You’re forgetting one of the fundamental rules of libreralism, Mr. Auster. Whites are the only ones who commit hate crimes and are victims only if attacked for dating or marrying another race. One of the Nebraska victims (Mr. Sun) was a Chinese immigrant (naturalized citizen) from Hong Kong. Sam Francis wrote an article on this issue - the hypocracy of hate crimes - on VDARE.com the other day. The Wichita Horror is covered in that article as well.

Consider making anti-violence and immigration control as the short-term centerpieces of the counterrevolution. The Wichita Horror (aka Massacre) and Nebraska Horror enrage me. I am enraged at the Republicrats (the Party comprising the Democratic-Party wing and the Republican-Party wing). The Republicrats have tolerated black and hispanic violence on whites and other innocents beginning no later than the Warren Supreme Court (through the exclusionary rule and much more pro-black, pro-criminal activism and pro-victim do-nothingism), the 1964 Civil Rights Act (for non-whites), and the 1965 Immigration Act. Lest tolerate seem too harsh a word, remember that the Court’s acts and the 1964 Act survived only because of the pointed gun barrels of federal troops, as George Wallace discovered with his ill-advised method of defiance by standing in the door of a school to prevent black children from entering.

Bertrand Russell, I believe, said the possibility of a thing is proven by the existence of the thing. (I think I discovered this quote through this Website.) I know America can be safe. I witnessed it growing up in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In the 50’s and early 60’s my parents would leave their car windows open with the keys in the ignition, routinely. We slept with the front door open to catch the breeze. I walked a mile to and from a segregated school from grades 1 through 4. This was done within blocks of where blacks lived. Blacks and whites did not dare enter a white neighborhood and commit a violent crime. Although I knew the Leave it to Beaver television show was theatre and therefore unreal, I lived in a world much like the actors did. Sure the characters were morally purer than I, but I knew they represented the ideal and I felt guilty when I failed to achieve that ideal. Dishonesty, disrespect for elders, cheating, and violence were not tolerated at home or in public.

Yes a comparatively low level of white-on-white violence pre-existed the modern (post-1960) violence epidemic. This traditional violence probably existed because of a political-moral corruption. The political-moral corruption was the toleration of violence by the class of citizens that knew violence was evil but resented the supposed law-and-order political wing so much that they thought “you know! he [Dick Cheney] did something illegal at Enron.” (A recent quote from my local blue-collar snack shop operator.) The blue-collar classes were excused because they supposedly did not get a fair start. Union thuggery and Mafia violence existed because of corrupt politicians and foolish Supreme Court decisions failing to protect the rights of willing workers, known by thugs as sub-human “scabs,” fit for the ovens of Nazi Germany. George Wallace’s power was a few pathological haters, the majority poor and so-called workingmen, a few desperate white-collar workers, and the ever present crooked politicians; he made many deals with his Leftist Democratic allies to help the “little man.”

I am frustrated at the recent horrors. I cannot endure envisioning what was done to those pathetic people by those merciless animals. I avoid a daily diet of similar details by ignoring the daily stories of violence in the local and national news. It makes me too angry for my own good. Instead of frustrating myself into inaction, I have become active politically (having never acted violently).

Anti-violence and immigration control could, it seems, serve as bedrock principles in and of themselves. Their virtues are self-evident to a rational mind and can be made evident to other minds even if the Republicrats offer smokescreens to further their supporter’s denial and their own careers. Let us then consider hammering away at the basics (such as these) as all successful coaches and generals have done.

At the end of the day, we cannot ignore the substantial probability that this will be a long, hard fight requiring great sacrifice. But through relentless hard work and sacrifice, we must avoid the senseless sacrifices that the ill advised Generals Lee and Grant led. It will be a piece of cake considering what was suffered at Valley Forge and the Alamo.

Thank you for your Website and your hard and brilliant work.

Immigration control certainly makes sense as a part of a platform of policies, but I think “anti-violence” may be problemmatic, sort of like being “for the children”. Politics after all is in part the art of justifying necessary violence, so a politics against violence reduces to a sort of anarchism.

Thanks for pointing out my imprecise language, which I recognized soon after I posted my comments. What I mean by anti-violence is opposing violent crime. I did not correct it sooner because if no one was listening, I did not want to needlessly clog up an intelligent, polite Website so graciously provided.

I think immigration reform and crackdown on violent crime, done in a non-politically-correct way that acknowledges the facts, are two crucial and desperately needed parts of any reasonable political platform.