In my previous article "Defiant Chastity," I asked the plaintive question: Is there anywhere in the debauched landscape of postmodern America where one can still find determined cultural resistance to the wearisome blight of entrenched sexual permissiveness, or stiff defiance against the dully exasperating trend towards enforced tolerance for every conceivable brand of unwholesome carnal perversity?

I then met my own seemingly rhetorical question with a surprisingly concrete answer: Yes, I replied; there IS, in fact, just such an unapologetically unreconstructed, sexually reactionary culture still in existence! It lies in the American West, among the denizens of "Deseret" (that is, Utah), which is to say, among the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons.

Indeed, beyond the so-called "Zion Curtain" of Mormondom, pre-sexual revolution mores still largely hold sway. Girls are taught to dress modestly and always to behave in a ladylike fashion; boys are raised to be chivalrous, courtly, and responsible breadwinners; young couples are expected to put off intimate relations until their Temple marriage—wherein they are "sealed" to one another, not just for life but for eternity (!).

The fact that these quaint old customs still endure in one sector of America must be upsetting enough to the average standard-bearing Zeitgeist enforcer, inclined as such a one is to bouts of hysterical outrage that anyone anywhere might choose not to accept "enlightened" cultural norms as... well, normative.

Yet there was one significant oversight in my "Defiant Chastity" piece, since I neglected to mention a crucial piece of the puzzle, one that goes far to explain the extent of the desperate fear and ardent loathing that Mormonism provokes in the hearts of our modern-day cultural commissars.

What truly renders the Latter-Day Saints beyond the pale is in fact the overwhelming paleness of their sweet, wholesome Latter-Day Saintly complexions.

Not only does LDS culture encourage conventional gender roles and teach traditional sexual morality, but LDS members in America are also overwhelmingly White. And because faithful Mormons tend to have large families, Utah is one of the only places in the world today where White people are actually reproducing in great numbers.

You can almost see the Establishment liberal's arms flailing madly, much like Robby the Robot's, as he contemplates the connotations of such a circumstance. "White, religious, conservative... and fecund too?! Danger, danger, Will Robinson!!!"

Now that one of Mormondom's own is likely to win the GOP's nomination for the presidency, we are probably about to be treated to ever more grotesque displays of our ruling class's deep-seated anti-White effusions. As Richard has pointed out recently, Mitt Romney's unbearable Whiteness clearly gives our betters an incurable case of the shakes, the sputters, and the willies all at once. It matters little that Romney is in truth a rather bland moderate, who should have no real impact in any significant way on any important issue should he manage to win occupancy of the White House this November. It isn't so much who Romney is, but rather what he represents, that makes writers like Lee Siegel view him as sinister and dangerous.

After all, they remonstrate, just LOOK at the guy! Not only is he square-jawed, well-dressed, and otherwise Aryan-ly and Stepford-husbandly handsome, but get a load of his extended family! Look... just look... at all of those unmistakably, undeniably WHITE children of his! Danger, danger..."

In today's drearily ubiquitous, hysteria-drenched Naziphobic, aggressively multiculturalist heterodoxy, a White politician with a large, attractive, well-heeled all-White family, who adheres to a conservative creed whose co-religionists are also predominantly White, can be little else but a calculating crypto-Fascist, poised to orchestrate a chilling production of Auschwitz, Part Deux: The Finaler Solution, should he manage to wrest power away from the Righteous Mulatto Messiah (Peace be upon him), who now rules us wisely and benevolently from on high.

President Obama, of course, being darker-hued and flatter-nosed, obviously deserves at least four more years in the saddle, or so our betters reflexively think; Herr Hope'n'Change's elegant, eloquent Brownness can save us from the catastrophic racism and genocide sure to commence should Middle American red-state bigots elect Romney, who's obviously up to no good...after all, just look at how White the man is And listen to how White his voice sounds, too!! (Shiver.)

It goes without saying, of course, that the Mormon Church isn't anything close to being a sinister secret cabal of Nordic supremacists seeking world domination. In fact, while the sect is growing by leaps and bounds, a great deal of its growth is taking place in the largely non-White "Third World," primarily Central America, South America, and Polynesian Oceania.

Yet... if we examine the history of the Saints, we do, indeed, find much in their past doctrines that is un-kosher by today's narrowly delineated standards of what meets muster for acceptability in consideration of racial matters. If Romney gets the nomination, as he probably will (once the temporary bump in the road of his South Carolina primary loss gets smoothed over), we can expect to hear ad infinitum how Blacks were excluded from the Aaronic priesthood for most of the Mormon Church's history, as well as how the Book of Mormon's weird account of ancient American pseudo-history pits the noble and civilized Nephites, who were blessed by God by being given "white and delightsome" pigmentation, against the sinful and savage Lamanites, who received divine punishment for their ungodly deeds by being cursed with unattractive and displeasing dark skin. (The wording of these passages has been changed by Church authorities in recent years, in order to tone down the blatant racialist appeal of bygone days.)

The inevitable anti-Romney whispering campaign to come will no doubt include a repeated, insistent drumbeat recitation of these facts regarding Mormon lore, in tandem with a lurid and sensationalistic reminder—as if anyone really needs reminding—of the church's widespread 19th-century practice of the "principle" of plural marriage, a practice still kept alive by many breakaway fundamentalist Mormon church bodies today, and, indeed, one of the reasons for the church population's astonishing fecundity through the years.

Through such shameless demagoguery and fear-mongering, much of the gullible, brainwashed, intellectually stupified electorate—most of whom are, ahem, White—will no doubt be persuaded that Romney's kind just don't belong in the corridors of power, because..."oh, well, because we need cultural diversity, and because Hitler was evil, and because Martin Luther King was good, and because the White cheerleading squad in that movie <i>Bring It On</i> stole their routines from the righteously sassy black girl squad from the inner-city, and because Denzel Washington and Will Smith are so badass, and, because of my internalized and indoctrinated White guilt and White shame are so easily exploited by those who rule over me..."

Thus Mitt Romney's unbearable Whiteness—the very thing that, unlike his wishy-washy flimflam platform, he can't change about himself—may just ultimately be his undoing. Only in White America!

Herman Cain had something like a “Palin moment” in an interview released yesterday by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

According to his campaign, he was going on little sleep… Jet-lagged or not, it’s obvious that Cain was ignorant of the most basic facts regarding Washington’s latest foreign intervention. But who could blame him? One gets the sense that, much as with his time spent on the Federal Reserve Board—and much as with the many Blacks appointed as CEOs to fulfill Rainbow quotas in the new South Africa—Cain has come a long way repeating mindless catchphrases that White people like to hear.

There’s also no reason to believe that a revelation that the candidate knows precious little about world affairs will derail the Cain phenomenon—which is much bigger than details like whom Washington was fighting in its last war. 

Matt Parrott:

The insecure and self-conscious Whites fear that their own animosity towards Obama might be racist—but Cain’s animosity can’t be . . . because he’s Black! The Tea Party’s cardinal agenda is to thwart ongoing efforts by Cosmic America to redistribute White America’s wealth and privilege: It’s integrally racist and pro-White. Cain absolves White America of the dissonance they’ve been trained to experience when taking their own side in a fight . . . because he’s Black! 

Columbus Day has suffered an unprecedented diminution in importance in recent years, at least in the eyes of the solons of modern American culture.

Why? Columbus Day celebrates Christopher Columbus, the first European (white person) to come to the Western Hemisphere and make the presence permanent. Columbus Day, in other words, celebrates the advent of the White race in the so-called New World of the Americas. This, of course, is the last thing that the multicultural Left wants celebrated.

Their guiding principal, invented by both Trotsky and the Cultural Marxists at approximately the same time, is best summed up by the late, unlamented Susan Sontag’s famous quote, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” Who wants to celebrate cancer? Consequently, Columbus Day has been transformed from a holiday into an occasion for weeping, wailing, rending of garments and gnashing of teeth by the Left.

We beg to differ, and think it’s high time to challenge this modern orthodoxy regarding Columbus and Columbus Day.

Consider, if you will, the Western Hemisphere when Columbus discovered it in 1492. The entire continent is estimated to have sustained only a few hundred thousand people. It was a huge undeveloped wildlife preserve; its population stuck for the most part in the New Stone Age. And despite what the Left would have you believe, it was not populated by peace-loving early environmentalists.

The indigenous inhabitants were bloodthirsty savages living in a state of nature in which life, as Hobbes famously noted, was “nasty, brutish and short.” The highest level of civilization achieved in the Hemisphere by the indigenous was that of the Aztecs, famous for capturing young men from neighboring tribes for ritual sacrifice and ripping their still-beating hearts from their chests.

Recent discussion about the Royal Wedding here in the United Kingdom reminded me of a very different—and perhaps even more extraordinary—kind of wedding, about which I learned round about this time last year. It gave one much to think about, eliciting a wide range of feelings. I reproduce below the article that appeared in the Daily Mail:

My Masai Mr Right: Why is this middle-class woman giving up a life of luxury to live in a mud hut with an African warrior?

By Kathryn Knight

Like many young women in love, Colette Armand believes she was hit by a coup de foudre when she first saw her future husband. 'The attraction was instant,' she says. 'We had an immediate connection.'

Photographs testify to the strength of their bond, showing a beaming young couple clearly delighted by each other's company.

That, however, is where the conventional nature of their romance ends. For Colette's intended is a Masai warrior whose home is a mud hut on the vast African plains.

Meitkini's tribe have no possessions and no running water, and their food is either plucked from the ground or killed with a spear.

Nonetheless, after a courtship of three years, Colette, 24, is preparing to abandon all the comforts of her western lifestyle to join her life permanently with his  -  even though, to date, she hasn't shared so much as a kiss with her 23-year-old fiance, as Masai rules forbid physical contact between men and women who aren't married.

What's more, she has to accept that, in the future, she may have to share her husband with other women, as Masai tradition permits any number of wives.

'In time I may have to accept that he will marry again,' she says. 'I hope he chooses not to take another wife, but if not then I will compromise.'

Colette admits that she never expected her life to end up on such an unusual path.

The daughter of a nurse and a businessman, her father's job, as director of a large mining company, took the family all over the world.

Academically gifted, at 17 she was studying literature at the Sorbonne in Paris. At 21, disillusioned with her studies and with a failed romance behind her, she decided to take a gap year  -  'I realised I needed to have an adventure and try and find myself.

 

'I had always wanted to go to Africa, so I found a job working for an organisation that runs orphanages in Kenya,' she says.

 

'In the space of a week I quit my studies, withdrew all my savings and got on a flight to Nairobi. I didn't tell anyone what I was doing, except my mum, who was hysterical. She thought I was throwing away all my hard work. But I'd made up my mind.'

So, within 24 hours, Colette had swapped the comfort of her apartment for a rug on the
Meitkini's tribe have no possessions and no running water, and their food is either plucked from the ground or killed with a spear.

Nonetheless, after a courtship of three years, Colette, 24, is preparing to abandon all the comforts of her western lifestyle to join her life permanently with his  -  even though, to date, she hasn't shared so much as a kiss with her 23-year-old fiance, as Masai rules forbid physical contact between men  floor of the orphanage, which had no electricity nor running water.

'Yes, it was basic, but the funny thing was that I felt instantly at home,' she says. 'Working with the children helped give me perspective. Most of them had been abandoned because they were disabled, which was very humbling.'

Among them was Mumbe, a nine-year-old boy who, prior to Colette's arrival, had never spoken a word. 'One day, he turned to me and said "mummy",' she recalls. 'It was a huge shock, and everyone at the orphanage thought I had magical healing properties.'

So much so that word spread, and a few days later, one of Colette's supervisors told her that the head of a local Masai tribe wanted to meet her. The tribe lived several hours drive away over dusty, uneven terrain.

'When I got there I was taken to meet the chief, Kehmini, who was incredibly welcoming. I was lucky that the tribe spoke quite good English, so I could communicate well. Kehmini then invited me to stay, and showed me to a hut that would be my home while I was there,' she recalls. 

Even after the privations of the orphanage, her first night was spent in insomniac discomfort. 'There are no doors on the hut, so I was terrified a snake would slither in,' she recalls. 'I lay there listening to every movement.'

The next morning she was further shocked by the harsh realities of life in the Masai. 'The only water came from a small muddy tributary that's home to snakes and crocodiles,' says Colette. 'I was too scared to bathe, so I had to resort to having a makeshift wash in water boiled on the fire  -  which is what I ended up doing for months to come.' 

Nonetheless, she quickly grew to love the simple rhythm of life with the tribe. 'A typical day starts at 4am and ends at 6pm, when everyone sits around the campfire, and cooks and talks. You go to sleep at seven. In the morning, the men go out hunting and the women look after the children and work in the fields. The beauty of sitting under a vast African moon by the campfire, or watching the sun rise over the plain, is hard to describe.'

The tribe quickly took her to their heart, and after two weeks Colette was told the community had decided to sacrifice a goat as a welcoming gift  -  a huge honour.

'They slaughtered it in front of me, which was horrible, then put its warm blood in a cup for me to drink. It tasted disgusting, but I had to do it as I would have hugely offended them otherwise. I just closed my eyes and tried not to be sick.'

On other occasions, it was animal life of a different kind that was hard to stomach. 'One night I left the hut in the small hours to answer the call of nature, only to see a black mamba snake rearing its head just a few feet away. They are deadly, and I was terrified. My screams woke the whole camp, and men came running with sticks and managed to carry it away. I was still very shaken.'

But for all these privations, Colette soon realised she had no desire to leave  -  a feeling enhanced when, a few days later, she first saw her future husband while she was picking coffee beans in the fields. 'Meitkini was the chief's brother, but I hadn't seen him before as he'd been away hunting for several weeks. When I first saw him he was striding towards me carrying a lion he had helped kill, and he looked like this incredibly masculine force. I was smitten.

Later, when I was introduced to him by the chief and we started talking, it was like speaking to my double. He was clever and articulate, and there was an immediate connection. From then on I was in love.'

Meitkini, she says, felt the same way, but Masai relationships do not adhere to the same conventions as they do in the West. 'The Masai don't marry for love but for power and social position, so it is a slightly alien concept. It was a long time before we were able to acknowledge our feelings for each other, and we couldn't express them physically, as Masai rules forbid physical contact between unmarried men and women. It was frustrating, but I had to respect their culture. I was a visitor and it would have been a gross insult to behave any other way.'

Instead, Colette waited, hoping the tribe would grow to trust her. 'Five months later, Kehmini told me the community had accepted me and would be happy for me to live there permanently. It was a huge honour.'

Yet there was one final hurdle to overcome  -  Colette felt an overwhelming urge to finish her studies back home before she could commit to her new life in Kenya. 'It was tough because I loved him, but the intellectual side of me wanted fulfilment too.' Colette recalls.

'I talked to Meitkini about it and he told me he would wait for me.' Matters came to a head when, in October 2008, with civil unrest sweeping the country, a passing UNESCO charity worker told her that, as a white woman, she was in huge danger and urged her to leave Kenya for a while. 'I was scared but also upset  -  I didn't want to leave Meitkini, but he said I should take the chance to return to England and study for a while. There were a lot of tears.'

But there were happier tidings too: before she left, the tribe's chief gave Colette and Meitkini his blessing to marry. 'He said the whole tribe felt something special had happened between us and that we were destined to be together.'

Colette returned to England, moving in with friends into a small flat in south-east London, and quickly being accepted onto her PhD course. But life in the West no longer felt familiar.

'For three weeks, I barely left my room. I felt like a stranger in my own culture  -  the sheer noise of city life gave me a splitting headache. I realised I now thought of Africa as my home, and I was determined to go back.'

Unsurprisingly, her conviction has proved incomprehensible to many of her friends, who cannot grasp why Colette wants to turn her back on the luxuries of western life. 'Obviously, some of them have found it hard to understand  -  they just cannot conceive of what my life is like there. At the same time they can clearly see how happy I am, and none of them have tried to talk me out of it,' she says.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of her mother, who is still unable to accept Colette's decision and remains estranged from her daughter. (Her father's opinion isn't known, as he walked out on her mother when Colette was 12, and hasn't seen his daughter since.) 'The fact that I'm going to marry a Masai is a scandal in the family and, as a result, she and I don't speak. It's sad, but we're very different people,' she says.

And so Colette is making the final plans for her wedding. It will be a two-day affair, with Masai travelling from miles around to celebrate their union, and an ox slaughtered in honour of the happy couple. That, however, is where the festivities will end, and afterwards Colette will be back in the fields at dawn, planting grain or harvesting coffee beans.

'It's a simple life, and one that would be anathema to most people in the West, but it makes me happy,' she says. 'I have no problem with giving up my western ways. When I'm there I feel so alive and free. Living with the tribe has taught me to live in the present. It taught me what matters.'

I wonder how she is doing now . . .

In this interview with Craig Bodeker, AltRight contributing editor Derek Turner provides what may be the most concise yet penetrating explanation of the origins and nature of political correctness I have yet to encounter. The full video is available on the website of the National Policy Institute.

Critics of PC have advanced several theses regarding its origins. Paul Gottfried has suggested that it is largely an outgrowth of left-wing American Christianity. Bill Lind considers it be a form of “cultural Marxism” derived from an inversion of orthodox Marxism advanced by the Frankfurt School. David Heleniak has an interesting thesis suggesting that PC is largely a derivative of the Christian doctrine of original sin that subsequently took on a secular form through the influence of the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Still others regard PC as good old fashioned Communism wearing a different set of clothes. My own efforts to investigate the historical development of PC (which I prefer to call “totalitarian humanism”) have led me to a position that is something of a synthesis of these narratives.

Derek points out that political correctness has become the most deeply entrenched in historically Protestant countries, primarily the nations of Scandinavia and the Anglosphere. Presumably, this can be explained as a manifestation of the sense of Calvinist guilt that has been woven into the cultural fabric and historical memories of Protestant societies. That colonial American Puritanism was a rather extreme manifestation of the Calvinist ethos, and that American left-wing Christianity came about largely as an eclipsing successor of orthodox Calvinism in the American northeast, may help to explain why PC first took root in America and exported itself throughout the Western world the way that it did. If indeed Rousseau’s philosophy provided a secular transformation of the notion of original sin, then it is not improbable that such thinking would take root in a cultural milieu where orthodox Calvinism had once been virulent, but was in the process of shedding that history while retaining some of its residual influences, which would have been the case with northeastern American Protestantism during the developmental periods of this country.

It should not be surprising then that the Frankfurt School found a home for itself in northeastern American universities following its exile from Nazi Germany (and after an ironic stay in Geneva, the city most closely associated with the legacy of Calvin!). Some of the iconic figures of the New Left, such as Angela Davis and Abbie Hoffman, were personally students of the Frankfurt School’s most extreme left-wing advocate, Herbert Marcuse, and it is another irony that just as Marcuse eventually settled in California, it was at West Coast universities such as Berkeley that the leftist student rebellions of the 1960s began to emerge before spreading throughout the West and even elsewhere. As for the relationship between orthodox Communism and PC, in my efforts to trace the origins of the term, I have encountered phrases such as “correct politics” or “correct political line,” and references to persons being shunned or dismissed from organizations for “incorrect politics” in old radical literature from the late 1960s and early 1970s, particularly among Weather Underground-influenced groups or the most extreme offshoots of the “black power” movement. The Maoist influence on these groups is well-known, as is the fascination of some of the more extreme New Left radicals of the era with the Chinese Cultural Revolution. PC in many ways resembles a Maoist self-criticism session, so there is likely a connection there.

I actually grew up in part as a Calvinist fundamentalist myself during the 1970s. My family were adherents of old-style orthodox Calvinism of the kind represented by theologians like J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til, and for a time we were involved with a church associated with the theocratic “Christian reconstructionist” movement of R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North. All of my education up through and including my sophomore year of high school was done at a fundamentalist academy that adhered to dispensational Christian Zionism (think of Bob Jones University and you will get an idea what the atmosphere there was like). During the late 1980s and early 1990s I was a left-wing Chomskyite and it was during this time that I first began to personally encounter PC. Observing the psychology of PC and its behavioral manifestations up close and in an unadulterated form gave me a sense of déjà vu: “Where I have seen this kind of thing before?” Having long since abandoned my previous Christianity by that time, I came to realize that PC essentially amounts to Christian fundamentalism without a Christ (perhaps this explains the Left’s habit of elevating perceived progressive saints such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to the status of Christ-like semi-divine figures).

Whatever the true historical trajectory of PC may be, its obscurantist and totalitarian nature is obvious enough. It is ironic that eccentric religious subcultures such as the ones I came from are demonized by the anointed as dangerous theocratic fascists about to carry out an Taliban-like coup any minute now (a view that wildly exaggerates the influence and degree of extremism of such subcultures), while a form of obscurantist totalitarianism that has actually has the support of elites, intellectuals, academics, journalists, and others of genuine influence continues to entrench itself in Western cultural and political institutions.

On 13 December 2010 the BBC News online magazine ran a feature about Toby Ord, the 31-year-old man who has pledged to give away £1,000,000 to fight against global poverty over his lifetime. What distinguishes Ord from the likes of Bill Gates and fellow billionaires is that the former exists on an annual income of £25,000 ($40,000), which means that he gives away to charity everything he earns over £18,000, or £833 a month out of an income of £1,583 after tax. This is on top of his entire savings of £15,000, which he has already given away.

In order to achieve this, he lives in a sparse one-bedroom flat, which he rents from his employer; eats out only once a fortnight; and has a cup of coffee only once a week. He also has no children, which enables his wife, a medical doctor, to give away part of her income as well.

What motivated this man to make such an unusual commitment?

Ord tells us that as a university student he was idealistic, and that he would be rebuffed by his fellow students, eager to shut him up, for what appears to have been his incessant pontificating about poverty in Africa. While doing a Master’s degree, in which he studied ethics and philosophy, Ord decided to give away most of his money to help save lives abroad.

Paleocons and other traditionalists have been saying this for decades: Westerners are more altrusitic and trusting than other kinds of people. Now there is science to prove this. The article mostly concentrates on the Western bias inherent in most kinds of behavioral psychology, but the results are particularly amusing.

Dr. Henrich and co-authors Steven Heine and Ara Norenzayan argue that life-long members of societies that are Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic — people who are WEIRD — see the world in ways that are alien from the rest of the human family. The UBC trio have come to the controversial conclusion that, say, the Machiguenga are not psychological outliers among humanity. We are.

"If you're a Westerner, your intuitions about human psychology are probably wrong or at least there's good reason to believe they're wrong," Dr. Henrich says.

....

Others punish participants perceived as too altruistic in co-operation games, but very few in the English-speaking West would ever dream of penalizing the generous.

Remember this the next time some clown advocates for some ridiculous government welfare program.

Elizabeth Wright tells it like it is:

So, even the supposedly tough-minded talk show host Laura Schlessinger dissolves like putty when confronted with the noise of disapproval coming from the multicultural mob, for her use of the proscribed "Nigger" word. But what else could we expect on the heels of the black woman who telephoned the show, to get advice about her own "racist" white husband, his relatives and friends?

We've learned that even the take-no-prisoners Dr. Laura now accepts the notion that there is ONE word in the English language that is allowed to be spoken by members of only ONE group. Can we expect her to join with those insufferable whites who delight in telling of their disdain for the taboo word, and how they refuse to use it under any circumstances? "I won't even say it in private," they proudly prattle on, waiting for the pat of approval.

Dr. Laura might as well join in the campaign already underway to abolish the word "Nigger" from the lips of all non-blacks. Perhaps she will endorse a federal law to punish any non-black caught spewing it. This could sort of be an expansion of the New York City Council's Resolution of 2007, in which the public use of the word was symbolically "banned." Of course, this ban has meant nothing to those blacks who practice no restraint in their use of the prohibited term and are primarily responsible for extending its life, by keeping the epithet fresh in the popular lexicon.

Here are whites running from the accursed expression, while blacks fill New York City's air with it, and even sanctify the word. The gay website Queerty.com had fun by mocking the Council's ridiculous Resolution. Claiming that New York City was soon to be a "Nigger-free zone," the editor asked, "If the council's all about cleaning up people's politically incorrect potty mouths, where are the bans on spic, faggot, kike, chink and all those other nasties?"

Of course, those "other nasties" are generally terms well known to be spewed forth by blacks, more often than by members of any other group.

Most countries in Europe already have "word crime" laws, as part of their pernicious "hate crime" packages. Why not bring such innovation to these shores and join the Europeans? But, what am I thinking? All assaults on blacks (by non-blacks, of course) are first investigated to learn whether or not the "Nigger" word was hurled before the blows came. Then, thanks to "hate crime" statutes, the assaulter can be subject to extra penalties for the use of the term. Ooh, what he said! Since most assaults on blacks are perpetrated by fellow blacks, I wonder if there are any pre-assault verbiage investigations when the perp has an abundance of melanin. Want to guess?

By retreating on this issue of free speech, do whites really think that the cowardice they have displayed since the 1960s needs to be revealed any further? It is white cowardice that gave us those facets of that 1964 Civil Rights Act, that went over the top by stifling the movement for self-sufficiency and taking the wind out of the economic sails of blacks, while forcing whites to pick up the slack. It is white cowardice that made possible that outrageously unconstitutional Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. And how can we even keep count of the endless Affirmative Action and Quota laws around the land, that have undone any pretense at instilling fairness in society? All gifts of white cowardice.

Does Dr. Laura and her ilk really think the world needs any further evidence that whites are willing to submit to anything, but anything, to avoid offending black "sensitivities?" We get it. You will do anything, from overturning Articles in the Constitution, to denying free speech rights even to yourselves. We get it.

It is whites who fell to their knees in the 1960s, and have never gotten up. What fear of rioting and mayhem can do! And, even when a group declares, WE can do this, but YOU cannot, the whites' response isn't "That's what you think!" but, "Yes, Master, whatever you say." Dr. Laura confirms the three- to four-decade slide into docile obedience.

Read the rest here.

According to FOX News, the Democrats' “Divide and Conquer Strategy” has “Backfire[d]” and Sen. Harry Reid’s “racially-charged campaign comment” has elicited nothing short of a media “uproar.”

The obscene remark in question was uttered by Reid at a Hispanic gathering promoting English education; it reads as follows:

I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK?

I’m, of course, relieved to learn that the Democrats have been foiled in their attemtps to stereotype Mestizos, but it appears that the only people who’ve expressed “outrage” at Reid have been White Republican operatives and FOX News celebrities. In a Google news search, I was unable to find a notable Hispanic who was insulted by Reid’s comments and who also wasn’t Florida senatorial hopeful Marco Rubio.

As the GOP has become the White People’s Party demographically, its various spokesmen have become ever more fearful of pointing out what’s in front of their eyes and ever more eager to play the great game of accusing one’s opponent of “racism.”