Tag Archives: ethnicity

EXPECT MORE CHARLOTTESVILLES

The one question nobody has asked in all the discussion over events in Charlottesville, Virginia, is this:   why was the statue of Robert E. Lee, a giant of American history, being pulled down in the first place?   In the last few years, only ISIS and the Taliban have destroyed statues.   Are Americans now to copy them in an attempt to erase history?

It was this action that provoked the demonstration by white people, who have been labeled “racists”, “white nationalists”, “white supremacists”, “fascists”, “Nazis”, “neo-Nazis” and other names.

They were also called liars.   Yet, for fifty years, Americans have been fed a lie by liberals in both political parties.   The lie?   That ethnicity doesn’t matter any more.  Multiculturalism has been the fashion of the time.   This period has been an aberration in history – the denial of ethnicity (but only in the West).   This overlooks the fact that people identify first and foremost with their ethnic group.   The “Black Lives Matter” movement of the last four years shows this to be a fact.

The great African-American boxer, Muhammad Ali, once observed:

“It is against God’s law to integrate.   It’s only nature, not hatred, to keep people among their own kind.   A man has to be a fool to want to live in any other culture but his own.”

This quote shows just how much American thinking has changed in fifty years!

If a white American made the same comment today, he would be labeled “racist” and likely prosecuted.

Yet, Ali’s comment should help us understand the “white nationalist” movement that has been in the news over the weekend, following a demonstration that went wrong in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Before we leave Muhammed Ali, here’s another quote from him:

“Bluebirds like to be together, eagles hang out with eagles, sparrows stick with sparrows, buzzards go with buzzards.   They’re all birds, but they go with their own.”

Again, you couldn’t say that today.

Clearly, attitudes change.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Before 1965, America was 88.6% white (1960 census).    It’s fair to say that they considered their country the best in the world.  They wanted to keep it the way it was and immigration policies reflected their desire to maintain the racial balance.   Immigrants from Europe were preferred; and restrictions were put on immigrants from the rest of the world.   By our standards today, they were all racists!

President Theodore Roosevelt, who died exactly a century ago, warned that the Anglo-Saxon race was in peril because of a high rate of breeding amongst non-Anglos and the tendency of the Anglo-Saxons to voluntarily practice birth control, which he condemned.

From Minnesota Public Radio:

At the turn of the 20th century, infertility became an obsession for the eugenics movement.  The growing scientific field of genetics led some political leaders to embrace the notion of controlled breeding to favor “advanced” races.   White Americans feared an “infertility crisis” in their neighborhoods.   President Theodore Roosevelt warned in 1903 that immigrants and minorities were too fertile, and that Anglo-Saxons risked committing “race suicide” by using birth control and failing to keep up baby-for-baby.

In one speech, Roosevelt said:   “The chief of blessings for any nation is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land.   The greatest of all curses is sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility.”

The notion of breeding as an act of national service would reappear during World War II.”

Take note of the final paragraph – that those who fought the fascists in World War II thought that breeding white Anglo-Saxons was a national service for Americans.

A few years after TR, Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, oversaw unprecedented segregation in federal government offices.

The Democrats gave birth to the Ku Klux Klan, glorified in the 1915 movie “The Birth of a Nation,” a movie Wilson lauded.   It’s considered the most influential movie in history.   It was blatantly racist.

Clearly, the white nationalist movement is not new.   The movement today is perhaps more desperate, facing the realization that in less than twenty years, after four centuries of domination by one ethnic group, America will be a non-white country.   That will change everything, as assuredly as it has done elsewhere in the world.  When domination by one ethnic group ends, fundamental changes take place that target the ethnic group losing power.

This is already happening, and not just in the United States.   The destruction of Confederate statues in southern states is similar to the destruction of Cecil Rhodes statues and other monuments in southern Africa; in England, too, attempts were made to destroy statues of Rhodes at Oxford University, though doubtless students would still be willing to accept Rhodes scholarships.

All of this reflects the growing numbers of non-whites, together with their liberal-leftist supporters who want to destroy America and replace it with something else.

Every TV station, without exception, failed to give any background to the “white nationalist” demonstration.   There was a concerted campaign to denigrate them, calling them “fascists,” “white supremacists” and other names, with no attempt to understand their frustrations.    Undoubtedly, some could be labelled with these words, and the television media loves to zero in on those in particular, but many are motivated by a simple desire to preserve their national identity, including their own history and culture.

Since 1965, with the passing of a new Immigration Act, that encouraged immigration from Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America, we have witnessed a deliberate and concerted campaign to finish off traditional America.   The bill was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy who promised it would not change the demographics of America; Republicans favored it to get cheap labor for factories and in agriculture.   No thought was given to assimilation, or, rather, the lack of it.

When TV reporters last weekend talked about all the lies coming from the “white nationalists” they never once mentioned the lies of the last 50 years from both political parties about the coming destruction of the America built up in earlier centuries.

A backlash was inevitable.  It did not start in Charlottesville.   It was even apparent at the last election, won by Donald Trump.   Support from disgruntled whites, who have lost their good-paying jobs to other countries and are having to compete at the bottom of the financial ladder with imported domestic labor, put Trump in the White House.   Many of those who supported him will slowly realize that they cannot reverse the trends through the ballot box.   Their only option will be the streets.   At that point, there may be similarities with the fascist movements in Germany and Italy in the 1930’s.

RETURNING TO ETHNICITY

What we are witnessing in the United States and other western nations is a return to ethnicity.   Politicians and the media will quickly condemn this.   But it needs to be remembered that ethnic identity was very much a part of peoples’ lives down through the centuries. In the last two generations, an attempt was made to eradicate ethnic identity.   In the West, this was at the expense of white people who were forced to change their thinking on everything, involuntarily.   A backlash was only to be expected.   The liberal-leftist multiculturalists assumed everybody would agree with them but, unfortunately for them, some people still think for themselves.

And they do not appreciate their heritage being attacked.

Jesus Christ predicted that one of the signs of the end-time is that “nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom” (Matthew 24:7).   Whereas a kingdom is a political entity like the United States, the word for “nation” used here is ethnos, meaning ethnic group. Ethnic groups will turn against each other is what He was saying.

In Charlottesville, we witnessed a return to ethnicity.

It didn’t start in Charlottesville – and it won’t end there.

Expect more Charlottesvilles.

(This blog is a fully independent blog that has no connection to any church or secular organization. It was started to keep people informed on international affairs in light of the scriptures.   Financial support comes from myself and readers who generously donate to help cover costs.)

Advertisements

SERIOUS THREATS TO OUR ANCIENT LEGAL SYSTEM

Ted Stevens

The 12-man jury system goes back to the twelfth century under King Henry II and was confirmed in the Magna Carta (1215).   It’s even possible it goes back further to Anglo-Saxon England, prior to the Norman invasion of 1066.

Nobody has ever suggested that it is a perfect system but it beats every alternative known to man. It must have been quite reassuring to hundreds of thousands of people down through the centuries to know that, when falsely accused, they had to be judged by “twelve of their peers.”

So we should all be concerned that the jury system is seriously threatened.

I first noticed this forty years ago in a former British colony in Africa.   The English Common Law was exported to British colonies, including the thirteen American colonies that eventually became the United States.

But the system, like democracy itself, may not be culturally exportable. The problem I noticed in Africa was that juries were greatly influenced by ethnicity. Put another way, if a member of a certain tribe was on trial, members of other tribes would automatically find him guilty without due consideration of the evidence.

This obvious prejudice kept us out of court in 1982 following a serious collision between our Land Rover and a bus. Passengers on the bus testified that the driver was drunk and dancing at the wheel at the time of the crash. But, we were advised that going to trial would be pointless as he was from the area where the accident took place. No jury from that area would convict him.

I don’t remember when it was but I do remember the time in England when it was decided that a jury could convict a murderer with a 10-2 vote, instead of the former 12. My immediate thought was why change a system that has served the country well for over eight centuries?

Grand juries go back to 1166. Again, Henry II was the monarch behind the idea.   A Grand Jury was not limited to 12 men. It could be as many as 23 men, hence the term “grand” as against a regular trial jury. Today, the US is one of the few countries that retain the grand jury system. It is used to determine whether or not a person should be sent for a trial, in effect to determine if anything criminal has taken place.

The grand jury that sat in Ferguson, Missouri, was composed of twelve people, three of them black. They sat for months hearing testimony from a number of people, including the accused police officer, Darren Wilson. Their determination was that there was no case to send Wilson to trial. Rioting erupted immediately and has continued sporadically since.   As in Africa, ethnicity could make it impossible to hold a trial.

Different people reading this will have differing views on the decision of the grand jury.   The concern I want to express is about the system itself.

If a grand jury or a trial jury cannot meet without taking into account the mob outside, then the jury system will fall apart. For centuries, respect for the jury system was such that when a decision was made, the public supported that decision, even if they did not agree with it. The system itself was highly respected.

If mob rule threatens the jury system, what will replace it?   Juries are composed of regular people selected at random.   Those countries that do not have a jury system use judges appointed by government with no jury. Is that what we want?

The prophet Isaiah wrote of a time in ancient Judah when there was no justice and seemingly no concept of it. We are in a similar time today. “No one calls for justice, Nor does any plead for truth.” (Isa 59:4) “The way of peace they have not known, And there is no justice in their ways. (v.8)”

I should add that Ferguson is not the only threat to our legal system.

Bill Cosby illustrates another problem. He has been accused of sexual assault by a number of different women. Without a trial, the media and the population at large seem to have found the man guilty, thereby effectively ending his career.

Both situations threaten our legal system. Is this really what we want?