Hat Tip Alanorei and Mister Fox
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Hat Tip Alanorei and Mister Fox
Anyone who has watched Channel 4 for in excess of twenty minutes within the last ten days will know that they will be showing a series of documentaries over this coming week entitled “Bloody Foreigners” which they describe as “highlighting the role played by foreigners at iconic moments and crucial turning points in British history”.
The multicultural zealots at channel 4 certainly seem very anxious to promote “Bloody foreigners” as the trailer for the series seems to run between every programme and almost at the end of every commercial break. Again and again the same commercial is repeated as if the makers are desperate that nobody should fail to notice it is on or not understand what it is all about.
“We are an Island nation, we have withstood invasion and foreign intervention for centuries ....or so we like to think!” snarls the narrator “However, if you take a closer look and you will find the people who sailed the ships and fought the battles which forged this country, weren't always British!” by this point, if you shut your eyes, you can imagine the drops of saliva drooling down his chin as he spits the words into the microphone, the final word “British” almost hissed with twisted lipped contempt. His words are spoken aggressively, challengingly, almost threateningly like a playground bully pointing to an imagined victory, or maybe a rapist reminding his victim what's been done to her.
Whatever the views of the actor reading the lines, his venomous delivery certainly manages to embody the hatred and contempt with which the elitist effluent who commissioned this series view the native people of our islands.
The series starts with what they refer to as “The Untold Battle of Trafalgar”, .... “untold” since when? Multi-culti groupies have been pointing to the single black figure amongst around 100 white ones in the painting of The death of Nelson by Daniel Maclise (see above) for decades, as if this single lone individual is proof of Britain's historical diversity.
According to the Channel 4 website, of the 18,000 men involved in the Battle of Trafalgar some 1,400 (just under 8%) were not British, however, what exactly does this mean?
As with all modern versions of history usually presented in large print and bright colours and revelling in the glories of diversity, things are not always as the seem.
Let us take the crew of HMS Victory for example. According to the Victory Muster Book. out of a total compliment of 662, 589 were British, including 441 Englishmen, 64 Scots, 64 Irish, 18 Welshmen and 3 Shetlanders, in addition there were two Channel Islanders and a Manxman.
Of the remainder 21 were American, some of whom may, of course, have been freed slaves, but there is certainly no evidence of this and given that the Battle of Trafalgar took place 60 years before the American Civil War, in all likelihood, the American contingent, the largest single non British group, were of European, predominantly British origin, that is to say in line with the 1805 US demographic. A further 37 were Europeans made up of 7 Dutch, 6 Swedes, 4 Italians, 4 Maltese, 3 Norwegians, 3 Germans, 2 Swiss, 2 Portuguese, 2 Danes and 1 Russian.
This leaves a remaining 12, of which one was Brazilian, one Indian, one African (presumably the little chap in the Maclise painting) and nine were categorised as “West Indian”. No doubt Channel 4 will wish to present the "West Indians" as the Afro-Caribbeans we now associate with the West Indies. However, things were very different in 1805, much of the West Indies, such as Jamaica had been British colonies since the middle of the seventeenth century and had a significant white population of British origin, given that most of the non-white population at the time were slaves, there is no evidence that the nine West Indians were not of white British ethnicity.
Whatever the truth, and whatever Channel Four's claims, it is clear that those of non-British, and certainly of non-European origin involved in the Battle of Trafalgar were a very tiny minority, certainly smaller than the 8% the dishonest pretend historians on Channel 4 would seek to pretend.
Even if it had been 8%, if that was the extent of the modern non-British invasion of Britain many of us would be considerably less concerned than we are.
However, whatever the numbers, what difference does it make? Sea-faring is by its very nature international, in the 18th and early 19th centuries small minorities of people of all sorts of nationalities served on ships of other nations, but it is only we, the British who are now expected to surrender our nationhood because a couple of foreigners fell foul of the press gang.
By the beginning of the 19th Century, there were white men living and working amongst the tribes of North America and Canada, but nobody would think to question the Native Americans claims to be the Indigenous First people of America (more of which later).
However, don't expect, honesty, fairness, or anything approaching truth from Channel Four or any Western media.
In a further episode from the Bloody Foreigners series we can look forward to “The Untold Invasion of Britain” the story of Septimus Severus, who they refer to as “Rome's African Emperor” and who, they claim, “fought a brutal campaign in Britain, crossing Hadrian's Wall and helping to forge the English-Scottish divide familiar to us today”. It is certainly true that Sepimus Severus was involved in securing peace with the Picts in 210 AD but to call him an “African” is rather stretching the truth. Although born in what is now Libya, his mother was an Italian noble woman and his father Publius Septimius Geta, only half Libyan, the other half being Punic that is to say of Phoenician Cypriot ancestry. However, I guess calling him “Rome's quarter Libyan Emperor, didn't have quite the same ring.
In other episodes of this august series we are due to learn that there were some Polish people flying with the RAF in World War II, (I er... think we knew that as we have been told this lots of time, not withstanding which the episode will still be called “The Untold Battle of Britain”) and in “The Untold Great Fire of London” we will be told that “foreigners were wrongly blamed for staring the fire", I guess that will be like one of those "expose the viewer to their own racism" episodes from US cop shows where, for once, the black man turns out not to be guilty of the rape/murder/mugging and we are all supposed to feel guilty for assuming he was.
I guess the trailers are focusing on the Trafalgar episode because it is the only one where they can show that non whites were involved, albeit very, very few.
What is Channel 4's motive, what is the sub-text of this patently misleading little series of programmes?
In fact there are a number of subtexts. The first one is obvious, they are telling us that because there were a smattering of “non-Brits” involved in important historical events (34 Poles in the RAF, one African on the Victory etc.) we owe people of other nationalities a huge debt of gratitude and should gather daily on the sides of the roads leading to Gatwick, Stanstead, Heathrow and Victoria coach station to cheer, wave flags and toot with our vuvuzles as uncapped masses of immigrants arrive.
Of course, there were significantly greater Americans involved both in the battle of Trafalgar and much more so in World War 2 but for some reason the Liberals don't see that as a reason for us to feel indebted to America (or, at least they didn't prior to the Obama coronation)
The second sub-text is the old undermine the way the British feel about themselves technique. It is a re-telling of the old 'Brits are mutts' lie.
These constant attempts to re-write our history (that is to say lie about our history) in order to deny that there is such a thing as a native Briton have now gone beyond a joke, and it is time that we, as a people fought back against the 'Britons are a mongrel race' calumny.
We as a people are descended from the Picts or Cletic tribes with some involvement of the Anglo Saxon tribes from what is now Denmark and Saxony in Western Germany. Er .... that's it, that is all, that is our so called "diverse" ethnic heritage.
Prior to the 20th Century we were one of the least ethnically mixed people on the planet. The Romans fought us and indeed ruled us for a while, they did not change our DNA, and as for the ludicrous Bonnie Greer's matronly fantasy about Rastafarian Romans cavorting with Celtic maidens, that remains the same historically unsubstantiated crap it was when it bubbled out of her disingenuous Quango appointee gob on Question Time.
A small number of our nobility mated with the Normans after 1066, we, the ordinary people, didn't, another small number of our nobility mated with the relatively small number of Huguenot nobility who we gave refuge to in the sixteenth century, we the ordinary people didn't. Some of our nobility may be mutts, which is probably why so few of them give a damn about the country now that they charge for access to their country seats (whenever didn't they?). However, the ordinary British people did not mix sexually with other races to any genetically significant degree until after the Empire Windrush incursion of 1948.
The native Americans include any number of tribes the Apache, Cheyenne, Cherokee, Blackfoot, Navajo, Crow, Shawnee, Pawnee, Shoshone and Sioux to name but a few but nobody suggests they are anything other that a genetically distinct, indigenous, people. Kenya has some 40 tribes including the Kikuyu, the Luhya, the Luo (Obama's father's tribe) Kamba, Samburu Kisii, Masai Meru and the Kalenjin, however, you would be met with screams of "racist" if you claimed there were no native Kenyans. We originate from three tribes and yet we are called mongrels, can you not see the lie?
We are lied to by the day, and by the hour, this is more of the same.
The “Bloody Foreigners” series will be nothing more than another dose of multicultural propaganda fermented by the bigoted contempt and hatred which our media and our political elite feel for us. However, they are the ones deserving of contempt for they are the liars and this is just another lie.
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
If you run a campaign on the argument you are an unprecedented natural-born leader, despite utter inexperience—can you afford to let anyone else outshine you? The notion that an exemplar, par excellence, will fall full-born, like Athena from the head of Zeus is appealing. This concept is seductive probably for the same reason Jesus has unmitigated attraction to this day: A young man who has never sinned arises to lead His people to the promised land of enlightenment and salvation.
Obama: Promised Messiah, Or Barnyard Pooch?
Question: Could Barry O still be savior of the world? The project of turning Barack Obama into a Jesus-like Messiah presents an impassable gulf. First, Jesus was an ultra-pure idealist teaching His followers they should so closely follow His Father’s Word that earth would be turned into God’s Kingdom. But Obama merely riffs upon vague, pleasant-sounding generalities, “hope,” “change,” et al, while using these empty phrases as an excuse to launch innumerable elaborate Chicago-styled scams. Second, Jesus spent an apparent 3 decades studying the Tanakh, aka Old Testament, and quite probably memorized the whole, based upon His peerless knowledge and ability to improvise off the cuff. Yet, Barack seems relatively untutored in any subject, but especially biblical traditions. Third, Obama seems positively Pharisaical, being a holier-than-thou, smug, sanctimonious, hypocritical finger pointer who positively scoffs at unenlightened non-liberals. Ironically, these were exactly the types Christ most harshly condemned. And it was the Pharisees who finally had him eliminated because His purity was a constant remonstrance against their greed, arrogance and corruption.
In fact, the ancient personality Barack most resembles is not Jesus, but the Dog in the Manger—a fable by the Greek Aesop. It is the story of moral failure born by incompetence and jealousy. The fable is as follows:
Continue reading at Canadian Free Press
A Dog looking out for its afternoon nap jumped into the Manger of an Ox and lay there cozily upon the straw. But soon the Ox, returning from its afternoon work, came up to the Manger and wanted to eat some of the straw. The Dog in a rage, being awakened from its slumber, stood up and barked at the Ox, and whenever it came near attempted to bite it. At last the Ox had to give up the hope of getting at the straw, and went away muttering:
"Ah, people often grudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves"
Interesting fact the Obama administration turned down offers of help from 13 different nations when the Gulf of Mexico oil spill first occurred, but Obama continues to "kick BP's ass" for not doing enough.
Hat tip Dr. D
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Those who cringed at the pitiful spectacle presented by Britain at the closing of the 2008 games in Beijing might think it couldn’t possibly get much worse than the gangstas and sundry strumpets which tumbled out of a red double decker to represent some Liberal zealot’s lala land fantasy of London, but they are wrong, it will be infinitely worse.
Danny Boyle’s film career is dominated by movies expressing a particular attitude or world view, his 2000 adaptation of Alex Garland’s backpacker eulogy “The Beach” and “28 Days Later”, a post apocalyptic foray through a devastated world where few but the suitably diverse survived, are enough to fill one with foreboding on their own, however, Boyle is even better known for movies such as Trainspotting which followed a group of heroine addicts through the economically depressed streets of 1980’s Edinburgh, and of course every liberal’s must see, must rave over, must vote for heart warming tale of the street urchins of Mumbai, Slumdog Millionaire.
The opening ceremony of the Beijing games may have been over the top but it was a celebration of China, Chinese culture and native Chinese ethnicity. You can rest assured that we, the native British will not be allowed any such thing.
Mr Boyle's show will no doubt overflow with curry and calypso as the seventeen thousandth tribute to Bollywood since the Millennium merges into a sanitised version of the Notting Hill Carnival and then back to the gangsta rappers reprised so embarrassingly before the world in 2008. If any white person appears at all they will be bleach blond PVC clad sluts, gyrating like sexually aroused gibbons around the rappers, or beer bellied skinheads who briefly stumble across the arena before being chased away by dreadlocked Rastafarians either dressed as footballers, or maybe naked like on the twenty foot high billboard which was displayed outside London Bridge station for most of 2009.
There will be no sign of Christianity, but no doubt Islam will make an appearance, perhaps burka clad feminists will stride proudly across the stage or some kindly Mullahs will lead a group of suitably caramel coloured London Children through the audience and into a light at the end of the auditorium.
The sky will then light up with fireworks spelling out the EU's new oxymoronic slogan “United in Diversity” before Leona Lewis, Alexandra Burke and Danyl Johnson will appear beneath a multi-coloured spotlight and sing something about melting pots and rainbows, followed by the “Diversity” dance troop who unaccountably beat Susan Boyle in the Britain's Got Talent doing some Caribbean inspired dance whilst a specially flown in group from the ANC Youth League serenade them with vuvuzelas.
All that will before they get round to the 40 foot high effigies of Mandella, Obama, Shilpa Shetty and newly elected British Prime Minister Diane Abbot are wheeled out for the official worship section of the proceedings!!
Yes, I know I am only guessing, I have no way of knowing what that show will actually be, but do any of you, in all honesty imagine it will be that much different to what I have just described?
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
This report would be hilarious, if it wasn't so totally pathetic:
(Reuters) - A murder in the neighborhood can significantly knock down a child's score on an IQ test, even if the child did not directly witness the killing or know the victim, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.I hope the so called professor is mocked and ridiculed across the Internet, he certainly deserves to be for producing such a transparently politically correct piece of rubbish.
The findings have implications both for crime control efforts and for the heavy reliance on standardized tests, said New York University sociology professor Patrick Sharkey, who conducted the study.
They can also explain about half the achievement gap between blacks and whites on such tests, he reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"It means being more aware of the potential for violence to have a reach that extends beyond just those victimized and those who witness a violent event, to reach across a community and affect all children in a community," Sharkey said in a telephone interview............................click here to continue reading this total unadulterated twaddle
Sadly there will be people who will pretend to believe stuff like this.
Monday, 14 June 2010
According to police five armed men held up two men and a woman on a smallholding in Silverton
The three resisted and all were shot, one man being fatally injured.
The man and woman remain in hospital.
This murder brings the total number of white South African farmers killed since Nelson Mandela became president in 1994 to at least 3,109
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Following a guity verdict, the child's execution took place in the Sarwan Qala area of Sangin district late on Tuesday. The boy, whose name was not immediately known, was abducted from the village of Heratyan,
The men are also accused of the repeated rape of the victim's daughters aged 16 and 18.
Allegedly the murderers waited for the victim to return home. After the 16 year old daughter opened the door for her father, they shot him and forced their way into the house where the rapes then took place. The attackers fled with a radio,TV and the family's BMW. However, the vehicle together with the stolen property was later found abandoned.
I will post further information on this killing if I get it. This now means that, at least 3,108 white South African farmers have been murdered since the end of Apartheid.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
All it takes is for Labour to do something really, really stupid (it wouldn't be the first time, they actually thought Brown was electable - and the Guardian is already worried) then the Con-dom Coalition collapses (it could easily happen) we could have another election within the next twelve months. Then, if enough idiots, led by the multi-culti zealots in the media, decide "Wow wouldn't it be really neat and politically correct to vote for a totally unqualified black Marxist!!", this women could be the Prime Minister of Britain in a year.
Crazy? beyond belief?, maybe, but it happened in America.
Days before the start of the world cup, the gardener of the two frail and unarmed Afrikaner women who were tortured to death on March 6 last your has been found guilty of their violent and sadistic murders by a South African Court.
The court found that the gardener Joseph Hlongwane, 22, had tortured to death 76 year old Alice Lotter and her daughter Helen. No explanation was given by the gardener as to why he had displayed such extreme cruelty, the torture had continued for at least three hours before the women died.
Warning: The following details, of extreme sexual violence, are particularly gruesome.
Mrs Alice Lotter died from multiple, deep stabbing wounds to her neck and throat; her daughter Helen, suffered 'severe, repeated, sharp trauma injuries to her lower body administered with knives and a broken beer bottle.' A post-mortem examination revealed that all of Helen’s front teeth were bashed out and that her entire body and face were ‘covered in severe bruises, chafing and stabbing wounds. During testimony from the coroner it was revealed that broken glass had been inserted into Ms Lotters genitals after which she had been savagely and repeatedly kicked in the groin. Her sexual organs internally and externally were extensively mutilated – some body parts including her cervix and uterus were completely missing:
Ms Lotter's breast had also been removed, and used to write the anti-white slogans such as "Kill the Boer" on the wall.
All this occurred whilst the women were still alive.
Very little of value was stolen from the victims during what the police had previously referred to as a "robbery"
A full report together with relevant links can be found at CensorBugbear
The verdict comes two months after the violent murder of Afrikaner Resistance Movement leader Eugene Terreblanche and mere weeks after South African Farmer Johan Strydom was murdered after being chained to the back of his truck and dragged around his farm, allegedly by three black men. Mr. Strydom's killing brought the total number of farmers murdered since the end of Apartheid in 1994 to 3107.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
This was captured as I collected my things from airport security (Detroit Metro Concourse A). I think of it as something like a Rorschach test. Is an elderly Catholic nun being frisked by a Muslim security agent the celebration of blind justice? Or is it simply an admission of absurdity?
Sometimes we need to stop and take stock of how far down the road to madness we have traveled.
Hat Tip: Robert R
I really did not want to get into the debate about homosexuality, as it is not one of my issues, and is something I consider irrelevant by comparison to the serious problems we face. However, as since my posting last week regarding David Laws, a number of people have written telling me that I either have to condemn homosexuality or remove the Christian symbol from my blog. I do not accept that, so I guess I will now have to address the issue.
I find the suggestion that you can not be a Christian without believing in the literal truth of every line in the Bible and forming my attitudes and principles on every urging and utterance in a holy text, written by many men over many centuries, to be quite ludicrous.
There are people who can find support for any number of genuinely held belief's in the bible, the Jehovah's witnesses find a prohibition on blood transfusions, others believe the bible tells them to handle serpents. For many centuries people found support for slavery within the pages of the good book, none claim that now, yet the passages they once quoted have not gone away.
It is a confusing time when on one side so called Christians are telling me my political views exclude me from the church, whilst Nationalists are saying almost the same thing about my social views.
I am not a religious theologian and do not claim to be one, and it is certainly true that homosexuality is condemned in the bible, especially in the old testament. However, within for instance the intemperate rantings of Leviticus, it is possible to find condemnation for any number of human activities, and in any event if I am to live my life, and form my beliefs and attitudes on the teachings of the Old Testament, must I also sell any daughter I may have into slavery, and then slaughter an Ox?
When Christ came into this world he freed us from the Strictures of the old covenant, and the New Testament is significantly less preoccupied with the subject of homosexuality than the Old Testament was. Indeed, I would go further than that, there remain serious questions as to the accuracy of the translation to the references made in both Timothy and in Corinthians, leaving us really with the very clear statements in Romans I, where both gay and heterosexual promiscuity is soundly condemned.
It would be very easy to see that in isolation, and build beliefs on that condemnation, but that would be to ignore the fact that Romans I is followed by Romans II, the opening passage of which, urges us not to judge others lest we be judged, a sentiment repeated in Matthew 7.1, and one which I think is the issue.
I do not believe that sexuality is a matter of choice, if it were possible for someone to choose to be gay, then it would be possible for me to choose to be a lesbian, yet that is not possible. I know for certain that were I to be imprisoned or shipwrecked on a desert Island with the most beautiful and desirable of women we would, throughout our time together, remain just good friends.
I do know that men are different, but even those who indulge in same sex unions whilst for instance in prison for the need of human companionship and release, return immediately to a heterosexual lifestyle as soon as it is available. Yet other men, and women, live homosexual life styles despite the fact that a much easier, heterosexual, existence is available to them and they often do so in circumstances and countries where their lifestyle presents them with huge difficulties and huge dangers.
I do not believe they would do so if they had a choice.
In honesty do those who angrily insist that it is a choice, really believe that it is a choice which is open to them?
For guidance we could turn to the words of our Lord on the subject of homosexuality, but alas we find none, in the three years of His ministry on Earth, He never referred to the subject, had it been such a big deal surely He would have done so. The closest our Lord came to mentioning Human sexuality at all was His encounter with the adulterous woman at the well, John 4:7-41, when He urged her to “sin no more”. However, far more famously, once again in relation to adultery, He said to the Pharisees who were about to stone a woman to death “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” John 7:53-8:11
Others who came before and after Jesus, and who claim to speak in his name, have condemned this and many other things, but as far as sexuality is concerned, it was not a subject Our Lord found it necessary to address.
The same can not be said for Mohammed, who viewed sex as a major showstopper. The Qur'an, which Muslims claim was written by the Prophet himself, has a heck of a lot to say about sex, including many specific references to gay sex, such as the enchanting:
Qur'an 7.80 – 84 : For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)"
From the Hadith:
Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] ""Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."
Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death." (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one's wife however).
It is in relation to their obsession with what consenting adults do in bed that some fundamentalist Christians sit at the same table as fanatical Islam, for it is sometimes hard to tell the difference in terms of rhetoric. Certainly the black bigots of the African Church, who claim to be Christians and who take their place at the Lambeth Conference seem to happily contemplate the active persecution of homosexuality to the extent even, in the case of Ugandan Christians of executing offenders, as occurs in Islamic lands.
It is when one finds one's self on the same side as those who cheerfully hang teen aged boys from cranes in public squares before baying and cheering crowds, as happened recently in Iran, it is time to start re-evaluating our beliefs.
I am a happily married woman, with one son, and another addition to our family due in November. I hope very much that my children will grow up to be heterosexual. However, if they do not, that will not be their choice, and I will not condemn then, neither will I condemn any other mother's son or daughter for something they could not change.
This blog has never promoted homosexuality, and this post does not do so either, it simply explains why I have also never attacked it.
Please do not write in telling me what I should think or what my views and my faith should be. You are entitled to your beliefs and so am I.
I shall answer to my maker for my view on this and many other things. Many will believe that I will have other, more important things, such as my views on race, to answer for. They would certainly view my racial stance as considerably less Christian.
However, that exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of me and what I am writing about. I am a Nationalist, not through hatred, but through love.
When libraries ban my blog for “promoting hate” they libel me, for I hate nobody.
I do not attack a black man for being black, say that being black is a bad thing and that he should cease to be so. I do not wish him ill in any way, indeed I wish that he and his culture thrive, for I believe that the world will be a lesser place without him and his culture, in his own land.
However, the difference is that I also care about my own culture and my own people who I also wish to thrive and live on, and that is not going to happen in the face of mass immigration and the lies which are being told about us.
That is why I oppose mass immigration and seek to correct the lies which are told.
My culture my people, and the future of my children are under deadly threat, I love them, so I fight for them, not because I hate anyone else.
That is all that matters, the rest is an irrelevance.
There are two threats which matter, one is Marxism and the other is Islam, they are the two political forces which are combining to destroy us, and their weapons are mass immigration and lies. All other issues blind us to that threat and are trivial because it is not they who will destroy us.
I am aware that some Marxists promote homosexuality as a further means of destabilising society, but I have yet to see evidence of large numbers opting for a gay lifestyle who do not already have those instincts, and anyway the left is doing that a lot less now they have buddied up with Islam.
Frankly, if I have gay readers, they are welcome here because we are all in this together and the God who would condemn them is not my God.
The others, who I also welcome, and who I hope will continue to read here, are entitled to their views, I respect their right to those views, please respect mine, and let me concentrate on the real issues we face, because they are what I write about.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, “The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great.” A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, “With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us.” In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.
In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, “The expedition that Columbus . . . began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492.”
Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever.
Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. We didn’t have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today, said Mrs. Clinton. I’m sad we didn’t have it, because it would have been a great value, as I’m sure you will discover.
Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity at least of the kind that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are promoting is a great advantage for America is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.
Nevertheless there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc. a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and sexuality. One might call this status diversity.
What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.
The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.
Continue this very readable and intelligent article at American Resistance