Django Unchained should be illegal

Posted on January 14, 2013 by jewamongyou

I have not seen Django Unchained; I refuse to support the movie industry with my hard-earned money. But I did read a review of it at American Renaissance. Some excerpts:

In a December 8 appearance on “Saturday Night Live,” the lead actor, Jamie Foxx, explained what the movie is about:

It’s good to be black. Black is the new white. In my new movie, I play a slave. How black is that? I have to wear chains. How whack is that? I get free. I save my wife, and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that? And how black is that?”

The crowd erupted in laughter, whooping, and applause…
One reviewer, Richard Corliss of Time, mentions Django’s reply when Schultz ask him to be his partner: “Kill white folks and they pay you for it? What’s not to like?” Mr. Corliss calls this “a tantalizing question.” Let us imagine a movie by Mel Gibson, say, in which someone is offered money to assassinate leftwing media types. Would he still think “What’s not to like?” was a “a tantalizing question?” Or would he wail in print about the murderous hatreds of the American Right?…
… As Steve Sailor has noted, a black posted a comment about the movie:

While whites are busy getting offended on our behalf, they miss completely why we are going to see this film. It’s a black man killing white people in masses. I will pay to see that every time.
I’ve seen this film 3 times so far and am going again Saturday night. It’s an awesome movie.

“Awesome” is another way of saying “inspiring.”
Twitchy.com, which tracks twitter messages, found this sort of thing:
“After watching Django, all I wanna do is shoot white people.”
“Still hype off Django. I’m gonna kill some white people today.”
“Django got me wanting to kill white people!”
“Django made me wanna kill so many white people.”

Reading this review, I could not help but be reminded of another article at American Renaissance, about the movie Machete, where we read:

In Hollywood’s latest anti-White film, the hero is a blood-thirsty illegal alien of Latino ethnicity who slaughters white people with a myriad of weapons. White people are presented as the “bad guys.” Even the trailer of the film {snip} begins with the militant Latino telling the viewers that he has a “special message” for the people of Arizona, who valiantly stood up for Western Culture and state sovereignty vis-à-vis a recent law that prescribed penalties for those who aid in the invasion of our country.

Both movies should be illegal, and all those involved with their production should be prosecuted for inciting violence. A defense that the movies are “works of fiction” should be countered with the fact that they are actually thinly veiled messages that are relevant to contemporary America. The messages are: White people are evil and you are justified in killing them as cruelly as possible.
I realize that this form of incitement is a legal grey area, and I’m certain that there will be a comment or two explaining why there can be no prosecution in such cases. But how does our society view such works as The Turner Diaries? It has been described as having incited actual acts of terrorism and crime. You will not find it at your public library. In contrast, you probably will find Machete at your public library. No doubt, Django Unchained will also be available there in a couple of years. A description of The Turner Diaries, at Amazon, reads:

At 9:02 am on Wednesday April 19, 1995, two tons of explosives ripped apart the federal office building in Oklahoma City and the psyche of America. The worst case of domestic terrorism in our history, this explosion killed 169 men, women, and children. The author of this book has written, If [this book] had been available to the general public . . . the Oklahoma bombing would not have come as such a surprise. It has been considered by the Justice Department and other government agencies as the bible of right-wing militia groups, and the FBI believes it provided the blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing. Barricade Books has published it so America can better understand the cause of racism and extremism.

In other words, it is for educational purposes only. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if ordering it online will get your name added to a government watch list. For sheer psychological impact, a novel cannot come close to the power of a professionally-made movie. If The Turner Diaries was responsible for hundreds of deaths, movies such as Django Unchained and Machete are responsible for thousands. These movies are far more harmful than novels such as The Turner Diaries for another reason: They add fuel to a fire that is already there. Even before the release of these movies, blacks and Mexicans had been murdering whites at unprecedented rates. They build on an anti-white establishment that already used the full force of public schools, the federal government, “higher education” and corporate America (in other words, anybody with power) to promote the idea that whites are evil and “people of color” are good. The movies serve as effective means of reinforcing the hatred of whites that is pounded into our skulls from cradle to grave.
The Turner Diaries is the equivalent of giving a normal, healthy, man a gun and telling him to shoot his neighbors. Django Unchained and Machete are the equivalent of giving the gun to a deranged man, who is already enraged at his neighbors, and telling him to shoot them. Which scenario is more dangerous? It’s true that some readers of The Turner Diaries are already deranged, angry, individuals. But they represent a miniscule number of people when compared to the seething masses of hateful, vengeful, blacks and Mexicans. White violence against blacks and Mexicans is a rare aberration. Black and Mexican violence against whites is a way of life. The last thing we need is to encourage it even more.

Posted in crime and violence, examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites | 32 Comments

RIP my grandmother

Posted on January 13, 2013 by jewamongyou

Our beloved matriarch just passed away peacefully in her sleep. She was 96 years old. She lived a blessed life except for declining health in her final years. When I think of how things have changed over her lifetime, it’s truly astounding.
When she was born, the U.S. had just entered WWI, Russia was in the throes of revolution, Charlie Chaplin was at the height of his career, the suffragists was protesting for women’s voting rights and the Balfour Declaration was issued. My grandmother lived through interesting times and yet she managed to pass through it all unscathed. She was untouched by the great flue epidemic of 1918, she was hardly affected by the Great Depression and, though she spent her childhood in Chicago, she remembered nothing of the mobs. She did remember Prohibition and the speakeasies. She remembered the early (electric) cars and attending silent films.
My grandmother married young and enjoyed a wonderful marriage. She only had one husband and, after his passing, claimed she saw a new star in the sky. I suppose now there are two, twinkling side by side.
mom2 at 16

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments

Jewish Eugenics by John Glad

Posted on January 8, 2013 by jewamongyou

I came across “Jewish Eugenics” by John Glad at a used bookstore. Needless to say, I bought it and have been reading it. So far, I’m very impressed. Glad is a race-realist and takes a brutally honest approach to every issue he addresses. The book is a treasure trove of knowledge and ideas.
At the beginning of the book, Glad tells us (pg. 7):

In 1979, co-chairing a department at the University of Maryland in College Park, I was summoned by the Dean and asked in a tone that must have been familiar to victims of the Inquisition about my opinions on race.

Sadly, he writes elsewhere (pgs. 28,29):

… making Jews forerunners in the more and more global game of panmixia. Russia’s greatest poet Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837) was part African, as is the president of the United States even as I write these lines. One can with justice regret the loss of diversity, but it is senseless to resist the inevitable – illustrated by 60,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Even without this latest infusion, genetic tests have shown that the present Jewish population would appear to have a total Negro admixture of the order of five to ten percent. The distinctions between races are inexorably being erased. As the popular phrase runs, ‘Deal with it.’

I find this fatalism rather odd coming from a eugenicist. Eugenicists are supposed to believe in taking a more proactive role in our destiny. Furthermore, Glad fails to point out that what we have here is not so much an eradication of race, but rather a march toward blackness around the world. Globalism has created a situation where the least successful societies propagate themselves by creating large quantities of spores (AKA “refugees”) to replicate themselves elsewhere. It’s “Survival of the most dysfunctional.” Eugenicists should be demanding a reversal of this trend.
On a more positive note, his explanation of the link between Lamarckism and racial equalitariasm is worth quoting. He writes (pg. 59):

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) had posited that environmental factors created heritable characteristics. Applied to the Jews, habits viewed as negative were explained as having their origins in ghetto life but were considered curable within an altered environment, with new characteristics transmitted to future generations. Thus, while not all Lamarckians were Jewish and not all anti-Lamarckians were gentiles, the divide separating these two camps clearly lay along these fault lines. When Lamarckism was decisively overturned by science, the Jewish fall-back position was to assert that biological variance in humans was trivial and that ‘nurture’ trumped ‘nature’ – hands down.
The ‘nature/nurture’ controversy (an 1874 coinage of Galton’s) had been presented to the public as a strawman intended to discredit the hereditarians. In point of fact, while there is indeed still a good deal of uncertainty as to the relative importance of the one factor relative to the other, absolute denial of any role to environment is a position that was never espoused by anyone. By contrast, the absolute nurture model was and is still popularly presented to the general public as the only correct paradigm, denouncing even moderately hereditarian views as ‘racist,’ ‘classist,’ ‘sexist,’ or ‘misogynist.’
The Soviet Union was the great bastion of Lamarckian ideology. The Jewish-American geneticist Herman J. Miller, who was doing research in the U.S.S.R., thought he could reverse this line of thought and wrote Stalin a letter suggesting the creation of a eugenic state. Muller barely escaped the U.S.S.R. with his life.

He goes on to recount the huge death toll, on both sides of the Lamarckian debate, from Stalin’s subsequent purges. When we refer to racial equalitarians as “Marxists,” we may be more right than many of us realized. Thought-control and authoritarianism are the only ways to maintain the illusion that “race is but a social construct.” Today’s corporate-controlled media in the U.S. and Western Europe are direct descendants of the Soviet Pravda.
As I read more of this book, I’ll post more about it. There’s too much material to cover in one review.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links | 8 Comments

The most racially diverse high school in Washington

Posted on January 6, 2013 by jewamongyou

Somebody sent me this video about the most diverse high school in Washington. While the costs of racial diversity are obvious, I was curious to see if the video would live up to its promise of explaining its benefits. Toward the end, we are told the following:

It’s something that no other school in the state of Washington is able to experience. Students are learning things about other cultures and other ways of life that they would not have in an all white school, or a predominantly white school, outside of a textbook. And that’s just invaluable.

This is what I wrote back:

The costs of ethnic diversity are enormous. As for the benefit, it’s
spelled out, in this video, as learning about other cultures and ways
of life. We used to do this by traveling, reading books and pen-pals.
“Diversity” is something that is always with us – but there is an
extremely strong push for racial diversity above all else. Whites are
an extremely diverse group, coming from countries such as Slovenia,
South Africa or Venezuela. But the man implied that an all-white
school is, by definition, not diverse. I don’t believe this was a slip
of the tongue on his part.
I’d like to see a costs versus benefits analysis of racial diversity.
Not the kind of diversity that happens naturally, but the kind that is
being imposed upon us by design. The kind that costs a lot of money to
pursue. The kind that every large company and corporation in the U.S.
is required, by law, to pursue. The kind that brings frenzied howls of
protest if anybody dares question it.
It’s important to be understanding and tolerant toward others, but
let’s not forget that it was the “overwhelmingly white” America of the
1960s that gave birth to the god of diversity before whom we must all
now bow.

I wanted my response to be measured. This is why I didn’t bring up the fact that racial diversity is, for the most part, only imposed upon white countries. I didn’t mention the violence that comes, sooner or later, with said diversity.

Posted in examples of propaganda, immigration/ Hispanics | 9 Comments

Feminism and racism

Posted on January 2, 2013 by jewamongyou

Human Stupidity (he sends me a lot of stuff) sent me this article, by Angry Harry, on the evils of feminism. Harry writes:

Over and over again, we see them studiously refusing to make any connection between feminism and some very serious ills.
For example, as mentioned in my pieces entitled Feminism causes traffic congestion and global warming and Feminists Destroy the Planet, neither academics nor politicians will point out the undeniable links between the increasing tendency of people to live alone – and the increasing numbers of women going out to work – and the increases in traffic congestion, pollution, energy consumption etc etc.
These connections are blindingly obvious.
But they won’t even mention them.
The persistently severe problems being caused in the UK’s National Health Service because some 50% of women doctors abandon the profession within about 10 years is, occasionally, mentioned in the press, but feminism is never openly connected with this issue (e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?)

I thought about my (ex) blogger friend Latte Island, who describes herself as a feminist. I thought about most of the people I know, including myself, who would definitely be considered “feminists” had we lived a hundred years ago. I thought about the pre-Christian traditions of Scandinavia and how they could be considered “feminist” as well. A lot of people, pro-whites among them, secretly admire Islamic society for its anti-feminism. Despite its serious flaws, Islam rejects feminism entirely.
When I read an article like Angry Harry’s, I can’t help but compare the term “feminism” to the term “racism”. The meanings of both terms have expanded well beyond their initial definitions. “Racist” used to mean somebody who would lynch another person merely because of his race. Somebody who would hurl rocks, and hurtful epithets, at random members of other races as he drove by. Now a “racist” is anybody who criticizes non-white groups for anything. Statements such as “I don’t find kinky hair to be attractive” will brand you as a racist. Insisting on strict merit for hiring or college admission will bring howls of “racism.” Demanding equal rights for whites also counts as “racism” these days.
“Feminism” has also become a catch-all phrase. A feminist in Saudi Arabia is somebody who wants women to be allowed to drive. A feminist in Pakistan might be somebody who objects to the legal beating of wives. Angry Harry would probably be considered a “feminist” in those places. Like racism, feminism is a continuum. As such, it’s not accurate to blame society’s ills on “feminism” when, in fact, many of its traits are simply accessories of being civilized. By many accounts, it was acceptable for Victorian husbands to beat their wives. I’m fairly certain that most of us would not want to go back to those times.
Today we have quotas, set-asides and blatant anti-male policies. We should oppose such policies – but common sense would dictate that if a woman is willing and qualified for a particular profession, we should let her in.  Regarding the statistics Angry Harry cites about women doctors in the U.K.  I wonder how many of those women doctors were pressured to attend medical school in order to fill a quota. How many of them lacked basic information about their own reproductive options when they made that decision? People are young when they choose a career. They need the guidance of elders in order to make the right decisions. Instead of the advice of wise sages, today’s young women are advised by dogma-driven diversicrats. It’s no wonder so many of them discover, later on, that they made the wrong decision.
I think it is important to have female doctors. It goes without saying that they have an advantage in understanding women’s problems. We know that many women prefer women doctors. Therefore, if a well-informed and capable woman chooses to be a doctor, she should be encouraged to do so. If this makes me a feminist then so be it.
I’ll conclude by asking that we divorce specific policies and attitudes from catch-all words like “racism” or “feminism”. If I find kinky hair to be unattractive, there is nothing wrong with this. Therefore, it wouldn’t be fair to call me a “racist”. But I would be, and this is why the term “racist” no longer has any meaning; it’s too inclusive and emotionally charged.  If I believe women should be allowed into the professions, this doesn’t mean I have anything against men. Like “racist”, “feminist” has become too broad and emotionally charged to be useful. Perhaps we should stop using it entirely.

Posted in feminism and men's issues | 20 Comments

Why do they write "G-d"

Posted on January 1, 2013 by jewamongyou

In response to a comment on a recent post of mine, Obadia18 wrote:

LOL! You’re discussing censorship and you type God as the Jewish G-d. Now that’s what I call ironic.

Since I’ve been meaning to explain the origin of G-d to y’all for some time, I figured now is as good a time as any. Oh, and by the way:

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND A WONDERFUL 2013!!

Anyway, as I was saying, Jewish law requires Jews to treat the name of God with respect. For example, we’re not supposed to mention the name of God in a restroom or bathroom. We’re also not supposed to erase the written name of God. Since we’re not supposed to erase it, it follows that we’re careful when/where we write it. Since holy books are disposed of by burial (which is considered respectful), we use the name of God in such books without reservation. But newspapers, magazines and various scrapes of paper are typically thrown away. So we avoid writing the name of God on those.
But is “God” the name of God? According to Jewish law it clearly is not. There are seven names which Scripture uses to refer to God. All of them are Hebrew/Semitic words. A translation of the name of God into another language is not the name of God. My name is Hebrew for “behold a son”. But if somebody were to call me “beholdason”, I would not answer; it’s not my name.
While “The Lord” is a perfectly good translation of the Hebrew “Adonai”, it’s not “Adonai”. “God” is not the same as “Elohim”. “The Almighty” is a great translation of “Shaddai”, but it’s not the same thing. In short, Jewish law only prohibits disrespect toward the actual names of God (in Scripture), not their various translations.
Also, I wanted to point out that manipulating ones and zeros in computer code doesn’t necessarily equate with “erasing” the name of God. This is unknown territory in Jewish law and, like electricity, it’s been treated based solely on appearances (this paragraph was added 01/02/13).
But Jewish tradition is more than just Jewish law; it also includes a vast collection of voluntary practices (“minhagim”). There is a (very influential) school of thought that would have these traditions carry the same weight as Jewish law itself. The problem with this is the inevitable ratcheting up that occurs when people try to outdo each other in piety. What used to be considered voluntary is now considered obligatory. In this way, the Jewish religion becomes a prison for many people.
I’ll quote the late Mori Yosef Gaffih (who I met a few times). He noted that the letters of the Hebrew word “Minhag” (tradition) are the same letters as the Hebrew word “Gehinom” (hell). Note that Hebrew has no vowel letters.
I suppose, if it makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside to write “G-d”, then there’s no harm in it. I just wanted to clarify the origins of this practice.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 7 Comments

Venting about venting

Posted on December 31, 2012 by jewamongyou

One of the more salient points, made by Craig Bodeker in his now famous “A Conversation About Race“, was that today’s political climate does not allow whites to be pro-white without being viewed as anti-everybody else. Personally, I try to keep this point at the forefront of my mind when I speak or write. It’s not always easy. People who identify as pro-white are very much aware of the ongoing atrocities being perpetrated upon whites and the glaring double standard imposed against whites. It’s easy to become an angry person but not so easy to channel ones anger to constructive ends. Sometimes it’s difficult to avoid becoming what our enemies say we are.
Powerful forces (some would say “The Jooz”) are using non-whites as clubs to pound whites into oblivion. So some pro-whites channel their anger toward the non-whites; toward blacks and Mexicans in the U.S. and maybe toward Asian Muslims in Europe. Others channel their anger toward “The Jooz”. As a Jew myself, I’d suggest a distinction between “The Jooz” and “Jews”. At any rate, I’ve vented plenty of venom at blacks and Hispanics myself. I try to put it in context and make it clear that I speak only in general terms. But I’ll admit that the following criticism applies to myself as well.
I was reading a recent American Renaissance article about the spread of cellular service in Africa. It’s an innocuous subject. If anything, it gives us a ray of hope; if Africa becomes a better place to live, we all benefit. But after reading the comments on that article, I became frustrated. I wrote:

I’m disappointed in a lot of the comments here. Is it our goal here to ridicule blacks or is it to inform the world that whites have legitimate interests and are being targeted for genocide? While doing the former may make us feel witty, or release some of our anger, I think we should ask ourselves, before pushing the “post” button, if our comments are going to actually help our cause.
Imagine you’re a young person fresh out of high school or college. You’re curious about pro-white movements and race-realism so you click on this article. What sort of impression would you get from reading the comments here?
My comment, before reading the others, was going to be something along the lines of “that’s great. I hope Africa does improve its lot; that would be better for all of us, because it would slow the flow of Africans out of Africa.”

I think a lot of pro-whites know, deep down, that I’m right. Some of them won’t admit it; their anger won’t let them. It’s a pity because, if our enemies can succeed in infecting our hearts with destructive hatred, then what hope is there for us?
This was not the first time I’d contemplated criticizing the content of the comments at American Renaissance. Months ago, I’d written:

Reading through the comments on American Renaissance, I’m struck by how many of them make blanket statements about blacks. The moderators seem to now tolerate the word “negro”, which does make sense. They still won’t allow the word “nigger”, which makes sense sometimes – and sometimes it doesn’t…
Perhaps the moderators at Amren should ask themselves the same question when deciding whether to let a comment remain or not. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, Amren should not be a site for angry venting of that nature. If people want to vent, and talk about “niggers and apes”, they can do so at niggermania.com or some other similar forum. Of course, if the moderators have had a change of attitude and don’t mind if Amren turns into another niggermania, that’s their prerogative. It would sadden me though.

I had allowed that post to remain a draft. It’s not for me to tell the folks at American Renaissance what sort of site it should be. It does bother me that I cannot direct friends or relatives to that site in the hopes of convincing them of the justness of our cause; they’d be too put off by the comments.
It’s hard to blame the people at American Renaissance for allowing anti-black tirades in the comments. A steady diet of black-on-white murders, beatings and rapes will do that to you over time – but only if you let it.

Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 31 Comments

Choctaw family devastated

Posted on December 30, 2012 by jewamongyou

Is the value of your tribe inversely proportional to its numbers? When whites are suffer misfortune, such as being victims of violent crime, the newspaper headlines never announce their race. Even when the victims are black, we don’t always read about “black victims”, unless the article is about something that is perceived to impact blacks disproportionately (which is almost everything). The Associated Press has guidelines* on when to mention race or ethnicity:

This isn’t to say race is always irrelevant. In racially motivated crimes, such as the murder of James Byrd, race is an important element of the story. The AP Stylebook update explains other instances when it’s relevant:

  • “In biographical and announcement stories that involve significant, groundbreaking or historic events, such as being elected U.S. president, named to the U.S. Supreme Court or other notable occurrences.”
  • “When reporting a demonstration or disturbance involving race or such issues as civil rights or slavery.”

On the face of it, the ethnicity of people dying in road accidents does not seem to meet the above criteria. And yet Jeff Amy, of the Associated Press, writes:

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) – The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was dealing Sunday with the devastating loss of five young siblings and an adult killed when their SUV plunged into a rain-swollen creek.
Neshoba County Sheriff Tommy Waddell said the victims appear to have drowned after their Dodge Durango left a county road 20 miles southeast of Philadelphia just after midnight Saturday.
“It’s always sad to hear of the death of a tribal member, but today our tribe experienced a great tragedy with the loss of six beautiful Choctaw souls. I cannot begin to imagine what the friends, relatives and loved ones are feeling,” Tribal Chief Phyliss J. Anderson said in a statement.

Personally, I think the victims’ tribal affiliation is relevant to the story. After all, what is a tribe if not an extended family or clan? If the tribe has enough solidarity to mourn the loss of its members, then the victims’ tribal membership should be mentioned. If a van carrying Yeshiva students crashed and burned, the Jewish identity of the victims would probably be mentioned as well. We’ve seen this with tragedies involving the Amish, even though they’re not a tribe, but a religious group.
The same could be said about blacks. Many, if not most, blacks have enough tribal identity to mourn the deaths or other blacks. But, when it comes to tribal identity and reporting, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? It seems fairly obvious to me that the corporate media is largely responsible for promoting black tribal (racial) consciousness. At the same time, it strongly discourages white racial consciousness.
In the past, American whites did have a racial consciousness. This was considered normal, even though whites still constituted a healthy majority in the U.S. But leftist institutions, such as the corporate media, have intentionally whittled away at this consciousness and replaced it with shame and guilt.
When it comes to reporting white victims, the roles between actual news and reporting have been reversed. It’s the reporting, or lack thereof, that has brought about (at least in part) the current status quo. When corporate bigwigs manipulate the reality on the ground – and then point to that reality as justification for their policies – something is wrong. It’s true that the masses have always been told, by the wealthy and powerful, how to think. But things should be different today. After all, we now have the internet and the means to disseminate all sorts of alternative viewpoints.
Who am I kidding? The internet is a powerful tool but not much more useful, when it comes to educating the masses, than books are useful for educating monkeys.
*The AP guidebook is not available for free online. The above source is, incidentally, a great illustration of the anti-white media bias and ignorance regarding race.

Posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 13 Comments

Romance tenses and Romance culture

Posted on December 26, 2012 by jewamongyou

I’ve been studying Spanish. Partly because my next travel adventure will be in a Spanish-speaking country, and partly because my current circumstances make it relatively easy. A word of advice to all you young readers: Don’t wait until you’re over 50 to learn a new language. Your brain will not absorb the new language nearly as easily as when you’re still young.
But enough of that; it’s time for some crazy, half-baked, linguistic theories from a person who knows just enough to be dangerous. For the benefit of those of you who are not familiar with Spanish, it distinguishes between two types of the verb “to be.”
The root ser is used, in general, to denote a state of being that is static. The English word “essence” is related to ser. The root estar is used, in general, to denote a temporary state. I won’t burden you with the full conjugation of either verb, but I will lay before you the first person forms of ser:
I was = FUI
I am = SOY
I shall be = SERE’
According to Wikipedia, other Romance languages also make this distinction and, more importantly to my point, they are all similar in that the past, present and future forms of ser are noticeably dissimilar. I don’t think it matters, as far as I’m concerned, how these forms came to be so dissimilar. What matters is that they are, and that this dissimilarity appears to be consistent across the Romance languages.
Let us bear in mind that, while Germanic languages require the word “I”, Spanish (and, I’m pretty sure, other Romance languages) do not. The word “I” is implied in the word fui, or soy or sere’. It would be redundant to say “yo soy” (I I-am).
When the Romans, and those they ruled, became Catholic, their culture and decadence didn’t disappear; they became part of Catholicism When we speak of Roman Catholics, as opposed to Protestants, we’re speaking not only of religion, but of culture. It’s the macho, laid-back, culture of Southern Europe. According to some scholars, it’s what made southern Europe poor in relation to northern Europe.
Just as I’m no expert in Spanish, so too am I not an expert in Catholicism – but I know enough to come up with some half-baked ideas. A Catholic may have sinned yesterday – but he can always confess today and be forgiven. He may sin today – but this doesn’t prevent him from confessing tomorrow, and being forgiven again. I’m not denying that there are sincere Catholics who are consistent and sincere. But there is definitely an element of truth to what I’m saying regarding the Catholic hoi polloi.
In Germanic languages, there is a clear continuum of “I”. “I was”, “I am” and “I shall be” are all the same entity. But it could be that speakers of Romance languages subconsciously projected their temporal disconnect onto their languages.
Those who speak Romance languages are, for the most part, Catholic. The fui of yesterday has little relevance to the soy of today. The soy of today cares little about the sere’ of tomorrow. When a task needs to be done, it is likely to be pawned off to somebody else, to sere‘. To mañana.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

New York gunman led quiet life…

Posted on December 25, 2012 by jewamongyou

The recent shooting of firefighters near Rochester, New York, illustrates some major flaws in our so-called justice system. According to the Washington Post:

A man who set his house on fire then lured firefighters to their deaths in a blaze of flames and bullets had attracted little attention since he got out of prison in the 1990s for killing his grandmother, authorities said…
He had served 17 years in prison after the beating death of his 92-year-old grandmother in 1980, for which he had originally been charged with murder but pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter.

What are the details of his grandmother’s murder? It seems that…

According to reports, she was found at the bottom of the basement stairs in her home on Lake Road. She had been beaten with a hammer. Spengler pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 8 1/3 to 25 years behind bars.
While in prison, Spengler did not seem like a man seeking mercy or repentance. I-Team 10 has obtained a copy of his 1997 parole hearing. At that hearing, the commissioner says “you didn’t want to come here today?”
Spengler replied, “I thought it was mandatory.”
When told it was not, Spengler said, “Then it’s not worth the time and effort.”
He was denied parole, but was released six months later after serving two-thirds of the maximum.

If I’m not mistaken, there was a time when murderers were vigorously prosecuted and punished as severely as possible. I get the impression that justice is secondary, while the primary priority is saving court costs. Plea-bargains save a lot of money by both reducing legal expenses and by shortening prison stays. Perhaps, if legal fees weren’t so exorbitant, plea-bargains wouldn’t be so common. Why are legal fees so high? A major factor in rising legal costs is the American Bar Association (ABA). According to the ABA’s own website:

The American Bar Association is the world’s largest voluntary professional organization, with nearly 400,000 members and more than 3,500 entities.  It is committed to doing what only a national association of attorneys can do: serving our members, improving the legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity, and advancing the rule of law throughout the United States and around the world.

“Serving our members” and “improving the legal profession” can easily be taken to mean “earning them more money” and “making the legal profession more lucrative.”
We can agree that the ABA is a “voluntary” organization in the sense that nobody is forced to become a lawyer. But, in the U.S., lawyers are not given a choice as to whether they wish to be associated with the ABA. If they attend law school, they can thank the ABA for their outrageously high tuition. Sherwood Ross, back in 2009, put it well:

By requiring law schools to hire more full-time professors and add new buildings, the American Bar Association(ABA) is driving up the cost of a legal education to unprecedented levels, two legal education reformers say. Tuitions at some ABA-accredited law schools have breached the $40,000 per year mark, forcing many students to assume debts that will take years to pay off. The matter is so dire that university presidents “describe a situation where the ABA would…threaten…disaccreditation of the law school if they would not play ball,” write Lawrence Velvel and Kurt Olson in their new book “The Gathering Peasants’ Revolt In American Legal Education”(Doukathsan). Velvel is cofounder and dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover(MSL) and Olson is an assistant professor of law at the school…
Other critics have bluntly described the ABA as a “guild” to enrich law school professors. Velvel and Olson charge the ABA has drastically lowered the permissible student to full time faculty ratio, “thus forcing schools to double or triple the number of expensive full time faculty members. At the same time, the ABA’s method of calculating the ratio would not permit even the fractional counting of adjunct faculty members, thus reducing an institution’s ability to reduce costs by using far less expensive part-time faculty members, even judges and expert practitioners.” In a secret student-to-faculty standard that is far more stringent than the written one known to the public, Velvel and Olson write, the ABA has pressured deans to adopt a 15 to 1 or even a 12 to 1 student-to-faculty ratio.

The ABA seems to be particularly keen on diversity. They have an elaborate subsection of their website devoted to diversity along with seminars and so on*. For an organization that suckles at the teats of crime, this should not be surprising. Diversity breeds crime. Crime breeds more legal complexity (and corruption of course). More legal complexity breeds an increased need for experts. A need for experts breeds protective guilds. Protective guilds breed higher prices. Higher prices breed cost-saving measures – such as plea-bargains and early release. Plea-bargains and early release breed repeat offenders and, in this case, two dead firemen.
Another thing I wanted to point out, regarding this shooting, is that the gunman was not allowed to own guns. Obviously, this did not stop him. What do the “gun-control” advocates say to this? That’s an easy one: They don’t want any of us to own guns – except for the military and law-enforcement. Because everyone knows they can do no wrong.
*I don’t think we can make a distinction between the diversity the ABA strives for within its own ranks and diversity in society at large. Incompetent, and corrupt, lawyers also feed the legal profession by creating new complexities and novel cases.

Posted in crime and violence | 7 Comments