Death of the West

Part 3. The Revolutionary Catechism

When the Round Table is broken, everyone should decide for themselves with whom he — with Galahad or Modredom, no middle ground. KS Lewis

So why the calls this new religion, this new faith, who flew on the wings of the revolution? And how is it different from the old faith?

First of all, this new faith is the only faith of our world. She refuses to acknowledge any sort was the highest morals, whatever was the highest moral authority. Another world is happy to leave Christianity and other traditional religions — if only to not take in head to enter the area or go to school. If you wish, you can believe in the biblical stories in the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, a serpent-tempter, original sin, the expulsion from Eden, to Moses on Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments, carved into the stone, and the mandatory compliance for all and everyone, yes, you can believe it, but never more than this will not be taught as an indisputable truth. For the truth, as the opening of Darwin and confirmed by modern science, is that the human race is the fruit of billions of years of evolution. "Science shows that humanity is a product of natural evolution," — says the second "Humanities Manifesto" published in 1973. Everything came in exactly as shown in the picture hanging on the wall of any biological class in any school — monkeys, walking on four legs, stand on the first two, and then completely evolved into Homo Erestus.

The new gospel are, of course, his commandments, namely: there is no God in the universe to find the absolute values, belief in the supernatural is a prejudice. Life starts here and ends here, and its purpose — pleasure, available in a single world known to us. Every society develops its own code of ethics, every person has the right to develop a similar code for himself. As luck — the crown of life and as we — rational beings, we have the right to judge ourselves when life's burdens outweigh the joys of life and when the time comes to cut short his career — whether his own hands, or with family and physicians.

The First Commandment of the new gospel is: "All the ways of life are equal." Love and its indispensable companion, sex, eating healthy, good effects, therefore Allowed any voluntary sexual relations — is a personal matter, nothing more, and the state has no right to interfere in this area. This principle — all lifestyles are equal — to be fixed in the law, and those who refuse to obey the new laws should be punished. If you do not respect the way of life of a neighbor — then you're a hypocrite. Discrimination against those who practice lifestyles that are different from yours, — a crime. The evil that must be eradicated — homophobia, not homosexuality.

"Do not judge (but thou shalt not judge)" — this is the second commandment. However, the revolution did not just judge it harshly persecutes anyone who violates the first commandment. How to reconcile these two positions?

According to the Catechism of the revolution, the old Christian ethics condemn sex outside of marriage and homosexuality unnatural announced for the reason that the fundamentals of ethics served as superstition, Christian duplicity, religious dogma and barbaric tradition. Christian ethics is cruel, it oppresses people and therefore serves as a barrier to happiness, it is responsible for the destruction of countless lives, especially the lives of those who are attracted to members of their own sex.

New Ethics is based on enlightenment and respect for others. Fixing the Christian ethic in the form of a law, the state has violated human rights. However, our ethics, transformed into law, pushes the boundaries of freedom and defends the rights of oppressed minorities.

It follows from this position, justifying sexual permissiveness: as condoms and abortion are necessary to prevent adverse effects of free sex — from herpes and AIDS to pregnancy — they should be available to all sexually active representatives of the human race (if necessary, up to the fifth year of secondary school).


Under the new catechism for the use of schools for children of suggestion Judeo-Christian beliefs prohibited. On the contrary, schools should be taught to children tolerance, tolerance to all possible ways of life, to cultivate their respect for all cultures, to preach "reproductive freedom" and the desirability of racial, ethnic and religious diversification. In the new schools have not observed such holidays as Easter Week, signifying Christ's Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Son of God. Earth Day, which refers to the need for children to love, protect and store Mother Earth, there is now a day of reconciliation with oneself and day reflections, and any student is not allowed to neglect this holiday. The movement to protect the environment, wrote a traditionalist scholar Robert Nisbet, "is rapidly emerging as the third wave that threatens to overwhelm the West, Christianity was the first, the second — socialism."

In fact, the cultural revolution does not seek to create a level playing field for all faiths and all religions, it leads to new ethical hegemony. After the expulsion of the Bible schools, books, holy fathers, religious symbols and patterns of appropriate content, after the "removal" of religious holidays these schools, according to the revolutionaries should transform into centers of learning a new faith. Here's what he wrote with disarming candor about the new role of U.S. schools in 1983 in the journal "Hyumanist" John Dunphy:

"The battle for the future of humanity will occur in the classroom, and will head its teachers identify themselves as proselytes of the new faith, new religiichelovechestva … These teachers should relate to his duties as jealously as treated them the most famous preachers, for they — the same shepherds, only instead of chairs they have a teacher's desk … Classrooms should be and always will be the arenas of conflict between the old and the new — between the decaying Christianity, with all his cronies, and the new faith of humanity, promising peace to the world in which ngkonets something will be achieved and not will take place in Christianity, the idea of love of neighbor. And in this battle, victory will be ours … ".

Yes, it turns out that the new faith is not as peace-loving as she would like to appear.

In politics, a new faith is expressed in the globalization and skeptical view of the patriotism, as we know from history that excessive love of country often led to the suspicion of neighbors and, as a consequence, to wars. The history of civilization is the history of wars, so the new faith intends to destroy the nation and the nation state. Supporting the activities of the United Nations, foreign aid, treaties banning anti-personnel mines, the non-use of nuclear weapons and the prosecution of war criminals, and the forgiveness of debts the poorest countries — these signs of "progressive" person "progressive" politics. As soon as a new supranational education — whether it be the World Trade Organization, the Kyoto Protocol to prevent global warming or the International Court of Justice for war criminals — the revolution leads to a transfer of power from the relevant national authorities (otim supra-national and supranational entities.

Shelley once called poets "unrecognized zakodatelyami the world." Now, in the perception of young poets replaced songwriters, and in the 1960s the popularity of "The Beatles" knew no bounds, and John Lennon claimed the title of poet laureate of the new generation. In the song «Imagine» Lennon in a few lines sketched his vision of an earthly paradise — paradise post-Christian era:

Imagine that there is no heaven above us, it's easy, you just try it. Imagine, no hell below us, Above the heads of the sky. People, you only imagine it myself.

Imagine that there is no state, nothing should be done in a hurry, no more war and killing, and no religion too, Imagine all the people Living in the world …

Calls himself "an instinctive socialist", Lennon further described a world without property, where everyone owns everything. However, after his death at the age of forty years, the world has learned that Lennon had owned for 275 million dollars, that is, he was one of the richest men on the planet.

However, despite the apparent utopian worlds Lennon, his bandmate Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan, these worlds remain attractive in the eyes of the young. After all, these songwriters have proposed a new faith with his own version of paradise — the here and now, as opposed to Christianity, the foundations of which inspire young people from infancy. In the words of David Nobel, author of "The Legacy of John Lennon," this man was well aware what he wants and what he wants to achieve. In an interview, 1960 Lennon shocked America with the words: "Christianity is doomed. It will fade and disappear. Since this does not even need to argue — so everything is clear. I know I'm right, and everyone else will soon see in my right. We are now much more popular than Jesus "


But religion requires both angels and demons. Much in the teachings of the new religion of hatred stems from the fact that she considers shameful, despicable, criminal past. For the Revolution Western history has a long list of crimes — slavery, genocide, colonialism, imperialism, etc. — are committed by States with a vowel or tacit approval of the Christian faith. "The white race — a cancer on the body of mankind" — written in 1967 by Susan Sontag, "midwife" of the revolution.

"The white race and it alone … to blame for the destruction of many civilizations have dared to raise his head … America was founded on genocide … It's blissfully racist country … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary system, the architecture of the Baroque, the emancipation women, Kant, Marx, and Balanchine ballets will never be able to repair the damage caused by western civilization rest of the world. "

As Rubashov in "Blinding Darkness", our elites have come to understand the words Sontag and voluntarily made efforts to "fitting for" these charges. If many Americans are ashamed of their country's history, who would dare to reproach them with this? Myron Magnet writes in his book "Dreams and Nightmares":

"… University of the University refuses to study traditionally recognized the great books of Western civilization and denies before the immutable ideas … There was an alternative canon, more suitable to the new reality: Paul Goodman, Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, Franz Fanon, Michel Foucault, James Baldwin, Malcolm X and later the lyrics of Bob Dylan, was removed from the pedestals of Plato and Montaigne. The main claim of the West is that the ideology of Western society suppresses the "instinctive pleasure" elected and ruthlessly exploit the poor and non-whites in the West and in the Third World. "

As described by his own country at the end of life of the novelist James Baldwin? In American history, he wrote, "and in the U.S. do not really find an institution that would not be racist in nature." Robin West, author of "Progressive constitutionalism", adds: "The Political History of the United States is largely the history of almost unconscious cruelty to slaves, genocide against the Native Americans, racism against non-whites and their cultures, chauvinism against women … "deconstructionist Jonathan Haller says that the Bible should be seen" not as a poetic story, not as a narrative but as an influential racist and chauvinistic text. " Such attacks in real time, it is not uncommon, they are more and more common to hear in American universities.

In 1990, Tulane University has launched a new program of "Initiatives to improve racial and gender situation." University President Eamon Kelly explained the need for the program: "racism and chauvinism pervades American society from top to bottom and from bottom to top … We all — the descendants of racist and chauvinist America." A recent report from the Office of Education of the State of New York on the reform of the educational schedule says the following: "African Americans, Asian Americans, Puerto Ricans and other Latinos, and Native Americans have all, without exception, were the victims of cultural oppression and cultural violence by European Americans over the centuries. "

That's what they teach the youth of today in college and even in the school: the Europeans and the Americans are guilty of the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants of the American continent. Our ancestors moved to the territory of the slave ships of the United States, millions of Africans were forced them to do the dirty work, which they themselves shunned and maimed and killed rebels. The Europeans also organized genocide against people of color, especially in Africa, and were collected from the local population all his wealth. Christianity is almost frowned upon, and to bless in slavery, imperialism, racism and machismo for four centuries.

"When I learned all this, can we talk about forgiveness?" — Asks the old man in "Gerontione" Eliot. "We have become accustomed to the founding fathers accused of racism, murder Indians, defending the class interests", — says Allan Bloom in "dimming of the American consciousness," and these allegations "undermine the confidence of our heroes and the belief in the superiority of America." Are understood to undermine that is their goal.

At trial, the history of America and the West in general, charged with the spirit of the Nuremberg Tribunal — "a crime against humanity. All too often, Western intellectuals, who ought to defend the greatest civilization in history, joining similar charges, or they have their own. And many of them, moreover, are only able to stammer repeat of the Germans at Nuremberg: "W-we d-don't know …"

In making these allegations, the revolution is pursuing specific goals: to strengthen the sense of guilt, moral disarm and paralyze the West, to achieve a succession of endless apologies and compensation for direct "loss", so that all the wealth of the West should gradually move to the prosecutors. Therefore, the charges take on an epic scale, and prosecutors act as horsemen of the Apocalypse. Well, if the West will continue to give our enemies the kind of freedom, then we deserve to have robbed.

Why Western leaders have for the most part unable to refute these accusations? Because deep down Clinton, Jospin and Schroeder assured of their right, and the guilt of the West. Otherwise, why would Mr. Clinton was sent to Africa to apologize for slavery before the heirs of the tribal chiefs, who themselves supplied the white slaves? By the way, slavery existed before the emergence of the State of Arkansas. The West did not invent slavery, on the contrary, the West has been dealt with.

In the Catechism of the revolution attributed to the West all the greatest crime in human history. Why? Because Catechism explains that Western nations believed in the superiority of their civilization over all others and their right to impose civilization and culture to the other, "inferior" peoples societies. Addressing inequality civilizations and cultures therefore is the most important task of the revolution.

The first principle — universal equality. Every sinning against equality declared ehtra ess1esiam, excommunicated from the church. According to the Catechism, no religion in the world has priority over the other, just as no culture and no civilization. Should strive for "diversity", to ensure that co-existed in the society all the families, all languages, all cultures, "to all the flowers were in bloom" to the end of our planet formed multi-ethnic and multicultural society. Logic dictates that any politician talks about the superiority of the West and proclaiming Christianity the only true religion is automatically recognized as a heretic and a threat to society.

In addition, the Cultural Revolution, based on the principle of true equality, teaches that the real heroes of history — not conquerors, not soldiers and not politicians who created the empire of the West, but those who fought for higher goals — namely, for the equality of people. Because the destruction of segregation in the U.S. South and apartheid in South Africa — achieve more significant than the victory over communism, and mandola and Gandhi — genuine spiritual heroes of the twentieth century. Because Martin Luther King towers above all others in the American pantheon of heroes, and any state that refuses to celebrate his birthday, is subject to a boycott. As for George Washington — if his name will not be remembered in schools, then so be it. Was not he a slave owner? Did not participate in naizlostneyshem in American history violation of the principle of equality of all people?

In a society where equality — a shrine, the greatest and the only legitimate form of government is democracy, "one voice" ("one person — one vote"). Only it can impose on others by force, as it did in Germany and Japan — and how should deal with Iraq. Military intervention in the name of national interests and selfish ungrateful, but the spiritual intervention, making you spill blood in the name of democracy, as in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans, is fully justified.

With this yardstick revolution came to the history of American wars. The War of 1812, Mexican-American, Native American and Spanish-American War, it is likely to have saved the continent, and for a tiny price in human lives, yet these wars forever damned — they ended with territorial annexations, and there was an upsurge in the community chauvinism. And the wars in Korea and Vietnam, which were conducted for rescuing these peoples from the creepy Asian communism, wars were "unreasonable" and unfair. We have acted in concert with corrupt regimes and trying to keep these countries on their side in a "cold war" has not gained its ethical purity of that which distinguished the war against fascism.

Support for President Nixon overthrow of President Salvador Allende in Chile, General Pinochet's junta was a direct challenge to the revolution — as well as the assistance of President Reagan's Nicaraguan Contras who fought against the pro-Soviet Sandinista. As for Reagan's invasion of Grenada — to get rid of this tiny island of thugs Stalinists and kill their leader, a Marxist, Maurice Bishop, — it was a direct act of aggression on the part of America. However, Clinton's invasion of Haiti — to restore to power excommunicated priest-Marxist, Aristide's father — was just the intervention in the name of democracy.

And so on and so forth. Until the war of "fair", the purpose, according to the Catechism of the revolution, justifies the means. That is, Mr. Lincoln had the right to establish their dictatorship and trample the constitution, put dissenters in jail without trial and "unleash" Generals Sherman and Sheridan, who burned down the entire South. The abolition of slavery justifies the means employed — even if the Civil War lay a heavy burden on the country. During the Second World War, we have entered into an alliance with Stalin, murderer of peoples and bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, almost instantly killing hundreds of thousands of people — but it was justified: our hearts were pure, and the enemy was cruel …

Richard Nixon was forced to resign for "carpet bombing" of Hanoi in an attempt to free the American hostages — the bombing, in which, according to the North Vietnamese, on the thirteenth day 1,900 people were killed. And Harry Truman went down in history as a hero, despite the fact that he had ordered to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a result of the deaths of 140,000 civilians, in addition, he sent back two million Russian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union, knowing that condemns them to torture and death in Stalin's camps.

For the Cultural Revolution enemy are always right, "hawks" and she never forgets and forgives nothing. Compare the relentless pursuit is standing with one foot in the grave of General Pinochet, the dictator, to tear prokubinskuyu revolution in Chile — and telegrams with regrets over the death of fellow murderers Mao, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping.

Byron De La Beckwith, convicted in the murder of NAASR leader Medgar Evers in Mississippi in 1963, was convicted three times (the last time — thirty years after the event), and died in prison, as required, and the revolution, which also defended Leonard Peltier, shot dead two wounded FBI agents after a collision at Pine Lodge in 1975. The most recent "cultural icon" was Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was sentenced to death for killing a police officer in Philadelphia in 1971 — he shot a police officer bleed to death and finished him. Hundreds of historians demanded a new trial of Abu-Jamal, on the grounds that the murder of a police officer "should be viewed against the historical background." Peltier was an Indian, Abu-Jamal — black, so they are automatically ranked as "victims". But the FBI agents and one police officer were white …

Equality preached revolution, is a perversion of Jefferson's ideas of what God has created all men equal. Jefferson meant by this phrase that God has given to all persons the rights of life, liberty and property, and that all people should be equal before the law. He wrote in 1813 to John Adams: "I agree with you that there are people among the aristocrats of nature. Such people are especially virtuous and talented. "

If you rely on the principles of virtue and talent, would be correct to say that the world is not between two equal people. America does not move to the equality of conditions or equality of results, but to freedoms of equality, so that "innate nobility" — from athletes to the representatives of the Fine Arts — can apply to all of us an example of where and how to go, put before us the goal. Hierarchy required — and hence, they exist in nature. Compare become successful American companies, organizations, sports clubs, etc. — from "Microsoft" to "New York Yankees" from the Marine Corps to the Mayo Clinic. In your opinion, how many of them are management based on the principle of democracy "one voice"?

History shows that there never was an absolutely equal peoples, cultures and civilizations. Some achieve greatness regularly, others to it at all did not come close. Different lifestyles, religions, ideas, equality is not found anywhere else. Perhaps most important, the most eloquent and persuasive argument — one that does not and can not be equality among ideas.

All ideas have a right to be expressed and heard, but that does not mean that all will certainly listen. The First Amendment requires that we respect liars nothing less than truth-seekers, not less foolish than wise, but society and the developing nations, separating the wheat from the chaff and throwing away the past. In other words, the idea of equality preached revolution — ideological, utopian, absurd and totally destructive. Only the decaying state equate valor "black berets" or rangers who perform the most dangerous jobs in war and in peacetime, to labor valor army of clerks, cooks or dishwashers. It seems that Lord Acton said that when democracy dies, somehow always turns out that killed her equality.


Equality, of which so much is said above, goes not to the U.S. — to the French Revolution, as well as the Socialists nineteenth century, and the American patriots of the eighteenth century. Since all human beings are endowed with a different degree of talents, abilities and virtues, the only way to achieve full equality — is tyranny. However, there is no tyranny in America. Those who endlessly corrects the data of University of fitness tests, because the results do not match their predictions are often bid up the extra points to students 'based on ethnicity, "and then throw away the results as still do not achieve the desired — such' people hopelessly mired in ideology, and their false ideas will not survive the first encounter with reality.

Equality, which teaches the revolution can be found in the final results of the mad race in a circle, described in "Alice in Wonderland." Once all the participants were running in circles for half an hour, they finally thought to ask, "Who won?"

And Dodo Dodo said, "All have won and all will receive the prizes."

Simple tolerance, said GK Chesterton, "is the virtue of people in nothing more who do not believe." However, our new faith tolerable only in respect of what she considered to be insignificant: sex, pornography, obscene expressions, manners peasant, peasant dresses and vulgar art. In relation to those who dare to threaten her holiness, no tolerance is not in sight.

In the current situation it is possible to make a movie about how Jesus Christ lust wimp Mary Magdalene — and get "The Last Temptation of Christ." But only a hint at the relationship between heredity and intelligence, as did Charles Murray in "Bend Bells" and you will learn what it means to overstep the road to revolution. The local pharmacist will sell condoms youths of thirteen, but he cigarettes they will not sell, because you can not jeopardize children's health and to accustom the children's souls to worldly temptations. Books, which state that God is dead, or the telling of the homosexual Saint Paul, or claim that celibacy is harmful to health, or that Pope Pius the Twelfth was "personal Hitler's Pope," are criticized for "cheers" and famed for the "creative courage" "originality" and "the overthrow of the authorities." But admit only a tiny reservation racist, as Senator Byrd or joke among the gay community, as the Rev. Dick Armey — and you can not avoid public flogging.

In the nineteenth century, blasphemy was a crime in most states. Today, blasphemy, swearing, vulgarity quite acceptable, even in prime time on TV, but the joke about "ethnic issues" forbidden under pain of the severest penalties. We can "save at least a hundred of John the Baptist — notes Darwinist David Dennett — but only if we do not have to misinform children about the structure of the universe." Dennett warns creationists: "You are free to create any faith, any religion, but stick with it can only so long as it does not become public nuisance … Those who are not willing to adapt, not willing to be patient, who recognizes the true and only traces of the ancient the pure blood — such people, no matter how sorry have to disarm and put under lock and key. "

This is the fighting spirit of modern orthodoxy.


Like any religion, the new covenant has its own list of crimes. The most odious and malicious ones are "hate crimes", ie criminal acts provoked hatred of skin color, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation of the victim.

Obviously, the murder of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard were cowardly acts that deserve the most severe punishment. But why these two cases — of fifteen thousand murders committed each year — have caused such a public outcry was so strongly and publicly condemned by our elite? After all, in both cases, the killers were, as they say, no one — in the case of drug addicts with Baird and common thugs in the case of Shepard …

Yes, the murder of Byrd, who was tied to a truck and dragged along the road until he died, is particularly disgusting, but to "hate crimes" so it does not belong, and for the reason that Byrd was black — and that is why the killer chose his as a victim. Shepard was beaten until he lost consciousness, and then chained to a fence and left to freeze — just for the fact that he was molested by that thugs who decided to rob and kill him. His death is one of the "hate crimes" because he was gay, and his killers — white heterosexuals insulted by unambiguous proposals from men. Shepard perish at the hands of some former lover, his murder would not have ranked as a "hate crime", and no one at all would attach much importance to this event.

All of us have their own variations. For example, with regard to my: Matthew Shepard's killers choose their victims are not twenty-one gay and girl of sixteen, it's murder I would have taken as an extreme form of crime. Nevertheless, in both cases, the killers would suffer the same punishment. And if the killers of James Byrd, too, were black or Baird was white, his death would still have severe punishment deserving of severe punishment.

Why did these two murders have attracted the attention of the president and the press? Because they are the best fit into the concept. In the Catechism of the revolution because of his murder of gay gay and black because of the color of his skin is defined as heinous crimes, even more serious than the rape and murder of a child. How do we know this?

Less than a year after the murder of Shepard's two residents of Arkansas accused of murdering a thirteen Jesse Dirhayzinga. Here is an excerpt of the report, published by the Associated Press:

"According to police, David Carpenter, Jr., thirty-eight years old, and Joshua Brown, a twenty-two years, Jesse Dirkhayzinga drugged, blindfolded, gagged his own underwear, and then tied him to the mattress straps, face down. After that, the boy was repeatedly raped until he suffocated from lack of air.

The apartment criminals police found a hand-written statement and an outline of

how boys should be placed on the mattress. In other papers describing unrealized sexual fantasies about other kids …

In the night of death of Jesse Brown raped the boy, and Carpenter watched the scene. Pausing for a snack, Brown only then noticed that the boy was not breathing. "

Carpenter and Brown were lovers, until the last raping a boy, the first masturbated. Surprisingly, this cruel crime in the press almost never mentioned. Why? "Yes, because it is an ordinary sexual offense, and does not" hate crime ", but also because the barbaric actions of the gay couple could" distort "the image of" blue ", which supports our cultural elite. After all, it turned out that the potential victims of society, that is, homosexuals, rapists were themselves! "Columnist Brent Bozell writes:

"If Jesse Dirkhayzinga shot in the Arkansas school, it immediately became a nation-wide event. If he were gay, and his killers — heterosexuals, the crime would be screaming at all angles. But no liberal media outlet would dare to tell about the first crime in which criminals are homosexuals. "

When the trial began on Brown, "The Washington Times," perhaps the only national newspaper, published a report on the hearing. "The disparity (between the interest of journalists to Kill Shepard and Dirkhayzinga) striking and evokes a feeling of unreality," wrote Andrew Sullivan, himself a homosexual and a columnist for the magazine "New Republic." Shepard was devoted, as calculated by Sullivan, at least three thousand articles and notes in the first month after the murder of this man, Jesse Dirkhayzing received only forty-six publications. The company "Fox News" is the only of the television networks reported the court in Brown and sentencing. Other media remained silent, once again confirming that long since become loyal henchmen revolution.

Shortly after the murder of Byrd as a terrible death killed six Jake shy. His mother, Christy went to the snack bar for a moment outside the town of Independence, Missouri, Jake remained seated, wearing a seat belt in the back seat, "Chevrolet Blazer". Christie left the keys in the ignition. Someone Kim Davis, the thirty-four years old, recently out of prison, waited until the woman went to the snack bar, and then climbed into the driver's seat. Christie said it was timid and rushed to rescue his little son: she opened the back door, and then Davis literally pushed the boy, still wearing a seat belt. Christy screamed hysterically, but Davis, a glance in the rearview mirror and pressed on the gas pedal and drove off away. He was dragging the boy for five miles before being stopped by the police. Why is this crime has caused a wide resonance in the society? Because Jake was a little timid white and black Kim Davis. Now, if everything was the opposite of hate crimes … cultural elite have used a method of "racial representation" of white men.


Ten days before Christmas 2000 in Wichita There was a crime, a much more severe than even the murder of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd.

In the house where five young men had a party, broke two brothers, twenty-three and twenty years. All five of them crammed into his car, drove to an ATM machine, forced to remove all the money from the accounts, and then brought to the football field. Two girls stripped and raped, then forced the victims at gunpoint to have sex with each other, then put all on their knees and shot each in the head. Three boys and one girl died, the second girl, also found dead, bleeding, naked, ran a mile to the city and to the police, but in the meantime the brothers went to his car to rob the house of the victims.

Heather Muller, twenty-five years, sang beautifully. Aaron Sander had just returned from the College of Mount Saint Mary's in Emmitsburg, Md., and was going to study further at the priest. Bradley Herr-man, twenty-seven years, was a friend of Aaron. Jason Befort, twenty-six years, he taught science at the school in Augusta, and he planned to offer his hand and heart to the girl who survived the massacre, and even bought a ring and a book with tips on how to make an offer. "Jason did not have time to make any offer, nor give his beloved a ring — Frank Morris wrote in the magazine" Uonderer. " — The Catholic Church in his home town of Pratt, not instead of all who came to the memorial service, so Jay-son's funeral in a large Methodist church. " In the last minutes before death Jason Befort had to watch the bastards raped the girl he loved.

Morris did not mention that all the victims were white and the killer blacks. Add up all the contrary, it is a crime for sure would be a crime of the decade. And so … Not a word on television, not a single note in the national press. In fact, why? "This crime did not fit into the politically correct melodrama in which a black cast in the role of victims, and white is always oppressed" — writes columnist David Horowitz.

It appears that Mr. Horowitz rights. According to the "List of major cultural indicators" in 1999, African Americans make up only 13 percent of the country's population, were responsible for 42 percent of violent crimes and for more than fifty percent of murders in the United States. A interracial crime statistics provides even more horrible picture.

In 1990, Professor William Uilbenks from the Department of Criminal Justice at the International University of Florida conducted an analysis of the crimes committed by blacks. The reason for this study served as the campaign unfolded in the press for the reduction of crime blacks against blacks — as if black crime against whites did not deserve the attention of the authorities. Having studied the report of the Ministry of Justice in 1987, Uilbenks obtained the following data:

in 1987, white criminals who have committed serious crimes, chose his victims black, only 3 percent of cases, while the latter committed against whites at least fifty percent of the total number of serious crimes;

in cases of rape white criminals never (out of eighty-three thousand cases) did not attempt to black women, while

rape black white make up 28 percent of the total number of rapes;

robbery at only 2 percent are black robberies committed by whites — versus 73 percent of white robberies committed by blacks.

When Professor Uilbenks unveiled these shocking figures, the answer he had no objection, no denials, no resentment — though none of its publication and did not notice. Ten years later, in 1999, the newspaper "Washington Times" published a report on the study on interracial crimes, made by the "New Century", which was based on a report from the Ministry of Justice in 1994. Research confirmed the calculations Uilbenksa:

Black made in 1994, 90 percent of interracial crimes;

because black make up 12 percent of the population, it follows that the likelihood of their interracial crimes are fifty times higher than for whites;

Black's probability of committing gang rape or a group attack in 100-250 times higher than for whites;

Even in the category of "hate crimes", which is less than one percent of interracial crimes, the probability that the offender will be black, rather than a victim, twice as high as for white.

Research has also shown that Asian Americans are less prone to violence: they commit serious crimes less than half of white Americans.

These figures certainly seem extremely unfair to tens of millions of law-abiding African-Americans. However, they reveal the main problem of the cultural revolution: the discussion of the constant risk that allegedly exposed in America by the white majority black population, are well-thought-out lie! It is in the field of minority highest crime rate, from there get into our society interracial crime. Self-deception and the lies we do not fix it.

The same, apparently, is true of the UK. Analyzing the figures in the report of the Ministry of the Interior statistics criminal phenomena, columnist John Woods found that out of the total number of "racially motivated" crimes in 1995, 143,000 had been committed against the white minority and 238 000 — minorities against whites.

"If national minorities make up less than six percent of the population of the United Kingdom — concludes Woods — but at the same time commit racial 238,000 crimes a year, and white — 94 percent of the population commit such crimes 143 000 per year, this implies that national minorities make racial crimes in twenty-five times more than white. "

Chairman of the Foundation "New Century" is Jared Taylor, author of the book: "The road paved with good intentions: the crisis of coexistence of races in America today," a very controversial figure in the debate about interracial crimes. However, these funds are based on the reports of the Ministry of Justice and are almost indistinguishable from those Uilbenksa and Woods. All of these studies, by the way, expect a similar fate — they were simply ignored.

When the correspondent of "The Washington Times" asked Morgan Reynolds, director of the criminal investigations at the National Center of crime statistics in Dallas, to comment on the fund, Mr. Reynolds shrugged his shoulders: "The majority of whites prefer to ignore these numbers, is safer … By themselves, these figures did not surprising to anyone who has studied the history of interracial crimes, but they are deprived of political correctness. " Lawyer James Wilson noted that "national dimensions" of crime — a subject too delicate to discuss it in public. However, if the numbers are correct, how then can come from a set of "hate crime?

A crime is a crime, he shall be punished, regardless of ethnicity or skin color perpetrator. Justice must be indifferent to the color of the skin. However, the campaign for the release of "hate crimes" as a separate category of offenses has nothing to do with justice, but very much — with ideology. Our cultural elites eager to Americans perceive their country as a refuge racism in need of radical renewal, as the area where the crime committed and hosted exclusively white men. The truth, of course, does not matter a bit: if the killing of thirteen teenagers, terrible death of six year old boy or atrocities in Wichita does not fit into the big picture, and then contradict it, for them to just forget it.

In the Catechism of the revolution, none of the perfect sadist John Wayne Geysi thirty murders of young people do not fall under the category of "hate crimes", but if the very Geysi killed outside a bar for gay men for harassment to any of the customers, it would be a different matter. Among the "hate crimes" are usually related to the murder of Dr. King as a murderer, James Earl Ray, Mr. King is hated for the color of his skin, but the assassination of John F. Kennedy prokubinskim extremist and Robert Kennedy — a Palestinian terrorist crimes such does not.

As the mass is infinite renewal of the Last Supper, there is the Catholic sacrament of priestly and so incessant repetition of the "picturesque" details "hate crimes" have some sort of sacrifice to the new faith. The "Archetypal th hate crime" is always the same story, the same hero, villain and victim: Progressives defend the oppressed minorities of white bigots. Mass media, the hand of the propaganda of the revolution, are all continuous search of new "hate crimes". And every newfound crime confirms the fundamental thesis: America — the country of homophobes and racists. Echoing Ms. Sontag, the white race — a cancer on the body of mankind.

But how does this new religion was able to take over America yesterday Christian and conservative? Where, with what — or who — it all began?

To be continued

Part 1. Endangered species

Part 2. Where are the children?

Like this post? Please share to your friends: