Skip to content

From the Pen of David Horowitz: October 13, 2009

October 13, 2009


The creation of America by Protestant Christians within the framework of the British Empire was historically essential to the development of institutions that today afford greater privileges and protections to all minorities than any society extant. White European-American culture is a culture that the citizens of this nation can take enormous pride in, precisely because its principles, revolutionary in their conception and unique in their provenance — provide for the inclusion of cultures that are non-white and non-Christian (and which are not so tolerant in their lands of origin). That is why America’s democratic and pluralistic framework remains an inspiring beacon to people of all colors all over the world, from Tiananmen Square to Haiti and Havana, who have not yet won their freedom, but who aspire to do so. This was once the common self-understanding of all Americans and is still the understanding of those who have been able to resist the discredited and truly oppressive world-view of the “progressive” left.

As those familiar with my autobiography Radical Son know, I once occupied the other side of the political divide. My views on race, however, have remained entirely consistent with my previous commitments and beliefs. I opposed racial preferences in the 1960s and I oppose them now. Then I believed that only government neutrality towards racial groups was compatible with the survival of a multi-ethnic society that is also democratic. I still believe that today.

Where my views have changed is in the appreciation I now have for America’s constitutional framework and the commitment of the American people to those ideals. America’s unique political culture was indeed created by white European males, primarily English and Christian. It should be obvious to anyone with even a modest historical understanding that these antecedents are not incidental to the fact that America and England are the nations that led the world in abolishing slavery, and in establishing the principles of ethnic and racial inclusion. Or that we are a nation besieged by peoples “of color” trying to immigrate to our shores to take advantage of the unparalleled opportunities and rights our society offers them.

— “Memories in Memphis” from Hating Whitey

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Please include:

  1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
  2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
  3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
  4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
  1. Julie Trevor permalink
    October 13, 2009 3:08 am

    “That is why America’s democratic and pluralistic framework remains an inspiring beacon to people of all colors all over the world”

    Isn’t it this framework that is under attack by the Left/Neo-Communists?


  2. October 13, 2009 3:31 am

    I take comfort from the fact that these “unparalleled opportunities and rights” have always been under some sort of attack. Wether it be by the crude basics of greed and power or by more subtle means of the political or religious, these core freedoms have survived.
    The answer to why and how they have survived is quite good.
    It is because there are people who truly know the good, who act and speak for this good, who will stand and fight for good and as anyone with a modest historical understanding could tell you, where there is much evil there abounds much more good.
    Until the end of the age this contention will continue but take comfort……..

  3. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 13, 2009 11:54 am

    Very good comment. We have to stand ready to fight them tooth and nail as well to preserve this system and my over riding concern now is the young and the garbage they are being spoon fed by the NEA and the public school system. We must any way possible get children into as many private schools and Christian schools as possible.

  4. Juicer permalink
    October 13, 2009 3:59 pm

    Unless we stop this current administrations march toward communism I believe our future, and that of those who support the administration, is very bleak. They seem to control large sectors of the population through the unions with tax money being funneled to them and then right back to the Democratic candidates coffers. We, the American people, are funding our next Democratic presidents run for office. After how many years of them in office the changes they make will march us faster and faster to our new future. We will be told what to think and say. We will no longer be the light of the world. With no light the rest of the world will plunge into a darkness that will make past dark times look like noon. Sometimes the only thing keeping second and third world countries from becoming slaughterhouses is America. With us out of the way the genocides of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot will be minor murder cases in comparison to what tyrants will be able to get away with. Sounds too dramatic to be true. 9/11 sounded too dramatic to be true. Auschwitz sounded too dramatic to be true. The tsunamis in Indonesia were also too dramatic to be true. The Islamic takeover of the middle-east, North Africa, and then into eastern Europe sound too dramatic to be true. But all of these things and thousands more happened. You cannot judge the truth by the drama. Truth, in fact, will become an obscure notion which no fool would spend their life seeking. It, too will be lost in the rubble of communism. The truth will be whatever THEY want it to be. Whatever serves their purposes.

  5. stickler permalink
    October 13, 2009 7:35 pm

    Um… Thomas Jefferson was hardly a Christian. He was very wary of organized religion and is on the record as being very disparaging of organized Christiantity. Same with Thomas Paine.

    The founding fathers were more accurately described as ‘Deists’. They believed in a creative force but were deeply suspicious of organized religion and made a point of saying that the US was NOT founded on Christian principles.

    Look it up.

    • Hannon permalink
      October 17, 2009 4:22 pm

      I think you are confusing the idea of a Christian society with the problem of conflating civil government and religion (Christianity). The Founding Fathers were rightfully concerned with the latter, as our key documents reflect. But they were not so averse to religion per se as your post seems to imply.

      An essentially Christian society, which we enjoy to this day, and a Christian government, which concept fills so many with dread (I would not welcome it either), are ideas that atheists and the Left routinely trot out to forward their tiresome opinion that America is not a “Christian nation”.

      The Founding Fathers were well aware of the distinction between a society with transcendent beliefs, a necessity, and “religious government”, something to be avoided. Which they did.

  6. Alan Koepcke permalink
    October 13, 2009 7:46 pm

    Well said David. I have always felt that there is a direct link between Luther’s 95 theses in 1517 and the founding of America. A direct relationship with God under personal control and the resultant self reliance found its ultimate expression in the founding of the most productive, tolerant and self corrective society in history.

  7. Fritz Becker permalink
    October 13, 2009 8:38 pm

    Quote from Hating Whitey: “It should be obvious to anyone with even a modest historical understanding that these antecedents are not incidental to the fact that America and England are the nations that led the world in abolishing slavery, and in establishing the principles of ethnic and racial inclusion.”
    While this statement is largely true in the case of England and the British Empire, it is not so in the case of the United States. Britain banned the importing and trade of slaves in 1807, and banned slavery outright within the British Empire by 1833. Although the import and trading had been banned in the United States in 1808, by contrast slavery continued in the United States until 1865. So with regard to the slave trade the U.S did follow Britain, on the issue of outlawing slavery itself the U.S lagged behind the rest of the Western world.
    This should not be taken the wrong way, I am not indicting the United States nor her legacy of advocating liberty throughout the world, I am merely making a historical point of order. The United States of America paid a terrible price for tolerating the institution of slavery for so long and that contradiction cost the lives of at least 575,000 people in the war between the states. The Southern Confederacy not only paid the price for slavery in human lives and destroyed property, but economically, technologically, and socially before and after the war for close to a century.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 14, 2009 5:44 am

      Your comment does not change the point at all. Yes the US wasa few years behind England and yes there was a terrible war fought here but not everyone will agree it was about slavery alone given that most of the people that fought for the south did not nor did they ever own a slave. It was part of it for sure but there were many other reasons as well.

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      October 14, 2009 5:58 am


      Slavery in Europe/British Empire had a historical presence for many years prior to 1807/1833.

      Contrast that with the United States who once the union was established + constitution ratified if was a short 90 years (+/-) to the end of slavery.

      In other words, other colonies/govs in the world employed slavery for centuries while the US from her origin to the end of slavery was a very short time…that’s leadership in my opinion.


      • Old European permalink
        October 16, 2009 11:10 am

        “In other words, other colonies/govs in the world employed slavery for centuries while the US from her origin to the end of slavery was a very short time…that’s leadership in my opinion.”

        You really believe that, do you? To what lengths will some Americans go to justify their past? There was never any chattel slavery to speak of in “Old Europe”, as far as it wasn’t under Muslim occupation. And while some colonial powers were less than perfect in the governance of their colonies, at least they didn’t do or tolerate it, as you did, on a large scale at home. A major colonial power like the British Empire brought the light of civilization to the savages in the remotest corners of the world. They took a lot, but they gave a lot back and their former colonies in Africa did not advance any further “free”, rather the reverse. You are making your country’s past not a bit better if you smear Europe.

        Europe has fought the barbarians at Tours and Poitiers, at Kiev, Legnica, Roncesvalles, Lepanto and at the Gates of Vienna. She has brought to the world enlightenment and humanism. I seem to observe a certain sort of historical revisionism creeping in on the American right that corresponds with the “white guilt” of the left. Whereas the latter says that America is forever damned and only self-destruction is an appropriate answer, the former states that America wasn’t so bad because Europe was much worse. Apart from the flawed and ethically challenged logic of this conclusion: it isn’t even true.

    • Skypilott2 permalink
      October 14, 2009 7:51 am

      You are so right! The Southern Confederacy has been ‘paying the price’ since the end of war in 1865, and the rest of the U.S. has been catching up ever since.
      Enjoy your victory! You earned every bit of it, and now that the Marxists are finally in charge of this country, perhaps people will finally understand that Abraham Lincoln was the first American terrorist!
      What has been done to our Southern people over the last 140 years will never be forgotten by me, or many others.
      And now that the jack-booted thugs are about to turn the knife in your back, and I can’t say I won’t enjoy hearing you scream!

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 14, 2009 11:07 am

        I hope we are not going to fight the war over? If so I know who will win and it will have nothing to do with race. Slavery would have ended with out the War. But that is just my opinion. I also know that northern troops used burn and kill orders you can read about them in local libraries. If some family was supected of helping the Confederates they would issue Burn and Kill orders. It was horrific. But War is hell.

      • Fritz Becker permalink
        October 14, 2009 6:41 pm

        I think that you were reading me the wrong way, as far as I am concerned the United States of America has long since paid it’s debt, and then some. I am well aware that the war between the states was not entirely about slavery but the 2/3rds compromise most definitely caused a schism between North and South which inevitably lead to that war.
        As for the Marxists, think of them as the new advocates of slavery, if not that at least serfdom. However this time instead of human beings being bought, sold, and owned by individuals everyone will be the property of the collective (read government) How could anyone support this idea? Perhaps they believe that they will be the ones holding the whip?

  8. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 14, 2009 6:25 am

    Damn JW
    You are right on the money good one. By the way can you make biscuits?

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      October 14, 2009 7:56 am

      Everything from scratch – lol

  9. October 14, 2009 7:52 am

    David Horowitz writes:

    “White European-American culture is a culture that the citizens of this nation can take enormous pride in, precisely because its principles, revolutionary in their conception and unique in their provenance, provide for the inclusion of cultures that are non-white and non-Christian (and which are not so tolerant in their lands of origin).”

    So, according to Horowitz, white European-American culture is good, and the main reason it is good is that it includes non-white and non-Christian cultures. The greatest thing about white European-American culture is that it allows itself to be progressively changed into a melange of nonwhite, non-European, non-Christian cultures and peoples.

    Now think about the fact that Horowitz’s vision—assertively pro-America, with the defining thing about America being the fact that it includes ever greater numbers of non-white and non-Western peoples and their cultures—presents itself as the “conservative” vision today, as distinct from the leftist, anti-American vision which Horowitz opposes.

    Think of the choice between left and “right” that Horowitz offers us.

    On one side, the anti-American left, which openly declares its intention to end white Christian America, by changing America into a nonwhite, non-Christian country.

    On the other side, the pro-American “right,” which openly declares its intention to end white Christian America, by changing America into a nonwhite, non-Christian country.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 14, 2009 11:02 am

      Why do I smell a real racist.

      • Alan Roebuck permalink
        October 14, 2009 12:28 pm


        Can you explain why a white [or Christian] person not wanting America to become majority nonwhite [or nonChristian] is “racist’ (by which you presumably mean “evil”)? Would a member of any other ethnic or religious group be racist for wishing to preserve the ethnic or religious nature of his homeland? For example, are the Japanese racist for keeping out most of the non-Japanese who would immigrate to Japan for a better life if they could?

        And are you saying that highly diverse societies function better than relatively homogeneous ones? If so, what is the standard of judgment that allows you to draw this conclusion, and how do you know it is valid?

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 14, 2009 12:58 pm

          I have been to Japan and yes they are racist and have been historically racist I believe they are in the process of changeing. I guess it is because I heard the same stuff that you are saying from members of the Aryan Brotherhood as I was locking them up.

          • Alan Roebuck permalink
            October 14, 2009 3:58 pm


            You have still not explained why having a normal concern and
            preference for the well-being of one’s own people makes one evil.
            You are simply spouting leftist cliches. And given that for all of human
            history until the Twentieth Century all people regarded it as self-evident
            that one’s group had the right to preserve its basic integrity and identity,
            the burden of proof is on you to prove your position.

            By the way, I’m a traditionalist conservative Protestant, not an “Aryan brother.”

            • Jack Hampton permalink
              October 15, 2009 5:11 am

              Well I am not a leftist. As I explained above it just had that ring to it. If I misinterpreted your comment then I regret it. I always wanted to preserve and protect Americans it does not matter there race or religion. Americans are my people. If they are truly Americans. For instance do you think that your self interest is above or more important than say a Jewish American or a Black American? I would like it if we could all just be Americans.

      • Terry Morris permalink
        October 14, 2009 5:39 pm

        Probably because of your keen and superior sense of smell.

  10. Jeff permalink
    October 14, 2009 10:08 am

    Steve Sailer has said that the future U.S. will look like a cross between Brazil and the Ottoman Empire. That’s good news and bad news. Bad news: Sharia Law. Good news: Salsa music!

  11. October 14, 2009 11:31 am

    The point made by Larry Auster about Mr. Horowitz’s praise of American civilization, as good and special because it accepts those who represent various degrees of intrinsic oppositness to that civilization, shows an acceptance of limited civilizational sustainability.

    In other words, Mr. Horowitz’s logic, appears to embody the “It was good while it lasted” mindset, as any basic analysis of his logic demonstrates such a nation is par for the course towards national suicide.

    The paradox Mr. Horowitz illustrates in his argument above, is that any opposition to the cancer destroying the body can be viewed as making that body unworthy of being saved in the first place.

    O what a tangled web liberalism has wrought.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 14, 2009 11:44 am


      • October 14, 2009 11:06 pm

        I think Jack shows intolerance in accusing others here, including the entire nation of Japan, of racism.

        Jack goes to Japan and he is the only tolerant light is a sea of 127 million racists. Jack even “locked up” members of the Aryian Brotherhood (who are white), he is so fair on racial matters, he locked up the worst supremicists America can offer! Wow, and Jack even smells like a rat cheese, ” A REAL racist here” on this forum!

        Jack is a legend in his own mind.

        Racism charges today, are thrown around without any concern for the difference between very real, racially motivated minority violence and criminality and “thought crimes” enacted to condition non-minorities to deny racial realities such as observing and stating that every minority city and enclave in America appears dysfunctional, and dangerous.

        Jack is not nimble, nor quick, Jack is a useful idiot.

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 15, 2009 6:20 am

          Your comment is absurd. I stated that Japan has been historically racist and I believe that is pretty well established. I do not believe all of Japan is racist nor was it all racist and I admire many 0f the Japanese people. I have also made the very same comment about the charge of racism losing it’s sting. I have locked up murders both black and white , dope dealers, con artist and rapist. You do that over many years doing the work I did. I explained above my thoughts. If you believe there are no racist left in this country then you are a fool then I digress. I explained to the person I commented to that I might have been in error. So I really owe no explanation to you.

          • October 15, 2009 10:20 am


            Thank you for your reply.

            But if, as you now state, charges of “racism” are mostly abused and used as a rhetorical bludgeon, why then did you employ the very tactic you now decry?

            If Japan is “racist”, a fact you say is well established and provable, what then is the definition of racism as it applies to the Japanese you are basing your opinion on?

            Can it be that what you and others “observe”, label really, as “racist”, is not racism at all but a normal, healthy appreciation for ones own people, culture and history and that the “racism” may be in the eye of you, the beholder, placed in your mind by various methods of indoctrination?

            I don’t expect you to see the big picture, which is that America, a country you claim you protected in some law enforcement capacity (why do you feel it necessary to mention this twice now?), is never going to survive in any recognizible form unless we find some way to deal a knock-out blow to the racial cabal that has warped the minds of most of the inhabitants of the West.

            Conversely, Japan, will preserve its cuture for its descendants while we dodge spears and gunfire here in every major American city in about <40 years.

            Finally, shouldn't genuine examples of racism include actual actions, not just thoughts and opinions?

            • October 15, 2009 10:32 am

              Oh, and Jack,

              I never said racism does not exist. Why would you assume that?

              It does, and it is now directed like a laser at whites.

              Remember Mr. LEO, the prevailing big lie is that ONLY Whites can be racist. As we see, minority hate against white is very real, and increasing.

              • Jack Hampton permalink
                October 15, 2009 12:13 pm

                I have seen racist that are not white. the idea that only whites can be racist is of course absurd. I have seen that as well. Oh In my above response I forgot to mention I married well to and I love dogs and long walks in the moon light.

            • Jack Hampton permalink
              October 15, 2009 12:09 pm

              Anthony Damato

              I still think you are missing my point in reference to the Japanese. There have been reams of papers written on the racism of the Japanese in the past. There has been history programs made about it as well and there racist attitude toward the Chinese and others this occurred mostly during there militaristic past. I believe Japan is moving past that now but I am sure there are some vestiges of it that still exist. I certainly appreciate my culture as much as anyone. I find your comment that you do not expect me to see the big picture condescending and I assure you I see the big picture on many things. Perhaps you should look inward. I want America to survive as America not just Scottish America or black America or Hispanic America but as America by people who really want to be Americans like those that came through Ellis Island.
              As for mentioning my career it was referred to in the response to me. I am retired now and have been for some time. No there does not necessarily have to be overt action for racism to exist. Hating someone for there skin color or there heritage is racism you may say it is benign if one never acts on it but it is racism just the same. Make no mistake I have equal contempt for a race hustler as I do for a racist.
              I have been wondering about the bur that got under your saddle so I reviewed a couple of things. I believe when I pointed out to you that this was a Republic rather than a democracy you may have been offended. I did not intend that as a zinger but was pointing out a fact. Some time I am not the most tactful person and this is a difficult format for me because I do not type well and if I look up from the key board I am prone to mistakes.
              Nor am I by any means the most educated person that comments here. I dropped out of school in the ninth grade and rather soon after that enlisted in the Army I along with two and a half million other Americans served in the war in Vietnam and the military sent me to school. When that was over I became a deputy in a small town and went to school at night and worked hard to move on to a better position. But I am educated enough to understand that racism and anti-Semitism is as destructive now as it was in the past. Just out of curiosity how is that you think I assume white people should preserve there culture? Also what did you mean by dodging spears?

              • October 16, 2009 1:48 am

                Mr. Hampton.

                Thank you for your reply. You’ve helped me to understand a few points about how most people view “racism”. For example, you say:

                “Hating someone for there skin color or there heritage is racism you may say it is benign if one never acts on it but it is racism just the same.”

                Your statement is typical of the liberal/left strategy of branding any politically incorrect thoughts about race as “hate”.

                You probably can see that those opposing the current immigration policies do not “hate” anybody. In fact they do not profess “hate”, they do not act “hatefully”, they do not greatly demean the immigrants, or their culture, they do not advance “hatred” as a weapon of advancing their cause. Those you would call “racists” in your posts here, are not “haters”, they are “hated”.

                You accept as truth that this “hate”, even if NEVER acted out, even if never uttered, but merely THOUGHT, is very dangerous to the entire society. Think of the totalatarian ramifications of such a credo should it triumph, where will it lead? To “anti-hate vaccinations”?

                About “hating someone for their heritage”, Muslims consider the religion of Islam as the basis for their culture. Yet many people say there is “racism” against Muslims, despite the fact Islam is not a race, and Muslims hail from all nations. But I would say you would argue that semantics doesn’t trump “hate”. Hate is hate right? But even this argument leads back to actions vs. thoughts, freedom of conscience vs Orwell 1984. Make your choice.

                How then Jack, can you claim to love America, and yet embrace the greatest weapon employed against this country in the long history of the republic? The weapon is the racial end of cultural Marxism and it is clearly confiscating America from its own historic people. It has, as a matter of fact, side tracked America from a world producer of everything, a marvel of civilization shooting for the Moon and beyond, to a sick Soddom and Gammorah with an unhealthy preoccupation with multiculturalism.

                Sloppy thinking accepted as fact is more dangerous than what you are describing Jack. It accepts illusion as fact, and manipulates the feelings of the majority of people who think they are doing good by not opposing, not even thinking about race in terrestrial terms, when in fact they are helping advance a cause that they have no awareness of, in this case, the de-Europeanization and de-Christianization of the West.

                You said you don’t mind immigrants comming here as long as they come as those before them at the time of Ellis Island, and seek to become “Americans”. But Jack, the overwhelming majority of today’s immigrants are not white, Christian or European. They are not expected to ditch their culture of language, or tribal practices once they arrive. Many reject American culture, history and customs. So how can you expect America NOT to become what it is looking a lot like it is turning into now?

                Finally, you’ve caught me, my comment about “dodging spears and bullets” reveals my deep racist impulses right? No, I am describing in humorous terms America by mid to late century, a Third World nation.

                • Julie Trevor permalink
                  October 16, 2009 4:52 am

                  Anthony Damato,

                  Before you provide your response to Jack Hampton, I think you should re-read what he wrote in it’s entirety and specifically the statement you re-quoted above.

                  Jack – the rest of us will understand if you don’t respond to Mr. D.


                  • Jack Hampton permalink
                    October 16, 2009 7:11 am

                    Thank you.

                  • Anthony Damato permalink
                    October 16, 2009 11:09 am

                    Miss Trevor.

                    I read Mr. Hampton’s post and replied to what I thought were the important parts, so I do not need to re-read it again to extrapolate the jist of his thinking.

                    I know he claims to hold both racists and race hucksters in equal contempt, but thats not enough. His type of thinking appears in his latest post, to reveal an immigration restrictionist, yet when a genuine immigration restrictionist and traditionalist, Lawrence Auster, makes an important point here, Mr. Hampton attacks him by writing “…I smell a real racist”. So what he claims and how he treats those concerned with this problem just doesen’t jive.

                    Secondly, I’ve explained my opinion that accusing someone of racism, based on perceived “hatred” is stupifying and what is called “hatred”, to justify the “racist label is almost always without merit. Mr. Hampton brands people racist because they “hate” in the deep recesses of their minds e.g., the Japanese, without realizing that the hatred label is a cunard that often times is not hatred at all but a rejection of the politically correct line, or a healthy appreciation for ons OWN culture and people.

                    He just does not get it whan I said “Only white people can be racist”, so I’ll summarize for him. Today whites are held to a double standard that marginalizes them and diminishes their ability to discuss race, or immigration in any honest way. In addition, reverse discrmination, e.g., affirmative action and hate law legislation is designed and used to further demoralize and attack whites. Is that not real “hatred”?

                    You may now go back to your pom-poms and resume cheerleading for Mr. Hampton now.

                  • Jack Hampton permalink
                    October 16, 2009 2:35 pm

                    Thank you for your comment but do not do anything to attract this individuals ire. I have told the Gentleman that I spoke of earlier that if I misinterpreted his remarks I expressed my regrets but Damato cannot be placated nor do I care if he is. But you have to notice he did not answer the questions in referrence to saving his culture or what steps he would take to do that.

                • Jack Hampton permalink
                  October 16, 2009 6:26 am

                  Anthony Damato
                  Let us review here I said “Hating someone for there skin color or there heritage is racism you may say it is benign if one never acts on it but it is racist just the same.” You reply “My statement is typical of the liberal/left strategy of branding any politically incorrect thoughts about race as “hate”. What politically incorrect thought are you referring to? That you would apply to my comment? Are you stating that it is okay to hate someone because of there race or there heritage? Are you asserting that hating someone because of there race or heritage is simply politically incorrect. If so then say it plainly do not be a coward about your own beliefs.

                  Your comment “But Jack, the overwhelming majority of today’s immigrants are not white, Christian or European. They are not expected to ditch their culture of language, or tribal practices once they arrive” I believe in Teddy Roosevelt’s admonition in regard to immigrants becoming American I believe the majority of illegal’s coming to this country and legal are Christian. So have the courage to tell us now who would you restrict from immigrating to this country? I have stated I would stop just about all immigration at this time till the employment crisis passes but after it is say over who would be the people you would prohibit to save your culture?
                  Next I oppose our current immigration policy and adamantly oppose illegal aliens I do all I can to support Numbers USA and have visited my congressional office to speak for enforcement and to support the 287G program. I also support verification of legal residence or citizenship before anyone can be employed. Now I have to refer to my previous career again but my job was serving FFJ warrants quite a few were served on Illegal Aliens and that is the proper description under USC. Everyone that knows me would laugh at your suggestion that I might be leftwing in any manner. I never said anyone that opposes illegal immigration is a hater or hates anyone nor can you point to where I did. I support changing the law that no longer make babies born to an illegal alien a citizen of this country what is referred to as an anchor baby. So I do not know what orifice you pulled that out of? Your comment about anti hate vaccinations is too convoluted to even be considered seriously. You also seem to infer that I have made broad accusations of racism against numbers of people that post here if that is your intent it is simply a lie. I questioned one comment and I subsequently wrote that if I misunderstood I regretted it. The comment simply had a tenor to it that I had heard from another time but I might have been wrong I still believe you were offended by my comment in reference to this being a Republic and apparently you intend to be petty about it

                  I also know that Muslims are not a race but a cult. I know what a race is. Your next comment is absurd as well yes I love my country. I know what I have done to serve my country and the price I along with my ancestors have paid for America. Just exactly what kind of service have you rendered to our nation? As stated above I embrace no weapon against America. I even support troops on the border as well.

                  I believe it is you that is suffering from illusions I have never supported even publishing government documents in any language other than English. I have written on this blog about the number of Americans killed on a daily basis by illegal aliens on average twenty to twenty two I can only imagine you missed that.

                  Now I do draw the line at Nazis like round ups or a Hitler like final solutions. The job can be done by deporting them as we come across illegal aliens through normal daily routine like traffic stops, also I think that the nets used to take them into custody at places of employment like Hormel and punishing the employer is useful as well and deporting after they serve any prison time for any felonies I do not think I would bother with jail time for misdemeanors’ unless it is repeated. I have several sensible ideas as well for a (ROP) repeat offender program for those that repeatedly violate our border and laws. Your comment about the spears was I believe indicative of your mind set. Why not bullets and hand grenades or RPG’s
                  By the way once again how would you achieve that cultural purity or saving your culture that you spoke of? You never answered that?

                  • Anthony Damato permalink
                    October 16, 2009 11:59 am

                    Jack, is anyone who opposes legal AND Illegal immigration a racist?

                    What do you think my mindset is since you can’t seem to get the “spear” comment out of your mind. You obviously are a man who takes things literally and you seem to have difficultities understanding my writing style, so I have to downshift to make my points clearer for you.

                    I was NOT arguing the point that it is ok to hate anyone for any reason. I was making the point that the basis for the “You’re a racist” label is often the swiss army knife of rhetorical tricks, the “hate” device. It is employed to devastating effect on people who may simply disagree with people of other races, or their enablers such as yourself. You used the racist label on Larry Auster, and now seem to be fishing for a way to imply the same for me.

                    Consider your words:

                    “By the way once again how would you achieve that cultural purity or saving your culture that you spoke of?”

                    Excuse me for noticing your choice of language, but “cultural purity”? That is supremicist language and I object to it in the strongest terms. Secondly, why do you think my culture distinct from yours?

                    About your constant mention of my taking offense to your correct claim that America was founded as a republic, I agree, a representative republic under a federal system of government. I did not write about this prior to now, so you are obviously mistaking me for another poster. You really need to be a bit more careful with facts.


                  • Jack Hampton permalink
                    October 16, 2009 2:43 pm

                    Sir you know full well what my reference is to in regard to this being a Republic. It was when you was calling it a democracy and I replied it was a Representative Republic. Now let me down shift and get down to your level. I owe you no further explaination. Your comment ref the spears I found to be revealing to some extent. I care not for your opinion nor to have any further discourse with you. I still maintain you have not stated what you would do to save your culture. I have laid out very clear steps as to what my course would be. So Continue To March.

  12. Robert Schneider permalink
    October 14, 2009 1:37 pm

    It was good to hear something positive about the Christian settlement of this continent. Of course, they weren’t perfect; that goes without saying.

    The response to Horowitz about many of the Founders being Deists is correct. That hardly refutes the contention that America was founded from within a Protestant Christian context. Let’s not forget, that the revolutionary impulse was carried to this country by way of English and Scottish Calvinists. It was English Calvinists who executed a king and established the English republic. Many of those settled New England. It was John Knox who challenged a queen and wrote extensively defending his actions. Many of Knox’s countrymen settled the South as Presbyterians. Americans of this persuasion had a theological justification for their acts of disloyalty and revolt against the British government. Remember, the American Revolution was carried forward not by the large men of ideas, but by their ordinary countrymen who carried forth an ancestral memory from the prior two centuries.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 14, 2009 2:11 pm

      Robert Schneider
      Outstanding comment.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 15, 2009 2:59 am

      Robert Schneider
      Very good post. There may have been a couple of deist or what ever but most of the founders were christian and that is found in there writings. As a matter of fact they used to hold and attend church services right in the congress for many years. The old saw about seperation of church and state has always been drivil. General Washingtons prayers before battle showed where his faith was. The establishment clause simply meant that that there would be no government sponsered denomination such as the church of England which many were escaping. With out faith in God and a strong one this nation would never have existed. By the way the first experiment in socialism in this country came with the Pilgrims it was called the Mayflower Compact. It failed miserably.

      • Terry Morris permalink
        October 16, 2009 2:43 am

        Jack Hampton wrote:

        By the way the first experiment in socialism in this country came with the Pilgrims it was called the Mayflower Compact. It failed miserably.

        Well, the Pilgrims did try socialism, and it did fail miserably as you say. But we don’t call that the Mayflower Compact. Or at least I don’t call it that.

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          October 16, 2009 2:57 am

          That was what it was called. I guess you can call it a baseball game if you wish.

          • Terry Morris permalink
            October 16, 2009 4:49 am

            No it isn’t what it was called. Who told you that?

  13. Skypilott2 permalink
    October 14, 2009 1:37 pm

    Americans are victims of what I call a ‘soft coup’. Our government has been taken over by a person (Obama) and a party (Democrats) who lied their way through the election, aided and abetted all the way by the so-called mainstream media. Had their true intentions ever been exposed, through a proper democratic process involving a critical press, these people would never have been elected, not in this country.
    Now they are in power, and they will use every means at their disposal to prevent their defeat in future elections, including shutting down free-market forms of communication such as the Internet, radio and TV stations. Look at the war by Obama on Fox News, for example.
    Our Founding Fathers, those slave-owning dead, white males, were wise beyond belief. They warned us with words in the Declaration of Independence, and Ronald Reagan echoed their sentiment when he warned us that our freedom is always just one generation away from being removed.
    When I look at our current situation, I realize even one generation is overly optimistic.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 15, 2009 2:48 am

      Remembered Hitler and Mussolini, and Japan and there military dictators.

  14. elitist permalink
    October 15, 2009 5:54 am

    The fact that africans etc. live in squalor and want to come europe and the US is not a cogent reason for accepting them – especially in large numbers.

    Let them expres their admiration for European civilization by improving their OWN countries.

    Continuing to flood the US with immigrants will wreck our environment, our economy, our culture, and our society.

    It is true we led the world in abolishing slavery, but it is also true that African Blacks and Muslims, etc. have conrinued to enslave one another and others, and there is no reason to imagine they will ever stop.

    Our standards are eroding unde the onslaught of uncontrolled immigration:
    we are assimilating to them, not the other way around.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 15, 2009 6:39 am

      I agree I am for controled immigration and for very little of that with the current employment problems. If GWB was to be prosecuted for ant thing as some leftist want then it should be for failing to secure our border.

  15. Gerry permalink
    October 15, 2009 2:03 pm

    I agree completely with the comments made by Lawrence Auster and Alan Roebuck. And I do not believe that the USA will be able to survive the massive demographic changes she is now undergoing.

    Patriotism and not wanting your country to change do not equal racism or hatred of those not like you. Also, the world is not divided into two groups: those who are citizens of the USA and those who have the right to become citizens of the USA if they so desire. This country should not be a jobs fair, welfare office or flop house for the rest of the world. I stole that last bit, but it is spot-on.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 16, 2009 3:03 am

      There is no one more opposed to illegal immigration and to amnesty than I that is the issue that ghanged me from a Reoublican to an independent when the republican leadership started pushing for it. I am also for a freeze on legal immigration with the exception of a few dire situations. I never said that equaled racism. If I had then I would be calling myself a racist. Howevr this country is going to change it already has. The one thing that democrats and Republicans both lied and failed in was securing our border. So I pretty mush agree with all you have said. But the change part every thing changes.

      • Terry Morris permalink
        October 16, 2009 5:06 am


        The change (demographic, cultural, etc.) that has occured in this country over the last several decades hasn’t happened in a vacuum.

        Here’s the substance of Lawrence Auster’s comment criticizing David Horowitz’s vision of America above:

        On one side, the anti-American left, which openly declares its intention to end white Christian America, by changing America into a nonwhite, non-Christian country.

        On the other side, the pro-American “right,” which openly declares its intention to end white Christian America, by changing America into a nonwhite, non-Christian country.

        To which your keen sense of smell compelled you to respond, “why do I smell a real racist.” A real racist? As opposed to what, a non-real racist like yourself?

  16. Josey permalink
    October 16, 2009 11:01 am

    What Daivd is refering to when he mentions the word slavery is “modern” slavery. “Medieval” slavery was abolished by the Catholic Church in the centuries following the fall of Rome. Prior to Christianity slaves were treated as livestock with no rights at all. Some say their was never an end to medieval slavery-that is was replaced by the serf. Not true. Serfs could marry, transfer wealth and their families could not be bought or sold. They paid rent and thus controlled their own time and pace of work. Lord and serf were bound to each other in the feudal society.

    Slavery had disappeared from Europe by the end of the 9th century. Slavery only ended in medieval Europe when the church extended the sacrament to all slaves and then imposed a ban on the enslavement of Christians.

    During the 11th century Saint Wulfstan and Anselm campaigned to remove the last vestiages of slavery in Christendom. Exceptions remained, especially when Christian and Muslim armies met in battle. And with Italian firms and Muslim buyers persisting until the 15th century in defiance of the church. The trade in Europe withered away until the Age of Exploration and the discobery of the new world.

    Even then it was the Catholic church and

  17. Josey permalink
    October 16, 2009 11:12 am

    To finish up my prior comment….reports of mistreatment of the natives in the new world lead the Spanish king to call together theologians to develop laws that governed the relationship between the Spanish and the locals. Hence we see the begining of modern international law. Prior to this laws governing the interactions of states were vague. The laws were difficult to enforce due to the long distance. Father Francisco de Vitoria laid the groundwork for modern international law theory. It was this tradition that England picked up upon….

  18. Gerry permalink
    October 16, 2009 11:16 am


    I’m glad we agree on illegal immigration and essentially on legal immigration, too. However, I am not really sure then what other kind of ‘change’ you were referring to.

  19. Old European permalink
    October 16, 2009 11:32 am

    “Lord and serf were bound to each other in the feudal society. ”

    Thank you for putting this right! The lord went to war for the serf. He put his life at stake, the serf his money, the taxes he paid to finance the lord’s warfare. That is why the feudal system worked so well. It was servitude, not servility.

  20. White Advocate permalink
    October 18, 2009 9:41 pm

    I’ve spent a lot of online time in the last couple years at “race realist,” “white nationalist” and “paleoconservative” websites. A lot of what they write about strikes a chord. At the same time, I’m noticing lately that I can’t abide by a lot of what is written about at many of these sites. Lots of anti-semitism, which I find interesting and provocative in mild doses but tiresome, silly or vile beyond that. And a prediliction to have a serious problem not only with ghetto kids scaring seniors at the bus stop, affirmative action blacks at the university with a chip on their shoulder, or those same kids a few years later performing incompetantly in the professional world; but rather with normal, decent, civilized American citizens who happen to be black. As someone who supports a color blind society in the eyes of the law, I’m turned off a bit by their, er, racism.

    But even so, what I insist upon continuing to believe, is that 1) it is important that America remain a white majority country, and 2) that saying this is not necessarily racist or hateful or intended to construe in any way support for the opporession of minorities. It simply is what it is. The quality of life in this country depends – among many other things – on a white majoirty.

    It seems the idea that OTHER country’s have an interest maintaining ethnic balance is NOT generally considered outrageous. Why is this such an “outrageous” idea in the USA?

    Question also for Jack: do you know of a non-white majority neighborhood in your area that you would be comfortable living in and sending your kids to public school in? Do know of any such neighborhood ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD?

  21. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 19, 2009 11:45 am

    In the world yes there are several. In my area where I live there are no such schools. But to try to answer Would I want to send a child of mine to a shooting gallery school that was possibly located in Detroit the answer is no nor would I. But the reason is not because they are black but because of the violence and the substandard quality of the education they would receive. Now it woild be easy to lay the blame squarely at the feet of Black people but I believe the so called black leadership and the federal government is to blame. This mess was kicked off by LBJ and the hand out crowd that have fought school vouchers tooth and nail. I also do not forget the NEA’s contribution to this mess. I could go 0n at length but everyone here has heard it before.

Comments are closed.