← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Blond Knight
Thread ID: 20009 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2005-09-05
2005-09-05 01:42 | User Profile
In lieu of the tradgedy that has befell our kinfolk in the path of Hurricane Karina, I submit the following article from an interesting pro 2nd ammendment website that I just stumbled across.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Website: [url]http://www.secondamendment.net/[/url]
Article: [url]http://www.secondamendment.net/eunimpluribus.htm[/url]
E Unim Pluribus
(Out of one, many)
Howard Fezell, Editor [url]www.SecondAmendment.net[/url]
In the decades after first arriving in North America, European immigrants remained keenly aware of their group interests as Germans, Irish, Italians, Swedes, Poles, Greeks, etc. That sense of group consciousness has largely been lost through assimilation. Lost with it is the willingness to speak candidly about things affecting the quality of life for whites. That willingness, and a healthy sense of racial consciousness, must be regained if whites are to survive as a race.
ââ¬ÅIââ¬â¢m not prejudiced, but. . .ââ¬Â How many times have you heard that phrase when the topic was race? The speaker felt compelled to assure others that although his comments might be critical he was not prejudiced. To be perceived as prejudiced against non-whites in a country where ââ¬Åall men are created equalââ¬Â may not only result in social ostracism, it could end a career. But, what is prejudice? Merriam-Websterââ¬â¢s definition of the word includes ââ¬Åan adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledgeââ¬Â and ââ¬Åan irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.ââ¬Â
For a person to be prejudiced his opinions or attitudes must not only be adverse, they must also be irrational or formed without sufficient knowledge. But what about adverse opinions based upon facts or personal experience?
Statistics published by the U.S. Department of Justice reveal that, as a group, blacks commit murder, robbery rape, and aggravated assault at four to eight times the rate such crimes are committed by whites. Latinos, as a group, commit these crimes at roughly three times the white rate. Survival is the most basic instinct of all living things, and nothing could be more rational than not wanting to fall victim to a violent crime. Whites are not prejudiced when they avoid living in neighborhoods where blacks or Latinos reside in significant numbers. They are acting rationally. ââ¬ÅWhite flightââ¬Â does not occur because racial integration has made neighborhoods safer or increased property values.
Any responsible parent is concerned about the quality of education available to his or her children. Statistics published by the U.S. Department of Education reveal that the academic performance of black and Latino students, on average, lags well behind that of white and Asian students. Black and Latino students also cause a disproportionate amount of disciplinary problems that not only disrupt the educational process but often create an unsafe environment that is not conducive to learning. It is only natural for good parents to want their children to get a good education, and the decline of standards and discipline in urban schools that were integrated contributed to the exodus of whites from cities to the suburbs. Whites are not prejudiced when they seek out schools with as few blacks and Latinos as possible. They are acting rationally in trying to get their children a decent education in a safe environment.
To ââ¬Åpeople of colorââ¬Â, however, prejudice is not limited to the irrational or preconceived judgments described in a dictionary. Whites are routinely branded as prejudiced for failing to embrace racial integration and preferences. Whites can also be publicly ridiculed merely for speaking the truth, if the truth happens to reflect poorly upon non-whites. (Non-whites can criticize whites without any consequences.) One such truth is that race does matter a great deal in whether oneââ¬â¢s neighborhood will be a fit place to live or whether a school will be a safe environment conducive to learning.
If refusing to embrace egalitarian myths will condemn whites to the margins of a multicultural society it is time for them to emancipate themselves from such a society. Whites in North America must disassimilate, thinking of themselves not as citizens of the United States or Canada but as European Americans whose group interests as Caucasians come before loyalty to any flag or constitution. Disassimilation does not mean acting with hostility towards people of other backgrounds, but simply ââ¬ÅLooking out for #1.ââ¬Â Being racially conscious is not racist. It is just playing by the same rules non-Europeans have followed for generations. Being racially conscious means caring about and giving first priority to the interests of people like yourself, just like the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, National Council of La Raza (Spanish for The Race), Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Semites (Arabs and Jews) have always understood that no society can be blind to race and have looked out for the interests of people like themselves. They seek every group advantage possible while expecting whites to foolishly sacrifice their group interests for the sake of ââ¬Åequalityââ¬Â or ââ¬Ådiversity.ââ¬Â
European Americans must not be bashful about sticking together and asserting their own group interests since it is projected they will be just another minority in the United States by 2050. Like blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Semites, the first and most important question European Americans should always ask is, ââ¬ÅIs it good for my race?ââ¬Â
2005-09-05 01:59 | User Profile
Because of Katrina I'm a new convert to the NRA and 2nd Amendment camp. The wisdom of allowing citizens to have guns struck me when I saw an NBC piece about a group of whites hiding on a building rooftop in New Orleans, in absolute terror, hoping that the looters and marauders would not find them. I thought, yeah, those guys might not have military training, but if only they had guns, they've seen alot of coverage of soldiers in Iraq and lots of video of Blackwater Security guys working in Iraq to give them enough of an idea how to act in a protective, defensive manner.
I think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, concealed or not, up to assault weapons. I agree with Pat Buchanan's gun control policy, which is, "If you need a trailor hitch to move it, you've got to register it."
2005-09-05 02:05 | User Profile
Excellent looking site, BK. Thanks.
2005-09-05 02:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]Because of Katrina I'm a new convert to the NRA.[/QUOTE]I've supported the NRA for years, decades actually, but not any more. The NRA's time has passed and is now under Jewish control. The President of the NRA is Jewish.
2005-09-05 02:35 | User Profile
If you are looking to stock up on ammo, check out this site:[URL]http://www.Amunitionstore.com[/URL]
This is also a good time to get a copy of James Wesley Rawles' book "Patriots Surviving the Comming Collapse". This is essentially a survival manual in the form of a novel.
2005-09-05 05:40 | User Profile
That Fezell website is very good (but am I alone in thinking that the name "Howard Fezell" sounds a bit Jewish?). It could wake up a lot of people in the gun-owning community with regards to racial issues.
I do have a serious problem with one position of Fezell's, though. Here's an excerpt from the following essay:
[url]http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd7updated.html[/url]
ââ¬ÅFrom My Cold Dead Fingersââ¬Â
There is a big difference between resistance in defense of our Constitution and committing suicide. I advocate the former. Since my essay was first published more than 10 years ago, I have heard from several people who think itââ¬â¢s unpatriotic not to offer physical resistance should the authorities try to seize their guns. One anonymous soul sent me a letter chiding me for being a ââ¬Åpussyââ¬Â. He even enclosed the classic bumper sticker declaring, ââ¬ÅTHEY CAN HAVE MY GUN WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERSââ¬Â. I hope my anonymous correspondent is reading this because, my friend, that is exactly where the guys in the ninja suits will retrieve your gun after they kill you. Want to slug it out with the police from your home? They will simply secure the perimeter and call for backup. Donââ¬â¢t be surprised if, after a couple of minutes, an armored vehicle rumbles up the street and right onto your front lawn. Do yourself and your family a big favor and avoid any violent confrontations with the authorities.
While I'm not going to call Fezell a pussy, I think he's very misguided and dead wrong about not violently resisting confiscation (or other acts of tyranny). [u]Violent resistance to the "authorities" is precisely why there's a Second Amendment in the first place[/u]. And who says you have to get surrounded in your home? The idea is to avoid that in the first place, although if it somehow happens you can always take a few of the bastards with you (and then they can pry your rifle from your "cold, dead hands") as the folks at Waco and Ruby Ridge bravely did. The best thing to do, though, will be to take the fight to the gun-grabbers, hit-and-run style.
The "authorities" are hardly invincible. They may be brave when they have someone surrounded and outnumbered 40-to-1, but that's the extent of their bravery. In the event of confiscations, they'll be fighting for paychecks, while resisters will be fighting for freedom. The only thing that could allow the "authorities" to win such a confrontation would be too many gun owners with defeatist attitudes like Fezell's.