A racist site, “Christian Identity.net,” (Christian identity claims only Europeans are true Israelites, considers Jews to be descendants of Satan, and Asians and blacks to be pre-Adamic descendants of the animals) wakes up to the fact that most racist or race-conscious  groups in the US are thoroughly infiltrated by agents provocateurs.

They have opportunistic government informers running them and are simply cashing in on their followers’ credulity with extreme rhetoric.

New World Order -related groups like the ADL (the anti-Defamation League), the SPLC, and the B’nai Brith, which act as American franchises of the Mossad, often have a cozy, symbiotic relationship with their supposed foes, white Christian nationalists:
“The second morning after each literature distribution the local newspaper always runs an Anti-Defamation League written template article about ‘hate’. This boilerplate article serves both the National Alliance and the Anti-Defamation League’s fund raising goals. The ADL routinely hails the NA as the “most dangerous organization in America”, even though ADL ‘investigators’ have long known about the NA’s true structure. The entire transaction scares up more donations for the ADL from neurotic Jews while also recruiting still more customers for the NA.

This mechanism is also the major reason why the pro-white movement is teeming with so many criminals and borderline psychotics.[Emphasis added.] The NA’s only positive goal is to maximize its own profits, just like any other private corporation. In the furtherance of this profit goal the National Alliance, Incorporated has willingly allowed its ostensible deadly enemy, the Masonic Jewish supremacists of B’nai B’rith, to define the pro-white cause for the American public.

With minor variations this business model has now been operating for three decades, ever since the National Alliance was incorporated in 1974.”

“Hate” and the “eradication of hate” are thus part of a lucrative racket that depends on whipping up fear on either side.

The same racket works in India, where NGOs get donations to fight supposed Hindu supremacists, who in turn scare their own followers out of funds on behalf of fighting secularizing leftists.

Meanwhile, the two supposed enemies collaborate at every turn to sell both sides further to the cabal of financiers at the top.

The Oklahoma fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon that was shuttered for racism a couple of days ago by Oklahoma University President David Boren now has high-profile defense attorney Stephen Jones  representing its board of directors.

Jones, interestingly enough, was the lawyer for Timothy McVeigh, the man convicted and put to death for bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the worst massacre on US soil until the WTC attacks took place only three months after McVeigh’s execution in June 2001.

This is not the first time that Jones, a Republican, has gone up against David Boren, a prominent Democrat Senator and influential member of the Senate  Intelligence Committee.

Jones contested Boren’s Senate seat in 1990.

This whole story has sounded contrived to me from the beginning; now, I’m even more suspicious.

I’ll  explain why in another blog.

Why did the entire Western political establishment march in sympathy with the seasoned  and very political cartoonists who drew vile anti-Islamic images in a publicly circulated magazine, while the same Western establishment – or at least its American subsidiary- comes down hard on some barely adult  (19-year old) frat boys mouthing racial slurs on a bus-ride with other frat boys?

What’s the difference?

As usual, it amounts to whose ox is being gored.

We marched with Hebdo, because that suited government objectives in foreign policy, and we don’t march with Oklahoma, because, equally, that suits the government’s domestic objectives.

Think about it.

The culpability of the Hebdo cartoonists was far greater than that of the fraternity students.

They were experienced professional newsmen, who had a history of selective provocation in the service of neoconservative political and military goals (see here).

The frat boys were youngsters (19 and 20), apparently drunk,  with no obvious agenda beyond expressing crude sentiments they probably picked up from adults in their circle.

The Hebdo cartoons were disseminated for public consumption in France, where the interaction between Muslims immigrants and native French is incendiary.  The cartoons were released in a context of a global ‘war on terror” directed mainly against Muslim cultures. A global war in which millions have died and whole nations have been uprooted and destroyed.

The frat boys voiced their opinions in what they assumed was a private group of like-minded peers. There was no intent to disseminate it to the public, especially not to blacks.

The Hebdo cartoons are easily seen as an act of provocation directed at an embattled religious culture .

Their lewdness was not simply “expression” but act  – the images  crossed the line into pornography  that forced the viewer into participating as voyeurs.

The frat boys’ chant was not directed at anyone and the reference to lynching in it, while ominous, is not actually an explicit threat to anyone, even within the context of the song.

The Hebdo cartoons were published by free, private citizens, civilians, who were not censored in any way.  The reaction of other free agents or civilians to them – however violent –  do not fall under the provisions of  First Amendment law, although they certainly do constitute criminal actions (murder).

The Oklahoma students attend a government university, making this by definition a First Amendment issue.

It is settled constitutional law that the government cannot punish the speech of citizens, especially those not directly employed by it,  if  that speech does not directly endanger the lives of anyone.

Public university speech codes are mostly unconstitutional.

I don’t suggest for a moment that the Oklahoma fraternity chant – as it is represented in the media  – is anything but disgraceful and repulsive.

But the legal distinctions are clear and easily verified.

Meanwhile, from a political angle, the boys are an easy target…. and a favorite one too.

The racist deep South, steeped in pre-war bigotry is the red rag that the liberal establishment (is there any other?) most often waves in front of the population in its ceaseless effort to demonize traditionalist cultures that form the only resistance to its relentless program of homogenizing and atomizing populations.

But it is more red herring than red rag.

Nearly as many blacks died at the hands of blacks in 6 months in 2012 than were killed by lynching between 1882 and 1968, and while that fact does not in any way, shape, or form, exonerate that era  of its evil, it surely convicts this one of a different evil.

What that  might be is irrelevant, really.

Whether institutional racism is the villain of this era, or gang wars, or drug policy, or welfarism, Dixie is the architect of none of these.

The Great Society welfare programs that broke the back of the  black family (and, increasingly, the white family) might have been enacted under Lyndon Baines Johnson, a good old boy if ever there was one, but they were hatched by left-wing ideologues like Richard Clowen and Frances Fox Piven, professors at Columbia University, one of the roosts of the liberal establishment.

When the next cell-phone recording catches one of those worthies with their intellectual and moral pants around their knees, let me know what they’re saying about free speech on American campuses.

Meantime, I’m marching with the Nazis at Skokie.

What, you didn’t see #JeSuisSAE on Twitter after the upheaval at Oklahoma University over that racially charged fraternity chant?

No march for Oklahoma’s fraternities on behalf of the sanctity of free speech in the free West?

“We are all Charlie Hebdo,” pronounced  libertarian Nick Gillespie earlier this year. Speak for yourself Nick, though, to be sure, the loud mouth Okies have only been “blown away” figuratively, not literally.

But Hebdo was not a government organ, while the University of Oklahoma certainly receives federal funding and is subject, also, to federal anti-discrimination law.

So freedom of speech was not at issue in Hebdo, whereas it is here, although you wouldn’t know it from the commentary.

If we can lock arms in solidarity over our right to depict Mohammed as a camel-humping pedophile in Paris, surely we can lock arms in solidarity over our right to taunt  “n******”  with lynching, lest they crash Oklahoma fraternities….

and Eugene Volokh makes the constitutional case for that position here:

1. First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). (I set aside the separate question of student speech that is evaluated as part of coursework or class participation, which necessarily must be evaluated based on its content; this speech clearly doesn’t qualify.)

Meanwhile, can we wait a bit to find out what actually happened, before we make this another national racial moment?

At Harry’s Place, Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi spots some important discrepancies in the writing of conservative Theodore Dalrymple, who, despite his goyische name, is actually of Jewish descent. (His real name is Anthony Daniels). Correction: I wrote Andrew earlier, by mistake.

Long before I knew that little factoid about Dalrymple’s name, I had an inkling, from style alone, that the man was temperamentally closer to neo-con than to con.

How could he constantly agitate against the third-world, against Islam and against immigrants, and yet be so so strangely silent on the immigration debate?

That inflexible adherence to one of the lynch-pins of modern liberalism betrays TD as an ideological individualist and no cultural conservative.

Then came another factoid: Dalrymple had been a communist in his youth.

And another:

Dalrymple is a close friend of Alexander Boot and his son, Max (one of the scribes of American empire and a card-carrying neoconservative).

It goes without saying that that association of itself doesn’t make Dalrymple guilty of neo-connery.

But it helps one understand the somewhat unconservative tone of this supposed conservative mouth-piece.

And it does suggest why he focuses so much, and so virulently, on Islam:

See, for eg., The Case for Mistrusting Muslims;  The Question of Islam ; and Islam’s Night-Club Brawl

Al-Tammimi’s sharp observations add to my questions about Dalrymple:

Recently you may have seen several citations of a certain Theodore Dalrymple (the pen name of Anthony Daniels) in prominent media outlets like The Wall Street Journal, where he is interviewed to provide psychoanalysis of Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik. These appearances are not the first time Dalrymple has come into the public spotlight: over the years, he has written for publications across the political spectrum, ranging from the Independent to the Daily Telegraph.

In advancing his arguments, Dalrymple, who previously worked as a prison psychiatrist in England, primarily draws on anecdotal experiences with the numerous patients he has treated throughout his career. Indeed, in the introduction to his collection of essays entitled “Life at the Bottom” (Ivan R. Dee 2001), he claims that he has “interviewed some ten thousand people who have made an attempt (however feeble) at suicide” and that from this source alone, he has “learned about the lives of some fifty thousand people” (pg. vii).

I have never been fond of arguments based on hearsay, although I have enjoyed reading Dalrymple’s essays for quite some time because of his style of prose that is marked by highly comprehensible sentence structure and is peppered with Latin phrases. In any case, I am not here to discuss the merit of themes in Dalrymple’s work. Rather, the real question is whether the doctor’s anecdotal accounts are actually true. In short, as a former “distinguished foreign correspondent for the BBC” once supposedly asked him: Has he simply “made it all up” (from the article in “Life at the Bottom” entitled “Seeing is not Believing”-pg. 245)?

The other day I remembered that one of the essays in “Life at the Bottom”- entitled “And Dying Thus Around Us Every Day” (published 2001)- contains an anecdotal account (pg. 175-77) related to the essay’s broader theme of being cowed by accusations of institutionalized racism, whether in the workplace or in media. It turns out that this same account appears in somewhat condensed form in a later article by him with the title “A Modern Witch Trial,” which deals with the same subject and appeared in the Spring 2009 issue of City Journal, a publication to which Dalrymple regularly contributes.

The outline of the story is as follows: a young black man who turned into a recluse attempted suicide by barricading himself in the house and slitting his wrists. Dalrymple, thinking the man was mentally ill, suggested to the patient’s mother that he should not be released from hospital; that he might remain for further treatment. At first, the mother agreed, but then at least one friend of the young man- also black- accused Dalrymple of racism. The mother subsequently turned against the doctor. Feeling the heat amid the prospect of a violent row, Dalrymple agreed to release the young man from hospital, even though he had power within the law to retain the patient for further treatment. He therefore issued a declaration (only with moral validity, not legal) to make it clear that neither he nor the hospital could be held responsible for anything that might happen to the young man on release. The young man later killed himself, although family and friends decided not to hold Dalrymple responsible.
However, there are variations in the story:

(i) In “And Dying Thus Around Us Every Day,” the mother called the fire department to break into the barricaded house, discovering the young man unconscious with his slit wrists (pg. 175), but in “A Modern Witch Trial,” police and family were the ones who forced their way into the barricaded house.

(ii) In the 2001 essay, Dalrymple claims that both one of the young man’s brothers and a friend of the young man accused him of racism, and threatened to bring in other friends and family to cause a disturbance in the hospital if the patient were not released (pg. 176). Nonetheless, in the City Journal article, he just says that the friend came in and threatened to bring in other friends to stir up a disturbance in the hospital. Furthermore, in “And Dying Thus Around Us Every Day,” Dalrymple only claims that he made the mother sign the declaration warning that he could not be held responsible for what might happen to her son (ibid.), but in the City Journal article, he says that both the mother and friend signed the declaration.
(iii) The cause of death: in the 2001 essay, Dalrymple states, “A few weeks later the young man killed himself by hanging” (ibid.). However, in “A Modern Witch Trial,” he claims that “six weeks later, the young man gassed himself to death with car exhaust.”

How does Dalrymple explain the discrepancies in the two accounts of this affair? It seems that the narrative in City Journal is designed to provoke greater outrage: notably with Dalrymple giving in to the threats of a mere friend of the young man (rather than the latter’s family members); and gassing oneself to death sounds much more unusual and horrific than suicide by hanging.

Assuming the incident is true, he must- for obvious reasons- omit names and certain factual details that risk revealing the identities of the patient, his family and friends, and work colleagues. Nevertheless, omission is not the same thing as alteration. If, for example, the young man did kill himself by hanging as he states in the 2001 essay, why not either repeat this detail in the City Journal article or omit it and just affirm that a few weeks after being released the young man committed suicide without specifying how he did so?

What further suggests to me a habit of embellishment is the fact that, when he could name specifics so that readers might check the veracity of his statements, he does not do so. For example, he does not tell us the name of the former “distinguished foreign correspondent for the BBC” who asked him whether he simply made up these accounts of personal experiences with patients in his career as a psychiatrist. Nor does he name the “famous and venerable liberal publication” that hosted the lunch meeting where he supposedly encountered this former BBC correspondent (pg. 245).

Dalrymple assures me that there are no discrepancies at all: the point is, he says, that the fact of the young man’s suicide matters more than the method used. He added that suicide is possible by more than one means at the same time. His first rationale illustrates a reckless disregard for proper fact-checking and concern for consistency. Like Edward Said in his book Orientalism, Dalrymple appears to think that it is okay to play around with specific points like Play-Doh, just as long as he is on to some sort of “Higher Truth.”

As for the second point, he is of course correct (incidentally, Dalrymple had no reason to presume that I did not know this), yet it is highly improbable that you can hang yourself and use car exhaust to kill yourself at the same time. Moreover, he specifies different time intervals for each method of suicide. A few weeks do not amount to six weeks. Either the man killed himself by hanging a few weeks after being released, or he used car exhaust six weeks after his release. Which is it, my dear Theodore?

I urge for a crowdsourcing project of Dalrymple’s writings to detect other instances where he has used the same anecdotal accounts with discrepancies in different articles. Readers can contribute any discoveries they make on this matter in the comments threads, and I will add them as updates to the original blog posting. If Dalrymple is guilty of embellishment as I suspect (or at the worst, complete fabrication- a charge that I will not deign to throw at him owing to insufficient evidence), then he must be exposed publicly, just as Johann Hari’s failure to live up to the basic standards of journalism was brought to light

.”

Reverend Eric Foley of Voice of the Martyrs, Korea, explains why “private” religious practice will not provoke government persecution and asks if Jesus taught a “private” faith:

The private pursuit of faith rarely raises the hackles of even the most restrictive governments. If Christians around the world would just act like American Christians, privatizing their faith, there would be a whole lot less persecution in the world.

No, the most common form of persecution does not involve home invasions and the roughing up of those who profess a personal relationship to Jesus. Instead, the most common form of persecution is something that, sadly, most American Christians would embrace as actually being quite reasonable and even preferable–certainly understandable at least. It takes the form of a government saying something quite reasonable sounding, like this:

“Religious violence is inexcusable. We may have different ideas about God, but God sure doesn’t want us killing each other. Therefore, we need to make some laws that govern how religions behave when they are out in public.” Yes, that is very true, thinks the average American Christian. Religious people shouldn’t be killing each other, you know. And so the government continues its pursuit of reasonability:

“No one should have religious propaganda shoved down their throats, after all. Let everyone who wants to, be able to freely seek out information about religions that interest them–on their own terms. None of this telemarketing-during-dinner type behavior with evangelists shouting at us on the streets.” Yes, quite right, thinks the average American Christian. Why should someone interfere with my freedom? If I want to find out more about a religion, I will Google it on my own time.

And so certainly it will strike many as reasonable that children should not have their parents’ religion shoved down their throats, either. Let the children choose for themselves when they are of age. Until then, the government will assiduously guard their right to, uh, freely not know.

See? No baseball bat anywhere in sight. No heads being bashed like watermelons. And even the average Christian nodding sagely that protecting rights means restricting rights. If you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater, you sure shouldn’t be able to share your faith just because you think I need to accept it for myself.

Or so the prevailing wisdom goes.

And this is why when people ask me, “How can I prepare for the coming Christian persecution in America?” I reply, “If you are not presently being persecuted, I wouldn’t worry about it a whole lot.” Because Christian persecution is not the result of state malfeasance. It is the result of seeking to live a godly life in Christ Jesus.

You may have read last week about our upcoming fall campaign, 100 Days of Worship in the Common Places, as the North Korean underground church teaches the rest of us a thing or two about how to get your government to launch a full scale persecution of Christians. (Make sure to check out our Facebook page to learn more about and sign up to join the campaign.) The essential point is this:

Today, persecution follows worship in the common places like day follows night. If you quietly, peacefully, insistently carry out basic worship (in the case of our campaign, we’ll be using a liturgy drawn from the Four Pillars of underground North Korean Christian worship) in the common places of life–home, work, front porch, school, coffee shop, store–you will be persecuted.

No, likely not with baseball bats. Reasonability is the far more popular weapon of Christian persecution today and, interestingly, always has been. You’ll be safe in your home with your personal (i.e., private) relationship with Jesus. But if that thought brings you relief, you may be safe and yet not be saved. That was what Wesley meant when he made his famous (and nearly universally misunderstood) comment that all holiness is social holiness. This is what Wesley said:

Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary religion is not to be found there. ‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social holiness.

And this is the sad paradox about American religious life:

The private practice of religion according to the dictates of one’s own conscience is likely assured for Americans for the forseeable future.

But the private practice of religion according to the dictates of one’s own conscience is wholly antithetical to what Paul meant by seeking to live a godly life in Christ Jesus.

It would almost be easier to get Christians to respond if the government got out the baseball bats.”

Incomplete nutrition, not “senility,” is the culprit behind many types of memory loss and cognitive failure among seniors, reports Edward Group from the Global Healing Center (via LRC).

The notion that the elderly are unable to think for themselves and constantly forgetting the most mundane things is a bad and unfair caricature. In reality, senility only strikes 5% of Americans, so the odds are in your favor. With a little prudence, a lot of age-related declines in mental function can be avoided.

Scientists from Tufts University conducted a review and discovered that vitamin deficiencies — not brain decay — were responsible for many of the symptoms of senility.

According to the review, scientists discovered that low folate levels in the elderly can cause forgetfulness and even depression. Vitamin B6, required for the synthesis of neurotransmitters, may contribute to peripheral neuropathy, a disorder of the nervous system that causes numbness and tingling in the legs. Vitamin B12 ensures nerves are protected with a myelin sheath and mood disturbances can occur when levels fall well below normal.

The unsettling thing about nutrient deficiencies is that they’re often overlooked. In fact, an older individual can be lacking in certain vitamins for years without dramatic signs of a deficiency. How many people are slowly decaying simply as a result of a very fixable nutrient deficiency? Mental symptoms may not show up immediately, and even usual blood tests are not always reliable. ^[1]
Perhaps one of the biggest myths about maintaining good health through the aging process is that nutritional needs stay the same. Every age range has different nutritional needs, and the elderly are no exception.
Experts are still arguing about if diet truly needs change with age; however, it is true that a good, sound diet with plenty of raw vegetation is ideal. Still, it’s estimated up to 40% of independent elderly are deficient in a wide range of nutrients for multiple reasons. Chronic illness, both mental and physical, can contribute to nutritional issues and deficiencies. Various medications can also impair nutrient availability or discourage eating due to appetite loss. Even ill-fitting dentures can be painful enough to prevent a person from eating. Elderly who live alone may feel isolated and may even forget to eat due to a lack of social cues.

But even if you are healthy during old age, aging itself generally alters metabolism and physiology. Stomach acid usually declines, thus affecting some nutrient absorption — especially B12. Aging also dampens the body’s appetite center and it’s suspected that an older palate doesn’t detect those tastes that drive us to the dinner table, namely salt and sweet. ^[2]

Some recent examples of the erosion of freedom to express or practice Christian beliefs in the West:

1.  USA June 4, 2012

World Net Daily:

The Telegraph, UK:

“The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.”

3. USA  November 24, 2014

The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

From The Cardus Daily, a report on the difficulties of being a practicing Christian lawyer or doctor in Canada today:

“With the TWU battle raging, another overt campaign to drive out or silence Christians in the legal community was commenced. The Legal Leaders for Diversity (LLD) and is made up of the heads of the legal departments from more than 70 major corporations. The campaign involves its own form of community covenant by these 70+ corporations (including BMO, Ford, The Globe and Mail and the Edmonton Oilers) to restrict hiring of law firms for their legal work to those who have a commitment to “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” The LLD’s definition of these words requires approval of same-sex marriage and excludes Christians or others who might have a different opinion.

The LLD publicly opposed TWU’s proposed law school on the basis that TWU’s Community Covenant is not “inclusive.”

This direct attack on Christian lawyers is meant to create a chilling effect in the legal profession. Lawyers who work for law firms seeking to do business with these corporations will hesitate, and perhaps even be barred from voicing their religious and moral beliefs, or for acting for religious clients in human rights cases dealing with these issues. It’s a scary time to be a Christian lawyer in Canada.

For Christian physicians, the most recent attack was triggered by a series of media stories about doctors in an Ottawa clinic who do not prescribe contraceptives because of their religious beliefs.

In the wake of this coverage, the College of Physicians and Surgeon’s of Ontario (CPSO) decided to revise its policy which sets out physicians’ obligations and expectations vis-à-vis the Ontario Human Rights Code. Despite several submissions from various lawyers and organizations—including myself on behalf of two groups of Christian physicians—that set out the legal basis for which the CPSO was required to protect the religious and conscience rights of physicians, the CPSO has released a draft policy which specifically requires physicians to provide referrals for procedures, treatments, or pharmaceuticals they object to on religious or moral grounds.

For some, such referrals are as morally problematic as doing the procedure itself. If a physician has the moral or religious conviction that abortion or euthanasia is the taking of an innocent human life, then the physician who formally refers a patient to the abortionist or euthanist has contributed to the taking of that life and, therefore, the doing of harm.

If the CPSO policy is finalized as currently worded, Christian physicians are no longer welcome in the medical profession unless they are willing to compromise their religious and moral beliefs. Dr. Marc Gabel, who chairs the group which produced the draft policy, has publicly stated that physicians who refuse to refer for procedures or pharmaceuticals they object to should leave family medicine. It’s a scary time to be a Christian doctor in Canada.”