Jewamongyou

"Empire" by Niall Ferguson

Posted on January 2, 2014 by jewamongyou

I can’t remember which forum it was, but somebody had suggested that the book Empire -The rise and demise of the British World Order and the lessons for global power, by Niall Ferguson, would cure me of my racism. The claim was that this book contains enough evidence to debunk any notions that racial differences might have played a role in the ascent of the West.
As a matter of fact, Empire is not even remotely a science book, but a history book. Ferguson makes no attempt at all to debunk HBD (human biodiversity – the belief in more than superficial racial differences). The closest he comes to it is (pg. 217-220) a mocking description of some of the racial beliefs held in 19th century Europe, including phrenology and some anecdotal accounts of failed attempts to “civilize the savage.” He writes (pg. 217):

Influenced by, but distorting beyond recognition, the work of Darwin, nineteenth-century pseudo-scientists divided humanity into ‘races’ on the basis of external physical features, ranking them according to inherited differences not just in physique but also in character. Anglo-Saxons were self-evidently at the top, Africans at the bottom. The work of George Combe, author of A System of Phrenology (1825), was typical in two respects: the derogatory way in which it portrayed racial differences and the fraudulent way in which it sought to explain them…
The explanation for this backwardness, according to Combe, was the peculiar shape of ‘the skull of the negro’: ‘The organs of Veneration, Wonder and Hope… are considerable in size. The greatest deficiencies lie in Conscientiousness, Ideality and Reflection’. Such Ideas were influential. The idea of an ineradicable ‘race instinct’ became a staple of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century writing – as in Cornelia Sorabji’s tale of the educated Indian lady doctor who willingly (and fatally) submits to the ordeal by fire during a pagan rite; or the account by Lady Mary Anne Barker of how her Zulu nanny reverted to savagery when she returned home to her village; or W. Somerset Maugham’s ‘The Pool’, in which a hapless Aberdonian businessman tries in vain to Westernize his half-Samoan bride.

Ferguson’s diatribe against 19th century racism segues into what looks like an argument that eugenics must be false, since some members of the “master race” were homosexual. He writes (pg. 220 after quoting a description of the perfect Anglo-Saxon):

Men like this certainly did exist. Yet a remarkably high proportion of them made only the most half-hearted, if any, contribution to the reproduction of the race they exemplified – for the simple reason that they were homosexuals.

It’s hard to say what Ferguson’s own attitudes toward homosexuality are (he brings it up several times in his book), but there’s no doubt that such tendencies were considered shameful in Victorian Britain. To counter an opponent’s opinion by attacking his sexuality is among the lowest of tactics employed by the Left. It’s the Victorian equivalent of the Left’s obsession with penis-size today. In this maneuver, leftist will say (in so many words), “your arguments are vacuous because I accuse you of having a small penis.”
Chapter two, called “White Plague,” describes how the “Britannic exodus changed the world. It turned whole continents white.” Though Ferguson admits that most of the decimation of native populations was caused by pathogens, one almost gets the impression that this was planned. Admittedly, European settlers were far more successful as a result. Though Ferguson recounts British misdeeds, which led to ethnic cleansing and sometimes genocide, he doesn’t turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of others. For example, he points out (pg. 68) that the freed slaves of Jamaica (the “Maroons”) ended up becoming slave-owners themselves. Similarly, he writes (pg. 182):

… there can be little doubt that British rule reduced inequality in India. And even if the British did not greatly increase Indian incomes, things might conceivably have been worse under a restored Mughal regime had the Mutiny succeeded.

Later on, (pg. 284) he goes into grisly detail when describing the Japanese atrocities in Nanking. He writes (ibid.):

The Rape of Nanking reveals precisely what the leading alternative to British rule in Asia stood for…
But it was also the collision between an Empire that had some conception of human rights and one that regarded alien races as no better than swine…
By the 1930s many people in Britain had got into the habit of rubbishing the Empire. But the rise of the Japanese empire in Asia during that decade showed that the alternatives to British rule were not necessarily more benign.

If Australia and North America were turned white, it’s probably partly on account of the fact that these continents were very sparsely inhabited to begin with. Prior to European colonization. According to Ferguson (pg.56), there were “probably around 2 million indigenous people in the territory of the modern United States in 1500. By 1700 the number was 750,000.” Disease and war had taken their toll – but two million, for an area as large as the United States, represents a very low population density. According to Ferguson (pg. 88), in 1788 Australia had only about 300,000 Aboriginals. The continent was practically empty, and as they say, “nature abhors a vacuum.”
There’s no sugar-coating it; the arrival of whites in the New World, and in Australia, was disastrous for the indigenous races. But how would Ferguson’s native country have reacted had he described the current wave of Africans and Asians into Britain as the “Black Plague” or the “Brown Plague?” His book would have been banned and he would have faced serious charges of racism. Is ethnic cleansing to be condemned when it is done by whites against non-whites, but praised when it’s whites who are the victims?
At least, after the natives had suffered the worst of colonial deprivations, they had modern medicine, institutions, science, education and more-or-less just government at their disposal – all courtesy of the white man. What sort of legacy will the brown and black men leave for Europe? Fundamentalist Islam and rampant crime come to mind.
Ferguson attributes Britain’s rise to power to a mix of opportunism, scientific advances, economic progress and a cultural enthusiasm to build and maintain an empire.
In a nutshell, the empire had its start with successful buccaneers such as Henry Morgan and Walter Raleigh. Then it received further impetus from Portuguese naval advances and Dutch innovations in banking. Later still, the empire benefited from an American invention: the Maxim gun. The telegraph also became indispensable in holding the empire together. While the initial motives for empire were gold and other raw resources (such as sugar and fish), over time the British considered themselves duty-bound to spread Christianity to the world – along with the other trappings of British civilization.
In at least one respect British colonialists of old turned out to be right, and Ferguson’s accusations unjustified. He writes (pp. 168,169):

Writing in the same vein to the Madras Mail, a correspondent demanded to know: ‘Are our wives to be torn from our homes on false pretenses [to] be tried by men who do not respect women, and do not understand us, and in many cases hate us?… Fancy, I ask you Britishers, her being taken before a half-clad native, to be tried and perhaps convicted…’ Such language laid bare one of the odder complexes of the Victorian Empire: it’s sexual insecurity. It is no coincidence that the plots of the Raj’s best-known novels -Forster’s A Passage to India and Scott’s The Jewel in the Crown – begin with an alleged sexual assault by an Indian man against an English woman, followed by a trial presided over by an Indian judge.

Ferguson seems to believe that such fears were unfounded. But how many horrific stories have we recently read about vicious gang-rapes in India that go unpunished? Let the reader recall that “India,” in those days, also referred to what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. One wonders if Ferguson is aware of the wholesale grooming, and rape, of British girls by Pakistanis in his own native England. In light of the above, and the fact that British subjects in India were constantly exposed to the culture that produces such crimes, can we blame them for being concerned about the welfare of their women?
For all the sins Ferguson lays at the feet of the British Empire, in the end he questions the premise that the poverty endemic in many former colonies is due to their having been colonized. He writes (pg. 306):

For all these reasons, the notion that British imperialism tended to impoverish colonized countries seems inherently problematic. That is not to say that many former colonies are not exceedingly poor. Today, for example, per capita GDP in Britain is roughly twenty-eight times what it is in Zambia, which means that the average Zambian has to live on something less than two dollars a day. But to blame this on the legacy of colonialism is not very persuasive, when the differential between British and Zambian incomes was so much less at the end of the colonial period. In 1955, British per capita GDP was just seven times greater than Zambian. It has been since independence that the gap between the colonizer and the ex-colony has become a gulf. The same is true of nearly all former colonies in sub-Saharan Africa, with the notable exception of Botswana.

He goes on to speculate that a country’s economic fortunes are determined by a combination of natural resources and its human history (I.E. its culture and infrastructure). Not surprisingly, he does not count genetic endowment among these factors.
Regarding multiculturalism and its alternative, smaller countries, Ferguson has this to say (pg. 309):

No fewer than fifty-eight of today’s states have populations less than 2.5 million; thirty-five have less than 500,000 inhabitants. There are two disadvantages to this political fragmentation. Small countries are often formed as a result of civil war within an earlier multiethnic polity – the most common form of conflict since 1945. That in itself is economically disruptive. In addition, they can be economically inefficient even in peacetime, too small to justify all the paraphernalia of statehood they insist on decking themselves out in: border posts, bureaucracies and the rest…

My response to this is that any economic disruption is by choice; these smaller nations (and their larger neighbors) may opt to allow free trade across borders. They may choose to maintain the paraphernalia of statehood – or not. Whatever works for them, they’ll do. In the end, an equilibrium will be reached.
Notwithstanding my above objections, I would highly recommend Empire. I find myself far more educated about the history of the British Empire on account of this book. The fact that the author had traveled to many of the sites described in Empire adds a personal touch, and renders some of his historical notes more tangible. Overall, Ferguson is very objective in his analysis; he’s quick to condemn atrocities perpetrated by his own ancestors – but just as quick to point out their merits, and the fact that much of world as we know it is the result of their endeavors.
Empire concludes by handing the reigns of world empire to the United States. As Ferguson urges Americans to accept our role as the new global empire, and to act accordingly, he seems oblivious to the rot that is spreading within us. He states (pg. 317):

It has a much bigger economy, many more people, a much larger arsenal. But it is an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which, if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is an empire in denial.

Ferguson seems to believe that those “backward regions which need them most urgently” are in Africa, South America or Asia, but these regions are actually in our very own cities. Hence, I would say that Ferguson is the one who is in denial.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links | 17 Comments

Homosexuality, Christianity and Africa

Posted on December 31, 2013 by jewamongyou

Making my travel plans for the upcoming American Renaissance conference, it occurred to me that I might as well combine my customary tropical vacation with the conference trip. It would save me extra travel and expense. Being on a tight budget, I decided to spend a few days in the Mexican Riviera. I’d done so before, and it’s pretty darn close to paradise if you like beautiful beaches, warm weather, good food, history – and cheap accommodations.
Speaking of this last feature, I noticed that many Cancun hotels openly refuse to cater to single men (they have no problem with single women). I mentioned, to a dear family member, that nobody seems to care about discrimination against single men – unless said men are homosexual. She responded with something about gays in Africa, and how bad it is for them over there. At least in Mexico, there’s no government policy to hunt them down and imprison them or kill them.
She was referring to Uganda. I’ve written about anti-homosexuality in Uganda before, but I’ve been reading Empire by Niall Ferguson and I now have a slightly different angle on the issue.
Ferguson writes much about the exploits of the great explorer David Livingstone. Livingstone was only the most famous of a group of Brits who were willing to sacrifice everything in order to bring Christianity to the African savage. Many succumbed to disease, the elements or hostile natives. About these missionaries, Ferguson writes (pg. 100):

Converting the heathen was a dangerous enterprise. To succeed, the missionary movement needed an army of young men – idealistic, altruistic adventurers, willing to go to the ends of the earth to spread the Word. There could not be a greater contrast between the missionaries’ motives and those of previous generations of empire-builders, the swashbucklers, the slavers and the settlers.

Missionary work in Africa was a slow, painful process. It wasn’t always easy to persuade the natives to discard their animistic beliefs and practices. In Uganda, it would appear that homosexuality was incorporated into these practices. In fact, Christian opposition to homosexuality played a key role in the conversion of Uganda. According to the Dictionary of African Christian Biography:

In May and June 1886 a large massacre of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, took place. Many were executed at Namugongo, the traditional execution site also used for the Muslim martyrs of 1876. The immediate cause for the killings was the Kabaka’s anger at the disobedience of his Christian pages, in particular their refusal to indulge in homosexual practices. Charles Lwanga, the Catholic head of the pages in the king’s private apartments, had been particularly vigilant in protecting the Christian boys under his charge from the advances of the Kabaka and some of the chiefs…
Undoubtedly these Uganda martyrs (there were Bunyoro and Basoga as well as Baganda) died believing and trusting in Christ as their Savior. They sang hymns on the way to their deaths, preached to their persecutors, strongly believed in a life after death, and their courage and fortitude made a great impression on those who saw them die.

How might a modern Ugandan respond to recent demands that his country accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle? He might call such demands a continuation of colonialism, as Martin Ssempa did when confronted by a reporter (once available on YouTube, but now removed). He might object that Africans should not be expected to modify their beliefs in accordance with every new Western fad and fashion that happens to arise.
My dear relative referred to the acceptance of homosexuality as “progress” and, to a certain degree, I agree with her. But when such progress is imposed from afar, it looks a lot like coercion. It took over a hundred years for most of Uganda to become Christian. It might take decades more (if at all) for sexual minorities to be accepted as full citizens and human beings. This is unfortunate, but it looks a lot as if the West is telling the rest of the world:

Yes, it’s true that we imposed Christianity upon you during colonial times. But now we have a new religion. It’s called Liberalism – and we expect you to discard our old religion in favor of our new one.

Every time the West meddles in the affairs of Africa (or anywhere else), it creates “refugees” – and these “refugees” end up fleeing their native countries in favor of our countries, in effect colonizing us. Isn’t it time to cease this cycle of mutual colonization?

Posted in Africa and blacks, feminism and men's issues, human sexuality and morality, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 10 Comments

tanorexia and racism

Posted on December 29, 2013 by jewamongyou

I once had a boss who suffered from “tanorexia” (tanning addiction). Though red of hair, her face was dark and leathery; it was painful to behold, and people would make morbid fire-survivor jokes behind her back. Her tan never faded, even through the coldest and cloudiest winter months.
This boss was noticeably biased against the few naturally darker-skinned employees under her authority, and accusations of racism bubbled to the surface now and then. When I mentioned, to the affected coworkers, that what we have here is probably not “racism” but jealousy, laughter was the response. This had never occurred to them and they didn’t know what to make of it. We all knew she had a tanning problem, and we all knew she treated her darker employees as second-class citizens; she kept us (yes, in her eyes I was “dark” too) as far away from herself as possible. But nobody had put two and two together.
Is dark skin (I’m not necessarily including very dark skin here) considered more attractive among whites in America? A 2010 ABC article reports:

The Jersey Shore uber-tan aesthetic may not be for everyone, but it seems that even for non-Guidettes, having a tan makes them sexier, according to a study from Emory University.

Researchers used the popular attractiveness-rating website HotorNot.com to gauge whether “hotness” scores would change when the same woman was shown with her natural complexion and then with a tan.

Using Photoshop, 45 photos of women aged 21 to 35 were doctored to look tan. The original photos and the doctored versions were posted to the site at different times. The researchers found that the darker version was twice as likely to be rated as more attractive.

Of course, tan enthusiasts would say that you don’t need science to figure that one out.

“When I look in the mirror I feel more attractive when I’m darker, like my face is prettier. It’s 100 percent a confidence boost for me,” says Lauren Kafka, 31, of Miami, who uses a tanning bed three times a week to keep up her golden glow.

Are less attractive people jealous of more attractive people? At least among females, the answer is obviously “yes.” It’s not a stretch to say that some fair-skinned people are jealous of darker-skinned people – and that this jealousy can translate into perceived racism in a work environment.

If “racism” is at work here, then it might actually be the self-loathing that so many whites possess. They loath their white skin, they consider it ugly – and they envy those whose skin is a few shades darker. How ironic that the demonization of whites can lead to “racist” attitudes toward non-whites. How many “microaggressions” against non-whites can be laid at the feet of white guilt and white self-loathing?

Posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 13 Comments

Why I believe in race-realism

Posted on December 22, 2013 by jewamongyou

I can’t remember what led me to it, but I recently found an article titled “I Posed as a White Supremacist Online” that peaked my interest. The article is by Greg Stevens, and it turned out to be very entertaining. The forum he had infiltrated was called “Skadi.” Some of y’all may be familiar with it; it’s now defunct. From what I gather, it was a lot like Stormfront and most of its members probably migrated there. Stevens was surprised by the diversity of opinions there, but put off by (among other things) the anti-Semitism.
I was able to contact Mr. Stevens and informed him that there are pro-white people/race-realists out there who are not neo-Nazi types. That we count, within our ranks, people of several races – and that some of us are Jews. Mr. Stevens (who, I believe, holds some P.H.D.s, but is too modest to use the title “Dr.”) was happy to correspond with me and he turned out to be a real mensch. To all my readers: Please do not contact Mr. Stevens directly unless he asks you to. I don’t want to be responsible for an inundation of unwanted messages. Just post your comments and questions here; he has the link.
A couple of items I’d promised to clarify were a) Why do I believe in non-superficial racial differences? and b) Have I experienced anti-white discrimination personally? I’ll add c) Why is it important to recognize racial differences? For many regular readers, none of this should be new. This essay will, for the most part, only deal with “a.” “b” and “c” will have to wait for future posts. For the sake of simplicity, I’ve focused mainly on blacks and whites. Also, for the sake of simplicity, I deal almost exclusively with intelligence here.

Why do I believe in non-superficial racial differences?

I don’t claim to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such differences exist. Mr. Stevens writes, in a different article:

There is a possibility that someday, someone will gather enough detailed data and perform a complex enough analysis, that they will be able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, with no apparent flaws in experimental design or methodology, that there is some difference between two groups of people that we really wish, for political reasons, we hadn’t found.
To illustrate this, I’m suggesting the hypothetical example where a group of people with genetic marker X (which is present more in white people) performs spatial rotation tasks on average 1.3 times faster than people with genetic marker Y (which is present more in black people).

In a perfect world, scientists could go about their research unhindered – and without fear of asking the “wrong” questions. In our world, however, there are grave consequences for any scientist who dares broach the topic of racial differences. James Watson, Michael Levin and Philippe Rushton are a few examples of academics who suffered for their racial research. Other scientists, such as Armand LeRoi and Steven Pinker avoided this fate by (mostly) speaking in hints and being extremely diplomatic. In 2006, Bruce Lahn claimed to have made a breakthrough in evolutionary science. According to The Wall Street Journal (the article can now be found at American Renaissance):

CHICAGO—Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.
It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country’s most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.
Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.
What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.

Professor Lahn, originally from China, did not understand that such research is not welcome in the West.
Mr. Stevens admits that we would not wish to find such differences – for “political reasons.” Stevens’ desire to not find such differences is the default position of our government at all levels, of our media at all levels, of our educational system at all levels, of every single one of our corporations – and of practically every individual in the West with any substantial clout or influence. The ENTIRE EDIFICE of Western civilization is bent on NOT finding such differences.
If they don’t want to find them, they certainly are not going to look for them. As an iconoclast (years ago, as I was forming my opinions), this made me question the motivations of all these powerful forces. It caste a shadow of doubt over their claims and made me want to investigate further.
Who makes the rules? Who sets the expectations and mores of society? It’s those with money and influence who do so. They own the media, they run the government and schools, and they control the corporations. More intelligent people tend to rise to the top. This is true regardless of race. Consequentially, those who pull the strings have little intimate contact with average people. The blacks they know in their personal lives are among the talented tenth. With the exception of their outward appearance, these blacks differ little from elite whites. Thus, when a newspaper editor thinks of blacks, it’s the well-spoken one on his staff that comes to mind. When the corporate executive reads about claims of lower black I.Q., he thinks, “How ridiculous. I play golf with a black man and he’s very intelligent!” These powerful people are not forced to use public transportation with the hoi polloi. They do not live in the inner cities, and their children do not attend ghetto schools. Therefore, it’s easy to see why the ruling class feels revulsion at the concepts people like myself advance; it conflicts with their own life experience – and everything they see in the media.
What do we mean by “intelligence?” I’ll quote “The Affirmative Action Hoax” (first edition) by Steven Farron (Appendix IV):

The reason why the scores on all these tests correlate closely with each other is that they all require analyzing, synthesizing, and manipulation information; distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information; and other types of abilities that are commonly called “intelligent.” For the same reason, they have a low correlation with scores on tests of spelling or simple arithmetic computation…

Assumptions can be very expensive. The assumption that all races are equal in average intellect has cost the United States many billions of dollars, and untold ruined lives. If we assume, as the government/corporations/media/educational system does, that there are no innate differences in intelligence between the races, then the consistent disparities we observe MUST be the result of systematic discrimination – or the legacy of slavery/Jim Crow. This assumption forces us to cast whites in a negative light. It taints us all with some sort of original sin. A sin we are forever obliged to atone for. It means, ultimately, that public schools will not teach white children to be proud of their heritage as whites; in contrast to the way those schools teach blacks to be proud of their heritage as blacks.
When various populations obviously vary in average height, hair texture, skull shape, muscle type, bone density, disease resistance and overall bodily strength, why should we assume that these populations, having evolved in vastly different environments, would miraculously end up with exactly the same mental capabilities. Such a belief, in my opinion, requires faith in a god who would perform such a wondrous feat. I’ll quote James Watson:

“A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

On the face of it, the burden of proof lies with race-denialists. They are the ones whose position is at odds with science. The default position should be that of race-realists – and public policy should be determined accordingly: That each individual should be judged on his own merit, and let the chips fall where they may – and that our right of freedom of association be honored. If there are no black physicists, and only a handful of female engineers, then so be it. If neighborhoods and schools end up being racially, religiously, or gender, segregated, then so be it.
But enough beating around the bush. Here are the reasons I believe in innate racial differences:
1) Race realists/hereditarians do not ignore the impact of environment. Most of us claim that our genes account for some 50% of our mental capabilities, with environmental factors (such as nutrition, cultural upbringing and health making up the rest). But race-denialists ignore/deny the importance of genetics on intelligence (however we define it). They accept the “blank slate” (tabula rasa) dogma, which claims that our mental capabilities are shaped entirely by environment. Though the concept of tabula rasa had existed long before the genetics of race became a contentious issue, race-denialists have forced themselves into ascribing to this archaic and discredited notion. They have locked themselves into a sinking ship.
While it’s true that race CAN BE a social construct, as Stevens points out, when race-realists speak of “race,” we’re referring to one’s actual genetic/geographical origins. A person who chooses to call himself “Native American” because his great great grandmother was pure-blooded whatever, is NOT a Native American. If the rest of his ancestry is European, then he’s “white”. Most of us don’t give much credence to “pure races.”
Geographical origins correspond closely with what we call “race” for the simple reason that humans have, until recently, bred almost exclusively with those from the same area. As long as we accept that genes play a role in intelligence, which is all but undeniable (considering numerous twin/adoption studies), then it’s reasonable to assume that different regions will produce people of different aptitudes. These difference may be small, or they may be large; without research, no assumptions should be made.
2) I.Q. tests, though they may have been culturally biased early on, are no longer so. The fact that Asians consistently score higher than whites, even in tests that were devised by whites, should tell us as much.
There have been numerous claims of modern police/fire department entrance tests (proxies for I.Q. tests) being “racist,” nobody has been able to identify specific questions, within those tests, that are culturally biased. Were we so inclined, we could use this phenomenon to help us define “intelligence.” Intelligence would then be “the talent required for any academic task where blacks perform worse than whites.” At any rate, this makes about as much sense as claiming that all black deficiencies are the result of bias.
Has anybody come up with an academic test where blacks consistently score higher than whites? Where whites score higher than Asians? If there were such a test, we would never hear the end of it. The news would be splashed all over the front pages of newspapers, television shows would feature the story at prime time for months on end, and billboards would announce it for all to see. If it’s cultural bias that’s behind low black scores, then it should be easy to devise a test that favors blacks – and the political will is certainly there. Yet this has not been done. In light of this fact, any unbiased person would conclude that lower black scores are the result of lower innate mental capabilities.
There is another, often overlooked, aspect to this matter: Blacks do not all share a single culture. There are thousands of cultures in Africa, the Caribbean and the Americas that blacks belong to. Culture is NOT a common denominator among blacks. Neither is religion or socio-economic status. The only trait that unites all blacks is that their ancestors came from sub-Saharan Africa. If we filter out the more intelligent ones (through selective migration, wealth or attendance at exclusive schools), then naturally we’ll see higher scores. This same trick can be done with with any other group. Controlling for S.E. status is thus not a valid counter-argument – unless we do the same with other races when we compare them. In this case, the gap would persist and nothing would be gained.
3) On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites and whites have smaller brains than Asians (taking into account body mass). While it’s true that brain-size is only moderately correlated with intelligence, the correlation is still there and should be taken into account. Here I’ll quote myself, from my critique of Joseph Graves’ “The Emperor’s New Clothes”:

Graves can’t quite make up his mind in the matter of brain size. He repeatedly references (pg. 3, 46 and 86) Stephen Jay Gould’s research, which supposedly exposed Samuel Morton’s research (which showed negro skulls to be, on average, of lower capacity than Caucasian and Asian ones). He writes:

Many assertions and assumptions about race and racial relations that were taken for granted during the Enlightenment have subsequently been proven false (such as the incorrect assertion that Negroes’ brains are smaller than those of white Europeans) (pg. 3).

But he also writes:

However, when unbiased measurements of human brains were made, there was no evidence for differences in brain size. In 1838, Friedrich Tiedemann… measured the brains from fifty cadavars (both Negro and European) and found no weight differences… The twentieth-century anthropologist Ashley Montagu concluded that the average cranial capacity difference between blacks and whites was about 50 cubic centimeters (pg. 87 and bold mine).

Surely that last study, by Montagu, warrants further study – but Graves does not seem interested in such a study. Does he believe that 50 cubic centimeters is not meaningful – even when taken together with other evidence? How many neurons can fit into 50 cubic centimeters? In any event, how unfortunate for Graves that it was Gould’s study that proved to be fraudulent, not Morton’s. From Science Fair of June, 2011:

The late scientific icon, Stephen Jay Gould, botched and perhaps faked his critique of a racist 19th-Century scientist’s skull collection, suggests a second look at his efforts. In a 1978 Science paper, Gould (1941 – 2002) , reported that the Samuel George Morton (1799-1851), “a prominent Philadelphia physician,” had mis-measured the cranial capacities of his 1,000-skull “American Golgotha” collection gathered from around the world, to suit his racist beliefs. The finding led to one of Gould’s best-known books, The Mismeasure of Man, a critique of scientific racism. Overall, they find, Morton did make mistakes in measuring skull capacity (he first stuffed them with seeds, and later lead shot to measure their brain size). But the mistakes were random. The random mistakes didn’t favor any racial theory of larger brain sizes for white people over others…
Morton neither manipulated his skull samples, unfairly selected which data to report, skewed results by gender, or ignored his mistakes to favor racist interpretations of his skulls, the PLoS Biology study authors conclude — all charges made by Gould against the long-dead physician.
What’s more, the researchers found Gould made some mistakes in his re-analysis of Morton. “Our analysis of Gould’s claims reveals that most of Gould’s criticisms are poorly supported or falsified,” they conclude:

Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct. The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that ”unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth”. This view has since achieved substantial popularity in ”science studies”. But our results falsify Gould’s hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his a priori views. The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton’s initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.

4) If we read the aforementioned article in Science Fair, we’ll see that the author, Dan Vergano, dismisses any serious implications of this brain-size disparity with these words:

Today, researchers know that larger average skull size is largely a function of cold weather…

How convenient. Even if larger skulls, and the brains within them, are a result of colder weather – how, exactly, would this preclude any impact on overall intelligence? No explanation is given.
Many have pointed out that it takes more intelligence, foresight and future time-orientation to survive the cold winters of the North than it does to survive in the tropics. Game is plentiful in tropical Africa. Yes, it takes cunning and planning to capture a wildebeest – but these clearly are not part of the same mental tool-kit that is required to survive the winter in Europe. I’ll quote Brian Fagan, from his book “Cro Magnon – How the ice age gave birth to the first modern humans” (pg. 170. Read my review here):

Infinite patience and persistence were also qualities common to tropical and cold-climate hunters alike. Everywhere, mental attitudes were important, but they were particularly central to survival in environments where strong winds and the bitter cold of subzero temperatures for days on end sapped human energy. Successful hunting and survival depended on deeply ingrained attitudes of self-assurance and competence, on mental attitudes that were part of the Cro-Magnon personality.

The natives of Europe had to store up food during the warm months so that they’d have something to eat during the winter. This was not necessary in Africa. Today, black Americans don’t save nearly as much of their earnings as white Americans. Are we to believe that these phenomena are not related in any way? If we do note the parallels, are we to be condemned as “racists” for doing so? The worn-out “legacy of slavery” excuse doesn’t hold much water when we consider that black Africans are in even worse shape than black Americans economically.
Some scientists claim that, even though certain advantageous traits developed in specific areas, they gradually dispersed throughout human populations. This might make sense for higher intelligence if we assume that it is, indeed, an advantage throughout the world. But this is not the case. Higher intelligence is often an evolutionary disadvantage. For example, it’s an evolutionary disadvantage in modern Western society; more intelligent people tend to have fewer children. Furthermore, the brain is an expensive organ.
5) The higher a black’s proportion of white ancestry, the more intelligent he tends to be. The late Philippe Rushton, in his seminal work “Race, Evolution and Behavior” writes (pg. 30,31):

Trans-racial Adoption StudiesThe best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed- race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.
One well known trans-racial adoption study is Sandra Scarr’s Minnesota project. The adopted children were either White, Black, or Mixed- race (Black-White) babies. The children took IQ tests when they were seven years old and again when they were 17.
In their initial report, the authors thought that their study proved that a good home could raise the IQs of Black children. At age 7, their IQ was 97, well above the Black average of 85 and almost equal to the White average of 100. However, when the children were retested at age 17, the results told another story (reported in the 1992 issue of Intelligence).
At age seven, Black, Mixed- race, and White adopted children all had higher IQ scores than average for their group. Growing up in a good home helped all the children. Even so, the racial pattern was exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture theory. Black children reared in these good homes had an average IQ of 97, but the Mixed- race children averaged an IQ of 109, and the White children an IQ of 112.
The evidence for genetic theory got stronger as the children grew older. By age 17, the IQs of the adopted children moved closer to the expected average for their race. At age 17 adopted White children had an IQ of about 106, Mixed- race adoptees an IQ of about 99, and adopted Blacks had an IQ of about 89. IQ scores are not the only evidence in this study. School grades, class ranks, and aptitude tests show the same pattern.

Similarly, if we examine lists of famous black inventors and statesmen, we find that most of them are of largely white ancestry. Radishmag has a good article on this that he calls “Mulatto History Month.” Here’s a segment:

What do almost all successful “black” Americans have in common? Below, from left to right: the first “black” president; the first “black” attorney general; the first “black” secretary of state; the first “black” female secretary of state; and the first “black” cabinet member.

The first “black” Supreme Court justice; the first “black” elected congressman; the first “black” governor; Booker T. Washington, the famous “black” writer; and W.E.B. Du Bois, another famous “black” writer:

Charles Drew, the famous “black” surgeon; Daniel Hale Williams, the first “black” cardiologist; the first “black” man to earn a B.A.; the first “black” man to earn a Ph.D.; and the first “black” general:

If ever there was a case of “socially-constructed race,” it would be the list of notable black statesmen and scholars.
6) All races have some archaic features. Caucasians have large brow-ridges and hairy bodies. Many Asians have noticeable prognathism and sloped foreheads. Morphologically speaking, the most archaic living human population is Australian Aborigines. Is it coincidence that they also happen to score among the lowest in I.Q. tests? Here’s an illustration from the above article in Radishmag:

Can we point to specific individuals, who happen to sport archaic features, and conclude that they must be stupid? Obviously not. My contention is that there seems to be a correlation between a preponderance of archaic features in a population and that same population’s average I.Q. Blacks have many more archaic features than whites. Asians have less than whites. Is it coincidence that we find the same hierarchy in I.Q. scores?
7) I was raised to believe that we all have our strengths and weaknesses. I was taught in school that there is no “superior race.” Imagine that! But what if one race turned out to be stronger and faster than other races – but just as intelligent and creative? Wouldn’t that make the race in question “superior?” I’m speaking, of course, of blacks. They dominate most contact sports and we’re told that they’re highly spiritual and moral. After all, it was whites who enslaved blacks and persecuted them through lynching and Jim Crow. As a young man I had a check list:
a) Morally superior… Check!
b) Physically more imposing and better at all sports that mattered… Check!
c) Inventive and intellectually accomplished… Check!
Voila! We have found the superior race – and he’s black. Specifically black male. “But wait a minute”, I said. “Surely the black man must have a weakness.” White people must be better at SOMETHING! Perhaps, had I lived in Canada, I’d have satisfied myself with hockey. But I wasn’t Canadian. Hockey was not enough, so I re-examined my list – and found that only “b” could be argued with any credibility. Leaving morality aside for the moment, I satisfied myself with the notion that blacks are physically superior while whites and Asians are mentally superior. That way, I reasoned, there is no “superior race.” I had some pretty good teachers in school, and some of them were black. They had been vindicated after all.
8) Studying history, I noticed that there were few black African civilizations that were not either a) relatively late or b) spawned by other, non-black, civilizations. Ethiopia is only partly black, and has been in contact with its Semitic cousins in the Middle East since ancient times. This relative void of civilization, and lack of technology, made Africans easy prey for Arab and European colonizers and slave traders. Neither writing nor the wheel were discovered by blacks, and this backwardness persists to our own era. No significant architectural monuments dot the sub-Saharan African landscape; the “Great Zimbabwe” is of uncertain origin, and is not very old. It could be said that the tropical heat, and isolation of that region conspired to stunt the growth of civilization – yet Meso-America fared much better, and even saw the invention of writing. With the exception of small island nations, chaos and a lack of intellectual life seem to follow blacks wherever they go. Witness Haiti and Detroit for example – and now even Africa’s newest nation, South Sudan, is plagued by violence and corruption, despite billions of dollars in foreign aid and advisers.
Regarding Jared Diamond’s theories, see my critique of his book “Guns, Germs and Steel.”
Can the reader think of any city or neighborhood where the quality of life went up since blacks became a majority? When we witness this phenomenon, it should be perfectly reasonable to link it with low I.Q. scores. This should not be controversial at all.
9) Speaking of cities and neighborhoods, I have personally witnessed what happens when a neighborhood becomes majority black. I don’t claim that this is always the case. In general, however, we see an increase in graffiti, violent crime, neglected houses and yards, “troubled youths,” social vice and joblessness. All of these are linked to lower I.Q.
I have seen, with my own eyes, how corporations set lower standards so that they can count blacks among their (especially higher-paid) employees. They do this to avoid lawsuits. Blacks are wildly over-represented in government jobs such as DMV’s, IRS call-centers and the Postal Service. Less so in government jobs that still require written tests (see above). It’s not for want of employers’ willingness to hire blacks that their unemployment rates are so high; it’s because so many of them have criminal records or are unmotivated. Both are correlated with lower I.Q.
10) My own life-experiences have led me to believe in racial differences. It’s true that I’ve known some very intelligent people of all races – and some not-so-intelligent ones of all races as well. But I would have been deceiving myself had I not noticed the racial patterns that kept asserting themselves. As a child, I attended three different high schools: One in the ghetto of Inglewood, California, another in redneck territory in central Oregon, and the last in a racially mixed area of Seattle. I was considered a “genius” in the ghetto, “pretty smart” among the rednecks – but just average among the Asians and fellow Jews of Seattle. The first time I felt stupid, compared to those around me, was in a yeshiva (rabbinical school) in Israel.
It’s hard to swallow the dogma of racial egalitarianism with so much evidence, and life experience, stacked against it. If nothing else, all the above should at least merit objective discourse – and not be shrugged off as “pseudo-science” or “scientific racism.” Such name-calling is only evidence of the narrow-mindedness of the accuser. Outside of that, it’s no different than calling somebody a “heretic” or a “blasphemer.”

Posted in Race science, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 36 Comments

Dating with Aspergers

Posted on December 18, 2013 by jewamongyou

A while ago I came across an article that really hit home with me: “Dating with Asperger’s.” Though my case is mild, it would be an understatement to say that this syndrome has hindered by relationships with the opposite sex.
But while walking up to people and bringing up random thoughts and facts relegates one to the realm of “odd” or “eccentric” in real life, this is not the case with blogging. In fact, it could be argued that this is what blogging is all about. I’d be willing to bet that a disproportionate number of bloggers have Asperger’s syndrome. I’ve been thinking about redefining Asperger’s to include blogging as one of its hallmark symptoms. That way, we can be more numerous and maybe even form our own special interest group. We can even have our own “C.A.C.” – Congressional Asperger’s Caucus.
Full-blown autism is similar to Asperger’s in some ways. Of course, this varies with the individual. I do know that autistic men have challenges with the opposite sex; they tend to have challenges with other people in general. Do they make good bloggers? There are lots of blogs ABOUT autism, but who knows how many blogs, relating to other matters, are authored by autistic people?
I’ve always been capable of bringing up awkward facts, which fly in the face of social convention. Over time, I’ve even learned to enjoy it. It can be fun to watch people squirm, especially liberals. Is this one of my “Asperger’s traits” or is it just me? Is it even possible to separate the two? I doubt there’s any way of knowing; lots of non-Asperger’s people have natural personality traits that are often considered Asperger’s traits. This doesn’t mean they have the syndrome.
Autistic people, as well as asperger’s people, have trouble with convention. What tends to matter to us is if something is correct or incorrect, not whether it’s normal or not. Convention holds little sway over the autistic mind, until/unless that mind is trained to respect it. Learning to respect convention, in real life, is key to attracting females. In the blogosphere, however, there are few penalties for breaking with convention – but there can be rewards.
If you’re good at shocking people, you can gain a lot of attention – and attention is what bloggers thrive on. For people on the autistic spectrum, this can come naturally. But while those of us with Asperger’s can shock people with what we say, autistic people have fewer options; speaking is a challenge for them. Blogging does not present such a challenge – so some of them will unleash all their pent-up frustration (and desire to shock) through blogging.
On a related note, I’d like to comment on a blog called “Elderof Zyklon.” The author of ElderofZyklon’s (I’d originally thought he was autistic*) appears as if he’s compensating for what he cannot say in public. Despite his grotesquely anti-Semitic graphics (and the obviously-designed-to-shock name of his blog), I don’t consider him among the pathological anti-Semites. The pathological anti-Semites would get rid of, through murder or some other means, every single Jew on the face of the Earth if they could. For all their claims that the Holocaust is a hoax, they’d be the first to perpetrate it should the opportunity arise. They make no distinctions between individual Jews; as far as they’re concerned, there’s no difference between Noel Ignatiev and yours truly.
Does ElderofZyklon have a problem with Jews? Yes he does – just as I do. If anything, the fact that so many influential Jews are rabid, hateful, genocidal liberals bothers me more than it bothers him. But he’s made it clear that he bears no hatred toward all Jews; he reblogs a lot of my material and he comments on this blog sometimes. Do I find the name of his blog, and the accompanying graphics offensive? Absolutely. If he’d change those, he’d lose some of his shock value, but whoever he’s trying to convince would take him a lot more seriously. As for his anti-Semitic fans, their opinions are not going to change one way or the other; he’s been preaching to the choir.
In other words, though Elderof Zyklon wears a facade of Jew-hatred and venom, I don’t believe he’s all that. Underneath the facade is a human being, with legitimate concerns, who is frustrated and just wants to be heard. Hopefully, he’ll refine his blogging communication techniques and focus more on facts than on shock value.
Am I being too trusting and generous? Perhaps, but it’s something that I’ve been thinking about for a while now, and I wanted to put it out there.
*I’ve edited this post after my error was pointed out.

Posted in Aspergers and health, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 34 Comments

How Denmark benefits from diversity

Posted on December 17, 2013 by jewamongyou

A group of Danish high school girls is being credited with a possible scientific breakthrough. According to The Daily Dot:

An experiment by a handful of high school students in Denmark has sparked some serious international interest in the scientific community.
Five ninth-grade girls at Hjallerup School in North Jutland, Denmark, noticed they had trouble concentrating after sleeping with their mobile phones at their bedsides. They tried to figure out why. The school obviously doesn’t have the equipment to test human brain waves, so the girls decided to do a more rudimentary experiment.
They placed six trays of garden cress seeds next to Wi-Fi routers that emitted roughly the same microwave radiation as a mobile phone. Then they placed six more trays of seeds in a separate room without routers. The girls controlled both environments for room temperature, sunlight and water.
After 12 days, they found the garden cress seeds in the routerless room had exploded into bushy greenery, while the seeds next to the Wi-Fi routers were brown, shriveled, and even mutated.

It’s not every day that we see schoolgirls making international news through innovative experimentation. They couldn’t have done it without diversity. Here are the girls:

As you can plainly see, some are blonde while others are brunette, and some are tall while others are short. Diversity at its finest!

Posted in parody/satire | 7 Comments

A real-life black Jesus

Posted on December 16, 2013 by jewamongyou

Looking over the comments on an recent American Renaissance article, I saw one that claimed something to the effect that “blacks always get into universities for free, and they never enroll except to rape white girls.” I noted that such comments are not helpful and that they won’t sway opinions. The comment has since been removed, thankfully, from that page.
Unfortunately, comments claiming that “all bantus are lazy” or “every she-boon is obese and obnoxious” or “Mexicans always want to dispossess the white man” are all too common on the internet. I’ve written about this matter previously. At one point, I suggested that a lot of the moronic comments made by so-called racists are actually the work of leftists in disguise. That it’s part of a campaign to discredit pro-white sentiments.
But now I’d like to focus on blanket statements. They’re rarely accurate in this context; I can’t say they’re never accurate, because then I’d be contradicting myself – and I never do that…
For those of y’all who were born yesterday, and haven’t yet had the chance to get out and meet real people, here’s a piece of information for y’all: There are decent people who are Mexican. There are smart, hard-working, blacks. There are good Asian drivers and there are poor Jews.
Should all “Asians” and blacks be removed from Britain? I can think of one who should stay. Her name is Maria de Jesus-Lucungo, and she was born in Angola. I found her on m.vice.com. From the article:

Say hello to Maria de Jesus-Lucungo. Not only does Maria share a name with the benevolent oracle of the Christian faith, she’s also inherited some of his selflessness and eternal goodwill. Although she’s originally from Angola and doesn’t have fair hair herself, Maria has made it her life goal to campaign for the protection of the UK’s blonde population. She believes that England’s flaxen-haired brothers and sisters are under threat of extinction and that, if they disappear, “the world will not be so attractive in beauty any more”…
Through extensive flyering, an online petition and multiple letters sent to the British Prime Minister, Maria says that she hopes to establish a National Blonde Day to celebrate all things blond. I caught up with her to find out what else she wants to achieve…
VICE: Hi, Maria. When did you first realise that blondes need protecting?
Maria Jesus-Lucungo: It came all of a sudden a few years ago. They’re not breeding with each other. It’s good to have some blond in the white community to mix with everyone else so we can have a variety of complexions. Variety is nice—variety is the spice of life! If you go to Africa, you expect to see a black African. If someone from Africa comes to Europe, the first thing they should see should be a blonde. Blonde is the pure white before it gets mixed with everyone else.
Do you think the purest forms of all races need to be protected? Like if black Africans were becoming extinct?
Yes, but Africans aren’t becoming extinct. Go to Africa—you’ll see they have lots. If blondes disappear, then you will have to explain to your grandchildren that, once upon a time, we used to have another type of white people and the child might not believe it. This is what I’m trying to avoid; we don’t have to let it get that far.
In England, we need somebody to stand up for blondes in the House of Commons. It’s like if you have a garden and one flower is dying out, then the gardener will do something to revive it. His concentration will be on that particular one. So my focus is on this particular one, but it doesn’t mean that I don’t like all the others. I like everyone all the same.

Maria may come across as somewhat simplistic in her views, and it’s unfortunate that they chose to bring Hitler into the conversation – but how many pro-white keyboard warriors can honestly claim to be as publicly active as Maria? My guess is that she gets more people thinking outside the box than 99.99% of racialist commenters on the internet. Of course, she’s exempt from accusations of racism by virtue of being black. This, in itself, adds another layer of credibility to her work; it makes the double-standard even more obvious.
So next time you’re seething with anger, over the latest black-on-white atrocity, think before you write. Think about Maria de Jesus-Lucungo and choose your words carefully.

Posted in activism, Africa and blacks, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 27 Comments

Michael Griffin and Frank Borzellieri

Posted on December 15, 2013 by jewamongyou

The Left is up in arms because a New Jersey Catholic school, Holy Ghost, has terminated one of its teachers for being homosexual. According to MSNBC:

A high-school teacher at a suburban Philadelphia Catholic high school has been fired after applying for a marriage license in New Jersey with his partner of 12 years.
Michael Griffin, who taught Spanish and French at Holy Ghost Preparatory Schol in Bensalem, PA. and is also an alumnus of the high school, was told his marriage license “contradicts the terms of his teaching contract,” as stated in a statement from the school…
The school’s 87-page handbook includes the Teacher’s Code of Conduct which Griffin believes was the clause used for Griffin’s termination.
“Although the school welcomes teachers from other denominations and recognizes their rights to religious freedom, as employees of a Catholic institution, all teachers are expected to uphold lifestyles compatible with the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,” the handbook states.

Reading the above article, it’s obvious that MSNBC’s sympathies are with Griffin, and not the school. But I think the school’s expectations are not unreasonable at all. It’s a Catholic school, and the Bible is very clearly anti-homosexual. Surely Griffin was aware of this. Even if we disregard the schools handbook, there are other reasons for one to sympathize with the school. Having homosexuals in such a school sets a bad example, from a religious perspective, for the students. Do we demand that Muslim schools allow teachers who eat pork in their cafeterias? Should we force Jewish religious schools to hire Jews who publicly desecrate the sabbath?
It’s interesting that organizations such as change.org are so eager to defend Michael Griffin – yet they were completely silent when Frank Borzellieri was terminated from his position as principle at another Catholic school in New York. Unlike Griffin, Borzellieri did nothing to contradict the Catholic faith. There’s nothing in the Bible that refers to pro-white attitudes as an “abomination.” There was no indication that Borzellieri held any hatred toward his black students, nor did he pose any sort of danger to them. According to beliefnet.com:

… Frank Borzellieri was a principal of Catholic elementary school in the Bronx,New York. Once word was released that Borzellieri was a “white supremacist,” however, he was swiftly terminated.
As it turns out, Borzellieri was, at one time, at any rate, a bit friendlier with a certain organization—American Renaissance (AR)—than the self-appointed guardians of our politically correct orthodoxy believes he had a right to be. AR exists simply and solely for the unhindered promotion of the free exchange of ideas on matters pertaining to race. For this, it has been branded a “hate group” and purveyor of “white supremacy.”…
Yet now Borzellieri is out of a job for no other reason but that he dared, at one time, to express politically incorrect beliefs concerning race while maintaining an affiliation of a sort with AR.
The more one learns of both AR and Borzellieri, the more this episode becomes at once interesting and disturbing, for you see, if Borzellieri is a “white supremacist” because of his association with AR, then there is a whole lot of other popular media personalities and organizations that are guilty of “white supremacy” because of their association with it. Some of these have a relationship with Borzellieri as well. This is interesting. What is disturbing is that thus far, not one of these personalities or outlets has so much as mentioned the travesty that Borzellieri had visited upon him, much less defended him.

I met Mr. Borzellieri at an American Renaissance a few years ago. He came across as a man who had suffered much for his beliefs. According to Wikipedia, he spent 11 years on a New York school board, where he fought a lonely battle for conservative values. During those 11 years he…

… battled frequently with liberals over hot-button issues such as multiculturalism and bilingual education, both of which he opposed. He became a leading national spokesman for English as the official language. He also opposed what was termed the “Rainbow Curriculum,” which provided positive presentations of homosexuality and homosexuals in children’s books such as “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Daddy’s Roommate.” It was one of very few issues on which Borzellieri had a majority support of the school board. The others on which he received majority support were his proposal to strengthen New York City’s Megan’s Law against child predators, and the prohibition of discussing with young students the topics of abortion, homosexuality, masturbation and contraception. He defended the Boy Scouts of America’s right to ban homosexual scoutmasters and he put forth a resolution, which passed by a vote of eight to one, supporting the Scouts at a time when other New York City school boards were voting to denounce them.

Borzellieri took a stand against sexual permissiveness and against what his faith considered to be sinful or deviant. He spoke the truth about Martin Luther King among people who considered King to be no less than a saint. Whether we agree with all of Borzellieri’s positions or not, he’s a man who has no fear of expressing unpopular views, and he’s worthy of our respect.

Borzelilieri doesn’t claim to be a hero, but he most certainly is. As for Griffin, he has every right to create a union with another man, but this does not make him a hero – and traditional Catholic institutions should not be expected to continue to employ him.

When we compare the corporate-owned media reaction to the two men, it becomes painfully clear that they value a man who has sex with another man far more than they value a man who stands up for his beliefs.

Posted in human sexuality and morality, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 1 Comment

To "move", the rape-denier

Posted on December 7, 2013 by jewamongyou

A while ago I wrote a post titled A black answer to black-on-white rape statistics. There are now 72 comments. Some of them are by a persistent character who calls himself “move.” Apparently he’s made it his life’s mission to find white-on-black rapes and then use them to disprove the FBI’s statistics, which show vastly more black-on-white rapes than the other way around. Despite the fact that the FBI is clearly biased AGAINST whites, as evidenced by their habit of including Hispanics as “whites” when they commit crimes, but as “Hispanics” when they’re victims, move insists that the FBI is actually biased in favor of whites. His evidence? He’s managed to find some white-on-black rapes and other crimes.
I know of nobody who denies that there are bad apples among whites. Out of the tens of millions of whites, who still inhabit the U.S., we’re bound to find some very unsavory individuals. In any event, I’ve listed his most recent points, as presented in his comments there, and provided my responses.
1) “White man confessed to sexual assault, kidnap of of 7 year old black girl”
http://www.fox8live.com/story/22525206/deputies-say-kenner-man-has-confessed-to-sexual-assault-and-kidnap-of-girl
You make it seem like your quote is from the article, that the article identifies the girl as black. In fact, it doesn’t. Not only that, but I could find no source on the web revealing the race of the victim. Obviously, it’s a heinous crime regardless of the victim’s race.
2) 16 year old Black Boy Raped And Beaten To Death By White Men Over Drug Money
http://www.fox19.com/story/24108789/dione-payne-dies-geldrich-watson-arrested
The article states that the boy was beaten to death. Nowhere does it mention that he was raped. He was, however, black. So this is a rare case of white-on-black murder – which is not the subject of this post.
3) “Sixty percent of the men exonerated by the Innocence Project are blacks wrongly convicted raping largely white women.”
http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/Crime/htfd_courant_040707.asp
From the article:

The New York-based Innocence Project has identified the real criminal in 40 percent of its cases, Neufeld said. And in almost every one, that person has committed multiple crimes.

I’ll bet dollars to donuts that all those “real criminals” were also black – but the article conveniently leaves out the racial statistics here. Are you naive enough to believe that had those 40% been largely white men, the article would have somehow neglected to tell us? White women are being raped by black men, and sometimes they then point their fingers at the wrong black men. This shouldn’t surprise us.
4) According to the FBI, about 95,000 forcible rapes were reported in 2004. Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American.
Of course they’re going to be disproportionately black men; if real rapists are disproportionately black men, then naturally the fake ones will be too. Let’s take your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion regarding another group: Men in general. Would you be surprised if I told you that most people who are falsely accused of rape are men? This being the case, would you then conclude that women are just as likely to be rapists as men? According to your reasoning, this would have to be the case – since men are so often wrongly accused.
5) “More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white, according to the Justice Department.”
http://iowaindependent.com/39760/king-votes-against-bill-to-help-protect-native-americans-from-rape
Yes, but bear in mind that “white,” when it comes to perpetrators of crime, includes Hispanics. Either way, this is not surprising. Native American women are dispersed throughout the population – a population that is still largely white. If they hang out with white men, date white men, and live next to white men, when they’re raped, it’s probably going to be by a white man. In this case, it’s their dispersion that’s to blame – unless you’re insinuating that white men are sneaking into Indian reservations to rape Indian women. But I seriously doubt this is the case. Native women are raped mostly by white men for the same reason white women are mostly raped by white men: They live around white men.
It’s a big world out there, and you have a lot of free time, so you were able to find a handful of white-on-black rapes. It happens. I don’t deny it. But it’s still a statistical rarity. I’d scour the internet, as you did, to compose my own list – but I don’t have to; others have already done so. Here’s on website that lists white victims of black crime. It’s in chronological order and you can knock yourself out cataloging them as “rape” or “non-rape” crimes if you want:

White victims of black crime

I’m sure my readers will be happy to contribute many black-on-white rape cases, and lists, for your perusal.

Posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence | 26 Comments

On gendered pronouns

Posted on December 4, 2013 by jewamongyou

According to technical writer Bryan Cantrill (thanks to Mangan for the link), an employee should be fired for ignoring directives to pull gendered pronouns from his work. He writes:

But while Isaac is a Joyent employee, Ben is not—and if he had been, he wouldn’t be as of this morning: to reject a pull request that eliminates a gendered pronoun on the principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered would constitute a fireable offense for me and for Joyent. On the one hand, it seems ridiculous (absurd, perhaps) to fire someone over a pronoun — but to characterize it that way would be a gross oversimplification: it’s not the use of the gendered pronoun that’s at issue (that’s just sloppy), but rather the insistence that pronouns should in fact be gendered. To me, that insistence can only come from one place: that gender—specifically, masculinity—is inextricably linked to software, and that’s not an attitude that Joyent tolerates.

I use so-called gendered pronouns all the time; it’s less awkward than “he or she”, “him or her” or “they.” Apparently, the use of the masculine form to denote either gender dates back to the 18th century. According to thediacrities.com:

Interestingly enough, the Times’ On Language credits a feminist grammar teacher by the name of Anne Fisher with popularizing the use of ‘he’ as the neutral pronoun.

“If any single person is responsible for this male-centric usage, it’s Anne Fisher, an 18th-century British schoolmistress and the first woman to write an English grammar book, according to the sociohistorical linguist Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. Fisher’s popular guide, “A New Grammar” (1745), ran to more than 30 editions, making it one of the most successful grammars of its time. More important, it’s believed to be the first to say that the pronoun he should apply to both sexes.”
–On Language, Patricia O’Connor and Stewart Kellerman, July 21, 2009

Actually, that same article starts off by documenting much earlier uses of the plural pronoun “they” for this role. It claims Chaucer as the first documented user of the word “they” as a pronoun that can refer to both men and women.
Maybe I should start emulating Chaucer. If my aim, in using “he”/”him,” was to annoy feminists, perhaps I’m off the mark here; this convention was invented by a feminist, though not the sort of feminist who would be considered one nowadays.
Furthermore, why should we men share our pronouns with women? If anything, the use of masculine pronouns to refer to both men and women is unfair to men. Don’t we deserve pronouns of our own?
But today’s feminists are at the forefront in championing gender-neutral pronouns. Sweden, striving for a genderless society, led the way last year by officially introducing the word “hen” into the Swedish language. According to Nathalie Rothschild of Slate:

Earlier this month, the movement for gender neutrality reached a milestone: Just days after International Women’s Day a new pronoun, hen (pronounced like the bird in English), was added to the online version of the country’s National Encyclopedia. The entry defines hen as a “proposed gender-neutral personal pronoun instead of he [han in Swedish] and she [hon].”The National Encyclopedia announcement came amid a heated debate about gender neutrality that has been raging in Swedish newspaper columns and TV studios and on parenting blogs and feminist websites…

Today’s hen champions, however, have a distinctly political agenda. For instance, Lundqvist’s book is published by a house named Olika, which means “different or diverse.” Olika only publishes books that “challenge stereotypes and obsolete norms and traditions in the world of literature.” Its titles include 100 möjligheter Istället för 2! (“100 possibilities instead of 2!”), a book for adults who “want to give children more opportunities in gender-stereotyped everyday life”; and Det var en gång … en ritbok! (“Once upon a time there was … a drawing book!”), the first “gender-scrutinizing” drawing book for children that “challenges traditional and diminishing conceptions of girls and boys, men and women.”

But not everyone is keen on this political meddling with the Swedish language. In a recent interview for Vice magazine, Jan Guillou, one of Sweden’s most well-known authors, referred to proponents of hen as “feminist activists who want to destroy our language.”…

At some point, the aspirations of Swedish feminists will reach an impasse. That impasse will be when the Muslim population of Sweden reaches critical mass. At that point, the feminists will be lucky if they get to pick the color of their hijabs.
Back in America, the fastest growing demographic couldn’t care less about gendered pronouns; Mexican Spanish is not about to accommodate itself to the whims of feminism. As a matter of fact, the American political establishment, and education system, encourages people to adapt to Hispanic values (including the emphasis on “machismo”). For example, the University of Southern Florida has a page, called (ironically) “His/Her Name is Today“. Here’s what it has to say:

UNDERSTANDING THE Hispanic/Latino CULTURE

It is important that educators of Hispanic/Latino children and adolescents understand and appreciate important concepts of the Hispanic/Latino culture.
corazon: heart
sensibilidad: sensitivity
afecto: warmth and demonstrativeness
dignidad: dignity
respeto: respect
machismo: biological superiority of the male (emphasis mine)

Hispanic/Latino AMERICAN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
There are 10.5 million Hispanic/Latino children under age 18. Hispanic/Latino children are the fastest-growing youth population, and by 2020 more than one in five children will be of Hispanic/Latino origin…

“Machismo” plays a significant role in the Puerto Rican and other Hispanic/Latino groups
- used as a flattering term among Hispanic/Latino Americans
- significantly influences behavior and attitudes of adolescent males during time of identity formation.
- distinction between sexes; males enjoy rights/privileges denied to females (emphasis mine).
- boys and girls learn that machismo refers to male’s manhood, courage to fight, honor and dignity, keeping one’s word, and protecting one’s name.
- includes dignity in personal conduct, respect for others, love for the family, and affection for children…
PARENTS, FAMILIES, AND THE COMMUNITY

Educators’ recognition of the role of parents, the family, and the community in the multicultural education effort is an absolute prerequisite to the multicultural education program’s success. Actions with a significant role in determining the success of the multicultural education program:

Including both immediate and extended families and community members
- demonstrates that you are serious about accepting and promoting other cultures
- adds credence to the multicultural education program’s efforts…
Hispanic/Latino American children learn early the importance of (1) a deep sense of family responsibility, (2) rigid definitions of sex roles, (3) respectful and reverent treatment of the elderly, and (4) the male’s position of respect and authority in the family (emphasis mine). Although some of the male’s authority appears to be relaxing as the woman’s role is redefined, women in the Hispanic/Latino American culture continue to occupy a subordinate position. Fathers have prestige and authority, and sons have more and earlier independence than do daughters.

This sort of accepting attitude toward Hispanic culture is typical. The leftist American establishment will not be demanding gender-neutral pronouns in Spanish any time soon, because it’s perfectly acceptable, and natural, for men to have superior status over women – as long as those men are not white men. Any change within Hispanic (Mexican) culture must be the result of natural evolution from within. To interfere would be a violation of the “Prime Directive.”
For all their whining about racism and ethnocentrism, liberals once again reveal their hypocrisy. Having been in close contact with them all my life, I’m fairly certain that liberals observe the Prime Directive toward non-white peoples out of a sense of moral superiority and patronization. They feel secure and comfortable within Western (white) civilization. Therefore they feel entitled to attack it constantly.
Whatever its true motivation, the establishment Left is morally confused. If white women are being oppressed by gendered pronouns, then why is it okay for Mexican women to endure even worse “oppression?” If Swedish liberals feel so strongly about their precious “hen,” then let them impose it upon Arabic and Somali as well. Since they insist upon having a “multicultural society,” it behooves them to protect their foreign language speaking women as well. If they fail to do so, then they must be racists.

Posted in feminism and men's issues, immigration/ Hispanics, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 9 Comments