and race-based grievance mongering. By NCLR's telling, however, such critics have mistranslated the word “Raza.” “The term 'La Raza,'” says the organization, “has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as 'the people' or, according to some scholars, 'the Hispanic people of the New World.'”

According to NCLR, “the full term,” which was coined by the Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos [1882-1959], is “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people.” NCLR describes this as “an inclusive concept” whose purpose is to express the fact that “Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.”

NCLR's interpretation of Vasconcelos's explanation, however, is inaccurate. As Guillermo Lux and Maurilio Vigil (professors of history and political science, respectively, at New Mexico Highlands University) note in their 1991 book, Aztlan: Essays on the Chicano Homeland:

"The concept of La Raza can be traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority. Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo is a distinct race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case."

In short, Vasconcelos was not promoting "an inclusive concept," but rather, the notion of Hispanic racial superiority.

Over all others. As Islam refers to all non-Muslims of other faiths (or of no faith) as the “People of the Book” and enemies to be conquered, converted, enslaved, or slain, La Raza’s own “People of the Book” are all non-Hispanics, i.e., Caucasians, blacks, and probably even Asians.

“O People of the Book! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partners unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. (Al-i Imran Surah, 3:64) That is, let us not call others Lord, God, Creator. Let the order of Allah (SWT) and His Pleasure be our criteria for our deeds Let all of us be servants to Allah (SWT). Let us consider ourselves responsible to Him. Let us be dependent on and loyal to each other in accordance with these rules.” (Yazır, II, 1132)

Or else: “Fight against such of those who have been given the Book as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (At-Tawbe Surah, 9:29)

If race is the issue regarding Mexicans or Hispanics, it is central to La Raza’s manifold aims and purposes, as can be seen in this information-rich Discover the Networks report. As the Muslim Minority Affairs report and the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America clearly state, among other things, that the cultural and political assimilation of Muslims in the U.S. is not the goal of the waves of Muslim settlers consciously facilitated by Obama, La Raza’s own overall “strategic end” is to turn large chunks of the country into Mexican or Hispanic enclaves in which non-Hispanics become the minority, an end also consciously facilitated by Obama.

Daniel Greenfield’s fine June 3rd essay, “How Islam in America Became a Privileged Religion” reveals aspects of Islam in America that can be equally construed to apply to the aggressive pursuit of Hispanic hegemony and the LGBT movement as well.

Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race. Islamist organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of the disadvantages.

The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.

Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.

By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.

And by equating race with culture, or culture with race, or religion with race, or race with religion, Muslims have the advantage coming or going, and very, very few defenders of the West and of Western civilization have been able to call their bluff.

Anyone who criticizes Islam and Muslim settlers, illegal Mexican immigrants or settlers, and homosexuals risks being accused of Islamophobia, Hispanophobia, or Homophobia. These are the handy blanket smears which the Left, Islamic supremacists, and homosexuals use as weapons to disarm or neutralize their critics. To the MSM, anyone accused of these phobias is an automatic pariah to be denigrated and shunted aside as the vanguards of these ideologies – and, yes, homosexuality has now become an official political player in the pursuit of power for power’s sake – trample underfoot the rights and civil liberties of Americans. And each group seeks absolute, craven, supine submission to its particular Hive, Cube, Umma, or Collective.

And the irony is that they expect the boot each plans to plant on our faces to be supplied by us.

Is resistance futile?

Not on these pages.


Teresa said...

Just want to sign my name to these pages. Our minds' words are all we have to fight with and yours bring clarity. Cheers!

Edward Cline said...

Thank you, Teresa.

madmax said...

The Left is consciously waging a political race war against white conservatives. Their goal is to eventually breed out whites through non-white immigration, miscegenation and lower fertility rates for white women. Now the sick thing is that this is being spearheaded by whites themselves (along with a Jewish Leftist elite) who have an intense racial self-loathing. When I try to reconcile this with Rand's thesis that Kant was the turning point in modern history what I come up with is that Kant's CI which secularized Christian ethics and created an intense form of secular altruism has resulted in that altruism being applied as a ruthless out-group altruism where whites must sacrifice for everyone. The sacrifice will not be considered complete until whites are minorities in Western nations and then eventually replaced by a mestizo population. This is the way the Categorical Imperative is being applied post 1960s. Its beyond what Rand was able to see in AS.

This is depressing because one of the recent SC decisions basically ended the possibility of white flight be ensuring that minority enclaves be created in all cities unless their be "disparate impact" which is considered defacto discrimination and thus racism against blacks and other non-whites. And combine this with the push to put Section 8 housing everywhere and you have the prospect of all non-elite cities being turned into Furguson Missouri. . This is worse than what Rand imagined with "Starnseville".

The thing is its hard to even argue against this without being considered a racist. And I find that mainstream Conservatives, mainstream libertarians and Randians do not want to even touch this subject. Ann Coulter was heroic to write the book she did. I have to say she has more guts than every Objectivist out there. There are a few Conservative women who are showing tremendous heroism, namely Coulter and Diana West. It seems that Conservative and libertarian and Randian men have basically been gelded; the tragic consequences of Feminism.

I'm early 40s and I fully expect to see some version of an anti-white male tyranny before I die. I might even see the coming race war. But it is clear that America has become a multi-ethnic empire which is dominated by the Egalitarian paradigm of the Left and thus is increasingly anti-white-straight-male. There is no "individual rights respecting" republic based on "reason, purpose and self-esteem." I just wish that there was a mainstream right-wing pro-liberty movement which recognized the agenda behind post 1965 immigration. But I would be considered a racist by 99% of O'ists and mainstream libertarians for even thinking the above thoughts. Essentially crime-think. Very disappointing.

BruceinFalkirk said...

There is nothing heroic about Ann Coulter.

She is the enemy. She is opposed to reason and is a creationist.

She is opposed to free trade.

Steve Jackson said...

I'm not sure what caused the current situation. Kant held what might be called "racist" ideas today. Like people of his time and until recent times, he thought racial groups varied in innate intelligence. Until recently, it wasn't disputed that races vary in intelligence and behavior. From what I can tell, it appears that things changed after the horrors of Nazi Germany. The 50s was also the high tide of behaviorism. From what little evidence is available, it appears that Rand changed her views on race at that time.

But why has egualitarianism morphed into not only opposition to "racism," but pro-homosexual, pro-transsexual, pro-feminist propaganda? I don't know. Maybe there is something in Kantianism that says that equality must be imposed equally.

I work near a Brazilian area of town. I'm struck by the fact that most of the Brazilian TV shows do not have Blacks in prominent positions. Their news readers tend to be European and Asian. You don't see large numbers of black female judges. Yet Brazil is a majority minority country. It is an officially leftist country. Its motto is the Comptean phrase "Ordem e Progresso." Its president is an "ex"-communist. What happens when the USA becomes a majority-minority nation? It will make Brazil look like heaven on earth.

I was listening to Yaron Brook's show today. On the issue he sounds like an ultra-leftist on race. He hates the South, the Confederate Flag, and any appeal to racial solidarity. He said one shouldn't be proud of one's heritage. Yes, you are evil if, as a white person, you see something proud to have the blood of Aristotle, Herodotus, Dante, Aquinas, Newton and Shakespeare flowing through your veins.

Thank Galt that Israel doesn't accept Brook's nonsense. Israel would repeal its law of return and its restrictions on immigration. It would become a Muslim nation. If Yaron Brook is consistent he would call Israel racist.

Steve Jackson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Neibel said...

Egalitarianism says there shouldn't be any differences; that all differences are examples of inequality of some kind and must be stamped out by the force of government to achieve social justice.

madmax said...

@Steve Jackson,

You raise a good point about Brazil. Its amazing Brazil is roughly 50% white. But I think that if America goes down that path it will end up far worse than Brazil. There is something especially demonic about the American Left (and the Euro Left as well).

madmax said...

"There is nothing heroic about Ann Coulter.

She is the enemy. She is opposed to reason and is a creationist.

She is opposed to free trade."

You are shallow as a puddle

BruceinFalkirk said...

Madmax has made no sense with his post.

He has not formed an argument and has merely attempted to insult me.

Clearly, he has nothing to say and I have defeated him.

madmax said...


rU 12?

BruceinFalkirk said...

Madmax appears to have no ideas at all.