Note to Readers

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Friday, July 23, 2010

AmRen's Jared Taylor defines and explains Race Realism...




Race realist Jared Taylor declares the "civil rights struggle was won long ago"

July 20, 8:05
Jamie Hines, Civil Rights Examiner




Jared Taylor (Right) and Jesse Jackson at the National Press Club, Washington DC, March 18, 2010

Jared Taylor, current editor of the American Renaissance, denies the term “white nationalist” and explains why he is not a “white supremacist.” But, what this established journalist claims, is that he is a “race realist.” Taylor’s views have become an important piece of the race relations puzzle, and can often be found in studies, essays, newspapers (including the Washington Post) and books. Taylor has been called everything from a racist to a “true paragon of tolerance.” He takes a few moments to discuss with Jamie Hines what is a “race realist,” why there is no need for the civil rights battle, and what he thinks of President Barack Obama.

JH: I’ve read that you describe yourself as a “race realist.” What is a “race realist?”

JT: Race realism is rejection of the agreeable fantasies about race that have become orthodoxy since the 1960s. First, it is obvious that most people prefer the company of others of their own race. Forced integration therefore causes tension and resentment.

Second, race is an important element in individual and group identity, which means it is impossible to build a society in which race does not matter.

Third, people of different races build different societies. Blacks—wherever they are found in large numbers—establish communities with certain characteristics, and whites and others do the same.

Fourth, the combination of the first three factors means that racial diversity is a source of constant conflict. This is blindingly obvious, yet one of the requirements of respectability in this country is to pretend—and to repeat loudly at every opportunity—that diversity is a strength.

Fifth, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic contribution to well-established racial differences in average IQ. North East Asians living in America have higher incomes, better test scores, and more education than whites because they are, on average, smarter. Whites are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than blacks. It is vital to recognize this because otherwise “society” (meaning whites) is blamed for the failures of blacks and Hispanics.

Finally, race realism recognizes that whites have legitimate group interests just like everyone else.


JH: What are the legitimate group interests of whites?

JT: It is vital to eliminate the stark racial double standard that denies whites even have legitimate interests as a group. White pride or racial consciousness is considered “bigotry” or “hatred,” while any other kind of racial consciousness is considered to be a healthy form of ethnic self-esteem. This means every group in the country—except whites—is constantly pushing its collective interests, while whites are not allowed even to have interests as a group, much less work for them.

Some of the interests of whites are obvious. The first is not to be reduced to a minority. Most whites don’t want this but they dare not say so for fear of being accused of “hate.” Hispanics, on the other hand, are constantly rejoicing in their increased numbers and influence, and it is considered natural for them to look forward to eventually become a majority. Their gain is our loss, so why are they allowed to be happy about their gain but we are not allowed to resist our loss?

Whites have every right to prefer the kind of society that they create and to resist demographic shifts that are already changing their country in profound ways. Jews have a right to a Jewish state, and they keep it Jewish through selective immigration. Japanese have a right to a Japanese state and they keep it that way through restrictive immigration. Whites also, whether in North America or Europe, have the right to live in nations that reflect their culture and heritage.

Second, what is known as “affirmative action” is really discrimination against whites. If the kinds of preferences shown to blacks or Hispanics were shown to whites it would be a nation scandal, but because the victims are whites (and sometimes Asians) it is of no consequence. Whites must work to eliminate this while it is still possible to do so. When non-whites become majorities, they are likely to push for even more extensive racial preferences than the ones they enjoy today.


JH: Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist and/or a White Supremacist? Why or Why not?

JT: No. I don’t know what the term white nationalist is supposed to mean. White supremacists presumably want to rule other races, and race realists have no such desire. I believe people of every race should be free to pursue their own destinies, and this is impossible in societies in which they become minorities.

It should not be necessary to add that a concern for one’s own interests implies no hostility to others. Race realists understand that people of all races have the same rights: to preserve their culture and identity against any force that would dilute or replace it. One’s race is one’s extended family. Putting the interests of family before the interests of strangers is not hostility to strangers. One can become good friends with strangers but family comes first.


JH: After doing some research, I’ve found that your parents were “conventional liberals” who were missionaries in Japan. At what point, and why, did your views shift from what you seen at a younger age?

JT: I, too, was a conventional liberal until I was in my 30s. I preferred being a liberal. Liberals are happy to consider themselves morally superior to conservatives (and certainly to anyone who could be called a “racist,” whatever that means). Also, liberalism is the driving, majority ethos of the United States, and it is more comfortable to agree with the majority. I clung desperately to liberalism. It was the study of history and economics as well as extensive travel in Europe and Africa that finally ground away my liberal illusions.


JH: How do you feel about the election of the first black President?

JT: It was bound to happen eventually, given the collapse of the white majority. Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country majority white. Since that time, the white percentage has declined from about 88 percent to perhaps 62 percent. Do not forget: 55 percent of whites voted for Mr. Obama’s opponent. Twenty years ago, any candidate who got 55 percent of the white vote became president. Now, a majority of whites can vote for a candidate but his opponent may win. In this sense, because of demographic change, you could say that whites did not get the president they wanted. Why should whites encourage that kind of change?

As for Mr. Obama, he encourages the population shifts that are displacing whites. He has sued a state that simply wants to enforce the duly established immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. He wants to give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are non-white. In these respects, he is probably not much different from his main Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. However, even she would not have ordered the Justice Department to drop its voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panthers. This sort of thing is alienating whites.


JH: Describe the current state of race relations in America.

JT: Race is, and always will be, a serious social fault line in this country. Relative peace is maintained because whites tolerate “affirmative action” and massive non-white immigration. They do this because they are browbeaten and bamboozled into thinking it is wrong for whites to act in their own interests. This will not always be the case, and race relations will get worse as more and more whites begin to resist dispossession.


JH: What are your thoughts about people who say, “race doesn’t matter?”

JT: They are fools. Race obviously matters. Ninety percent of the churches in the United States are at least 80 percent one race. Is that an accident? Residential segregation is not much different from patterns in the 1950s. Why is that? The NAACP, the Urban League, the Congressional Black Congress, the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and literally thousands of other groups and associations are based deliberately and specifically on race. Try telling their members race doesn’t matter.

It is almost exclusively white people who say race doesn’t matter, and this is because they are the only people who are required at least to pretend that it doesn’t matter. This, in turn, is because they are not allowed to have explicit racial interests of their own, and must deliberately close their eyes to the racial chauvinism of others lest they acknowledge this anti-white double standard.


JH: Do you believe that there is a need to fight for civil rights in America?

JT: What do you mean by “civil rights”? People of all races have the same legal rights in the United States, so the “civil rights” struggle was won long ago. Many blacks and Hispanics seem to think racial preferences for themselves are “civil rights” but they are actually a power grab at the expense of whites.

» » » » [Examiner] [American Renaissance]
[ZA: White Refugee]


No comments:

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]

Fair Use Notice...

FAIR USE NOTICE: The Crime of Apartheid blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the Boer Volkstaat 10/31/16 Theses Petition and Briefing Paper submitted to EU & NATO. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to Crime of Apartheid Blog at: [jmc.pa.tf(at)gmail(dot)com]