Beating the Race War Drums

Utah and I have discussed the coming race war many times on the RNL.  In fact, I even titled a Post:

I See a Race War on the Way

Naturally, many – usually those on the Left – poo-pooed my argument.  But the fact remains that the foundation for such a war is being intentionally laid:

Farrakhan Urges Black Americans to Collectively Purchase Land…and Wants to Recruit Gang Members to Protect It

“All you gang bangers, we know you love to shoot, but you’re killing yourselves,” Farrakhan said.

“You are the natural warriors to defend and the science of war must be taught to us so that we will protect whatever God allows us to buy or to build,” he said. 

I’d like to make several observations that I hope you will consider:

1 – If you think Farrakhan can be ignored, ask yourself whether or not you would be tempted to follow him if you were a “gang-banger?”  Be sure to factor in all the racial animosity that has been intentionally thrown into our society by our schools, entertainment and news media and even our government – even Obama.  And make sure you account for human nature, and the draw of a charismatic leader who promises you prestige and prosperity.  Then answer the question and, if you conclude you might well be tempted to follow Farrakhan, then go back to the question of whether or not he should or even can be ignored.

2 – Given that racial relations are arguably worse than when Obama took office; and given the many comments Obama and his wife have made that, had they been made by whites about blacks would have been labeled racism; can we assume that Obama is helping to add to this racial tension?

3 – Why would the people controlling our government and social institutions want a race war?  Before you dismiss this issue, think about what benefit might be derived from such a war – and be sure to think as a person who wants to over-turn this nation as founded and who sees society as a collective and not a group of individuals.

4 — Do you understand the implication of Farrakhan arguing for a separate nation within the United States?  I’ll give you a hint you would be wise not to ignore: Nation of Islam!

About these ads

94 thoughts on “Beating the Race War Drums

  1. In my opinion, Farrakhan can be ignored. Jim Jones was out of reach, but remember Wounded Knee, Ruby Ridge and Waco. I would suggest that the best way to silence the likes of Farrakhan, is to address the root of the problem. The best way to silence the federal government is to unite and replace those in charge.

    • Steve,

      I agree: we should just keep doing what we’ve been doing the last 20 years. Next time, we’ll win (sound familiar? Like, how the Republicans will give Obama what he wants THIS time, but NEXT time it’ll be different?)

      Brother, not to be combative (honest), but that hasn’t been working. Personally, I think it’s because no one has bothered to define the common ground upon which we CAN unite, but the truth remains: it hasn’t been working… :-(

    • “In my opinion, Farrakhan can be ignored.”

      I too believe that Farrakhan has marginalized himself over time. Secondary to maybe Twitter, Facebook seems to be a fairly good litmus test about one’s popularity … particularly when that person is notable, a politician, public figure, or some other celebrity status attached. Here’s what I found:

  2. America is FULLY engaged in a Civil War.

    It is on many Fronts, including Culturally……the Press Bias is an outward and obvious sign. At this stage it is verbal and Legislative…with quislings cropping up on a regular basis…..Justice Roberts…..Governor Kasich and the Governor of Florida…John Boehner etc etc..

    The Race Aspect of this war is just the latest Leftist USE of the African American communmity as a tool for their continued hold on Power. It will be used to (1) Polarize and solidify one of their Victim Class constituency and (2) Justify implemeting the Patriot Act and NDAA provisions to slaughter Constitutionalists and suspend the Constitution and Bill of Rights….they will identify Both with the @nd Amendment and say it all has to go in favor of a UN Bill of “Human” Rights(priviledges).

    The Demonizing of People who Believe in the Constitution and in the Bible ( specifically the Lord…since 70% of the Jewish population in the US are Liberals)……this Demonizing is the first step to Criminalizing those people…Then the LEO and Military and DHS that they are indoctrinating to believe that those folks are the REAL terrorists will be primed to take them out … to protect the “Continuity of Gov’t”, minorities like the Blacks and muslims etc.

    It’s not that hard of a game plan to see them trying to activate.

  3. The media is indeed complicit. I believe it was at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, when Gore Vidal called William F. Buckley a crypto-nazi and Buckley responded by calling Vidal a queer and threatening to “sock” him in the mouth. TV producers discovered they had an untapped audience and they have continued to capitalize on it to the point where many votes are based on media soundbites rather than a study of the issues.

    African-Americans have become a tool of the Democrats, but no less so than “pro-lifers” and “gun nuts” for the Republicans.

    Many Christians vote Democratic. In my opinion, the “evangelicals” do more harm than good.

    • “African-Americans have become a tool of the Democrats, but no less so than “pro-lifers” and “gun nuts” for the Republicans.”

      Steve, that’s not entirely accurate. You do not hear the likes of a Marco Rubio sitting on state proffering the demagoguery to the “pro-lifers” or “gun nuts” in the same extent as you see from his popular counter-part(s) in Washington.

      To the point of gun laws, the Democrats are treading on a very slippery slop on this one. They already have the eyebrow raised of the black community who still remembers the protections that firearms has brought to them in history.

      Their hyperventilation has already begun.

            • Well, I can tell you with all certainty that the 50 cal was too much gun for dall ram hunts. (sigh)

              Accuracy was there though. LOL

                • Nah, with a NFA Title II stamp attached to a Trust, you sir are not the legal owner of the gun.

                  You just are the chief executor of the Trust. :)

                  • lol. All I know is this: when I opened up with my primary weapon (as the TC of the M88A1 I commanded, my main weapon was a Ma Duce), anything shy of a BMP turned to Swiss cheese — and that out to about 1200 yards, no less.

                    Yeah, sure, I could have hit out to 2000+, but that requires a little indirect fire. Not as easy with the “free spirit” I had for a driver ;-)

          • Yikes !

            What do you think of the DPMS in 308 ..AR-10 type. Worth “investing in ” ?? Or another make of the same ?

            Joe … same question.

            • Don,

              OK, I am going to cause all sorts of fire to rain down on me for saying this, but I am NOT the person to ask about this weapon vs that one. I once told people that, when you can hit your target, it doesn’t matter what weapon you’re using. They scoffed at me and started spouting off about stopping power and a bunch of other jazz. I just replied “Really? You guys are shooting at THAT large a target?” They asked me what I was talking about and my brother, who has seen me shoot bore bees out of the air with a BB gun that had no sights and a bent barrel, jumped into the conversation and informed the group that I usually shoot at a point the size of a quarter. They laughed. That’s when I grabbed my AR, shouldered it and told them to PULL! Yes, we were on a skeet range at the time. Anyway, 3 rounds, both skeet. Need I say any more? :-)

              BTW: I am a bit of a Quigley. I can use a pistol, I just don’t like them. Another group of friends didn’t realize that because I never want to fire with a pistol. Well, one day we were all shooting on a 100 yrd KD range. They were trying to hit a 1/2 gallon coffee can at that range — with .45 glocks. I guess they were doing OK, they were keeping to within 3 feet of the can, but I chuckled. They made the mistake of handing me a pistol. I was dead center mass, 1/2 inch over the top of the can. We all saw the strike of the round in the dirt. The pistol was snatched from my hand and they have never mentioned shooting with me again.

              So, for me, it all comes down to hitting your target. If you can do that, .50 cal, .22: it’s all the same :-)

              • Well I’m a novice at all this.

                And certainly have no Bragging rights at all wrt accuracy. My wife is a much better shot than I am .. although I got several in the X and more on the 9 during our latest Range outing…she was all oooey over it. I mostly am concerned about Defence and secondarily about long-term Legacy and possible investment. It seems like the AR platform with a more pwoerful round would have some utility….But Idon’t know.

                Did you shoot the Berretta (mm in the Marines? That was your issued sidearm right ?

                • Don,

                  Mind you, I am NOT bragging, per se. As good as I may be, I had friends that made me look like I couldn’t hit the side of a barn — and that’s da tooth!

                  Yes, we used the 9 mm Beretta, but I never learned to control a pistol well until an armorer showed me what my problem was — my hands were too big. He put a sleeve on the grip of my weapon to make it MUCH wider and all of a sudden, I could shoot expert with the pistol with as much ease as my M16 (AR15).

                  Now, what you use is as much a personal choice as everything else in our life, but I will offer you one thought: chose something that, IF you survive the engagement in which you are MOST likely to use your weapon, then your ammo re-supply will be lying on the ground next to the guys who just lost the battle. Think on that one a bit and I think you’ll connect the dots for yourself ;-)

              • Thanks Joe….You know a guy with a LOT of Gun experience and years in the Biz…..at a local gun store said that about me. I was talking about the disparity between my wife’s accuracy and mine….and our guns etc…and he said… “Well you have really big hands” and held up his to compare with mine. He was taller but when compared he was right.

                So maybe there’s something to that……. I like the Berretta and REALLY like SIGs.

            • Don,

              I am no gunsmith by any means, but I personally feel that while the uppers seem easily changed for any caliber, the lowers have somewhat of a history of not holding up to larger calibers or the pressures they generate.

              Despite what people think, the .223 caliber is actually a VERY small bullet with a fairly significant power charge over it’s cousin the .22.

              My advise before purchasing … talk to a local gun retailer and/or gun smith.

              • Thanks….the 308 seems a plenty available RND. The DPMS AR-10 is from the factory dedicated to the 308 round. Just wondering if that would be smething good to have because of the availability of 308 for hunting.

                • A .308 is a capable round. Fairly “flat” shooting round, but heavy enough for some brush.

                  If you are going to hunt with it, make sure you purchase 5 round magazines though. Pretty sure that most states cap that for hunting purposes.

                • Don

                  The .308 is just the 30-06 shortend for powder charges suitable for 170 gr. and less bullets, at 2600FPS of less.
                  (The standard cap for .30-cal gas-guns.)
                  If you plan to go heavier, or faster, the 30-06 parent cartridge shows a clear advantage.
                  the 30-06 has taken all game in North America with ease. The .308 has done almost as well despite not hadling 190-220gr. bullets well.

                  If you do go with the AR 10, think about the 7.62 NATO chamber over the .308 chamber.

                • FjF,

                  Is that 7.62 NATO …..a 7.62 x 51 or 7.62 x 54 …. I thought one of them was the SAME as 308 ? It’s confusing.

                • FjF,

                  I really appreciate the detailed info. So it sounds like (&.62 x 51) is the best option because 308 win could be used , and is found in shops for hunting. The 308 is maybe not as powerful ( slightly less so). So a DPMS AR-10 in 7.62×51 would be best because it could use BOTH the 7,62 and the 308…….whereas the purely 308 rifle wouldn’t be as good firing 7.62.

                  Is this a similar situation with 5.56 VS .223 ?? Meaning a gun PURELY .223 might not be good with 5.56…..but a rifle that is designed to shoot 5.56 will take STD .223 no problem. In other words .223 and 5.56 are VERY similar….but not exactly the same in all respects ????

                • Just remember … hunting = 5 rounds in every state I am aware of. Check the regulations in yours before hitting the woods with that rifle.

                • The 7.62 nato is the 7.62×51 (AKA .308 win. “Loose chamber”)
                  Military brass is thicker, and war time production criteria is not as stringent as SAAMI specs.
                  Don’t let the “Loose chamber” moniker scare you, unless you are match shooting 600+ YDS I doubt you will notice a difference. If you re-load the slightly larger chamber will make standard dies over work your brass, shortening cartridge life. so 7.62 x51 dies, and min. sizing will solve this.

                  The reason I suggest this chamber is,
                  .308 can be shot in the 7.62×51 chamber with no problem.
                  7.62×51, depending on manufacture run May cause problems due to thicker case necks/insufficient clearance between bullet and chamber neck causing higher chamber pressure. it MAY cause damage.

                  Civilian ammo may not always be a option.

                • Don’
                  It didn’t post where I wanted it, I’ll try again.

                  The 7.62 nato is the 7.62×51 (AKA .308 win. “Loose chamber”)
                  Military brass is thicker, and war time production criteria is not as stringent as SAAMI specs.
                  Don’t let the “Loose chamber” moniker scare you, unless you are match shooting 600+ YDS I doubt you will notice a difference. If you re-load the slightly larger chamber will make standard dies over work your brass, shortening cartridge life. so 7.62 x51 dies, and min. sizing will solve this.

                  The reason I suggest this chamber is,
                  .308 can be shot in the 7.62×51 chamber with no problem.
                  7.62×51, depending on manufacture run May cause problems due to thicker case necks/insufficient clearance between bullet and chamber neck causing higher chamber pressure. it MAY cause damage.

                  Civilian ammo may not always be a option.

                • Same Deal with me and correctly placing the post… LOL.

                  FjF,

                  I really appreciate the detailed info. So it sounds like (7.62 x 51) is the best option because 308 win could be used , and is found in shops for hunting. The 308 is maybe not as powerful ( slightly less so). So a DPMS AR-10 in 7.62×51 would be best because it could use BOTH the 7,62 and the 308…….whereas the purely 308 rifle wouldn’t be as good firing 7.62.

                  Is this a similar situation with 5.56 VS .223 ?? Meaning a gun PURELY .223 might not be good with 5.56…..but a rifle that is designed to shoot 5.56 will take STD .223 no problem. In other words .223 and 5.56 are VERY similar….but not exactly the same in all respects ????

  4. A “gun nut” is not your typical gun owner who believes in maintaining the right to self-defense. A gun nut one who places that right above all others. They are one issue voters who become easily manipulated.

      • “So no guns for fun and food? Augger will not be pleased……”

        I do not give them up that easily Kells. You are going to have to offer a bit more than that. :)

          • “Yes, the Obama administration is going about this all wrong! I now see that they must infiltrate babes with tats to confiscate weapons!”

            Allow me to get a little ghetto on this (dons jersey, gold watch, a grille that says “ray ray”, and any other bling I can find) …

            “Bitches R uh dime a dozen up in hear! Muh gunz doh … werd.”

    • In a way I am not unsympathetic to those who put this right “above all Others”. For me True Liberty, True Freedom is above all others…….But I have come to see that in a Practical sense they are all insured by the Right to Self-defence in the Larger meaning of the Term.

    • Have any examples of any specific gun nuts who put that right above all others?

      fyi – the US Constitution does have an order to it, just not a pecking order. :)

      • I find it interesting that ANYONE would refer to a person concerned with the right to life and the right to defend that life as a “nut,” but then, we live in a day and age where so few really understand the principles of liberty that tyranny is now embraced as freedom.

    • Steve,

      Close, but not quite. Wouldn’t a true Christian depend on one’s relationship with Christ (the Savior)? I believe Christ is actually the primary difference between Christianity and Judaism, isn’t it?

      But I get your point, and agree with it in principle :-)

  5. That’s right Joe, although many Christians believe in the trinity, But then that could open up a whole different can of worms not particularly relevant to American politics.

      • You and Steve bees talkin above my pay grade…. Trinity ( understood),…..

        But referenced here as in ” Osiris Isis Horus, Tammuz Semiramis Nimrod, Zeus Hera Athena, Ulumus Ulosuros Eliun, and Brahma Vishnu Shiva ) or as a male form of the Greek ( Hecate, Nemorensis, Diana) ?

  6. Sure augger. Gun nut is a term used by the left to denigrate those of us who believe in the right to own firearms. They make an idiotic claim that restricting gun purchases will stop massacres such as the most recent one in Newtown, CT. They do it, and since that position is aligned with a political party, Democrats will either defend it, or at least be silent. The same applies conversely to Republicans. To that end, I would say it is merely a distraction. I will speak up for gun rights, but I will not let the possibility of a reinstatement of the previous ban make me ignore what I believe are bigger issues.

    For me personally, pro-life vs pro-choice is not an argument about the sanctity of life. I have simply never believed a fertilized egg constitutes a “person”. I don’t feel a need to defend my position nor do I feel the need to convince anyone who may disagree. It would be a waste of time. However, as most arguments against abortion are made in the context of religious doctrine, I have submitted a letter to the News Herald which explains why I believe Christians can vote Libertarian despite the platform’s stance on the issue. If history is a predictor of the future, my letter should appear in this Saturday’s edition.

    • Steve,

      So you don’t believe that DNA identifies unique individuals? Or in the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence?

      I think you’re going to find that any Christian who understands his faith will NEVER vote Libertarian — because they can’t without violating Christ’s Gospel. And before you preach to me about Libertarianism, please don’t. I understand it VERY well. I was the only — at the time — conservative student in my philosophy department, which mandated my only ally was the only Libertarian student. He and I became friends — though we never found as much common ground with him as I found with some of my LIBERAL friends ;-)

  7. The only question I would ask is this: If Adolf Hitler walked upon the Republican stage and said he was against abortion, would you vote for him? Regardless of our opinions concerning what constitutes a person, this is an important question. The reason I pose the question is that some will ignore other issues in deference to ones to which they are more emotionally attached. The basis of my theory about how our government gets away with its crimes is because of issues such as this.

    • ” If Adolf Hitler walked upon the Republican stage and said he was against abortion, would you vote for him?”
      Obviously, the rest of his agenda would prevent anyone with any working brain cells from voting for him………………… But I can guarantee you that if a candidate says he is FOR abortion, it doesn’t matter what else be is for or against, he won’t get my vote.

    • Steve,

      That is a personal failing with the individual, isn’t it?

      And the answer is no. Now, can you answer my questions? Or at least acknowledge the implication within them?

  8. augger, I have encountered some on other sites, so given the small sample size, I would say there are many who vote only for those with “A” ratings from the NRA. BTW The battle over gun rights has nothing to due with the 2nd Amendment.

    • To “due”?

      Steve, allow me to remind you of one little point you are overlooking here:

      God gives us our rights. The U.S. Constitution guarantees those god given rights. You say the the gun fight has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and I say that it does. And why so?

      Because the god damned government is charged with protecting the US Constitution, that’s why.

  9. DonAmeche writes: “In a way I am not unsympathetic to those who put this right “above all Others”. For me True Liberty, True Freedom is above all others…….But I have come to see that in a Practical sense they are all insured by the Right to Self-defence in the Larger meaning of the Term.”

    • This reminds me of a debate we had about the libertarian ideology we had at some point in our recent past. I asserted that there were sects of the libertarians who supported anarchy. I believe it was Kells that told me I was full of sh*t.

      Now unless I am misunderstanding your undertones of “True Liberty”, I would say that we have an opportunity for “true liberty” as I see it in this nation with this government design (the founding father’s version, and not this abomination we live with today).

      The Federal Government is charged with protecting the U.S. Constitution, and not with meddling in the affairs of the citizens who government the federal government. Get rid of the Feds from our lives, and we have the true liberty we were intended to have here.

      Not that anarchist crap I think you are alluding too.

    • Yes….. I said (wrote) that….. Sounds pretty good upon second reading too ..LOL

      But what is your point ….. ie Comment? Are you saying that Freedom will be insured by the “Goodwill ” of Men and their Governments ?

      • It does sound good DonAmeche, and was the original intent, I’m sure. The point I was trying to make was that we really do not have regulated state militias. All defense operations have been subordinated to the federal government, thus we have no recourse to fight federal tyranny except via the ballot box. There are many people convinced that there will be armed conflict in the future, but there is really no need. However, our inability to pursue a united rational course, in the cause of limiting the federal government to its Constitutionally stated purpose, may end up being a self-fulling prophesy.

        • Got it.

          You make a well articulated reasoned argument. The only thing I would add at this time is that “A well regulated State Militia” is both a part of but also DISTINCT from the right of the People to Arm themselves and defend themselves.

  10. flasawdust made my point. So there we have it. The crooks in cahoots with the central bankers control that voting block and the Democrats must respond in a manner to thwart them and are branded as socialists. It’s a pretty niffty plan.

  11. The 2nd Amendment addresses the right of well-regulated militias to bear arms. The modern right to own firearms is an evolved right to self-defense. Per the SCOTUS is thus far only includes handguns, but if the idiots in Washington keep on, I’m sure it will evolve further.

    • Steve,

      Close, but NOPE! The second amendment addresses the necessity for the militia to be armed so they can defend themselves from tyranny. This not only protects rifles and pistols, but it includes ALL military arms and weapons of war, hence the word “arms.” Furthermore, since the militia is every able bodied male in the community, I’m pretty sure the founders meant the 2nd Amendment to specifically address the individual’s right to carry a weapon — which is probably the same reason they used to provide weapons to those who could not afford their own.

    • “Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”……. Every living thing has a right to protect itself from harm….(Self-Defence in modern Parlance).

      Irrespective of any “militia”…………although it is related in that the Militia (armed citizenry) is there to INSURE the protection of the Country and Contitution and Bill of Rights from enemies external and Internal.

      The 2nd Amendment insures BOTH…the Protection of the Constituion and the ability of the Citizen to defend Himself …… unless you are saying the citizen DOES NOT have a right to self-defence….and the second amendment is ONLY there to protect the Government -Constitution ?

      Your comments below about the SCOTUS could imply that.

  12. Joe, if this is the question you ask about, “So you don’t believe that DNA identifies unique individuals?”, then like I said before, it is a waste of time. Please wait for my letter, and let’s discuss it later.

    • The 2nd Amendment was and Is a part of that ability to Protect Steve. You say you revere ( my word) the Constitution. One wonders iF you feel the same way about the Bill of Rights ??

  13. No augger, I am not one of the anarchist. I believe our Constitution was a work of genius for its time, and our time. I also believe it has been perverted, and over the years the power of the federal government has grown as a result of many factors. The two most important are possibly the need for citizens to turn to the federal government for redress of grievances originating on local levels and the creation of the Federal Reserve.

    Tyrants are not exclusive to our federal government and the central bankers have only one goal.

  14. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    There is a lot of debate about the meaning of this one sentence, but I do believe the intent is that the right of citizens to own firearms is indisputable.

    • Steve,

      Those who will bother to actually read what the founders said this means have no misconceptions as to what it means. The only ones “confused” about it are those would-be tyrants who can’t figure out how to spin plain language to read “the govt. may allow you to have…”

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s