"Innocence of Muslims"

Posted on September 16, 2012 by jewamongyou

I just wasted about 14 minutes of my life watching “Innocence of Muslims“. I can’t believe somebody actually spent money making such garbage. It’s even more incomprehensible to me that millions of Muslims worldwide are rioting because of it. Normal people would laugh at such a movie, not go on a rampage and murder innocents.
There are millions of lousy movies on YouTube and we think little of it. But we should pay close attention to the Muslim reaction. It should serve as a warning that “blasphemy” will be punishable by death anywhere large numbers of Muslims settle. This punishment might be de jure or de facto, but either way freedom of speech will become a thing of the past. Some Western countries already have anti-blasphemy laws on the books. Instead of calling it “blasphemy”, they call it “hate-speech” or “ethnic incitement”.
If we are to guarantee the long-term survival of freedom of speech in our societies, then we must carefully limit the number of Muslims we allow into them. Freedom of religion is not, in the long run, compatible with freedom of speech. Some people try to get around this contradiction in the Constitution by defining Islam not as a religion, but as a political system.
Is Catholicism a political system? For centuries the Catholic Church stifled freedom of expression, tortured and executed people for heretical views and persecuted non-believers. Jews would also be guilty of similar crimes if we had the power. I don’t believe in the distinction between a religion and a political system. If you take your religion seriously, it’s also a political system. If you don’t, then you are only nominally religious – at least when it comes to “religions of the book”, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Of course, most Muslims haven’t taken to the streets. The vast majority of them, no doubt, have carried on with their daily lives. But the fact remains that wherever there are large numbers of Muslims, there will be an element of fanaticism that raises its ugly head at the drop of a hat. There is no way to distinguish between “normal Muslims” and “fanatical Muslims” at the border. There is no known way to ensure that immigrant Muslims, and their children, will refrain from going berserk every time they encounter “blasphemy”. As a matter of fact, the younger generation of Muslims, in Western countries, often turns out to be more violent than their immigrant parents.
Western nations, pay attention and take heed!

Posted in freedom of speech issues, Muslims | 18 Comments

Kentucky tombstones

Posted on September 15, 2012 by jewamongyou

I recently returned from a short visit to Kentucky/Tennessee. One of the fun things I did there, with friends, was visit some old cemeteries. Here are some of the more interesting tombstones we found. I’ll leave it for y’all to decipher what they say; some of them are hard to make out. I just love those home-carved tombstones. If there’s interest, I’ll post more.








 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

A time to shed blood

Posted on September 10, 2012 by jewamongyou

In the latest edition of Sky Magazine (Sept. 2012 pg. 28), by Delta Airlines there is an interview with the cofounder and Executive Vice President of General Blood, LLC, David Mitchell. General Blood takes blood donations from areas that have an excess, mainly the Midwest, and redistributes them to areas where not enough blood is donated, mainly coastal areas. Among the questions addressed is “Why the excess of donated blood in Middle America?”

On a per capita basis, people in the Midwest tend to give more blood than people on the coasts. There are a lot of reasons for that. There are higher immigrant populations on the coasts, and many immigrants are deferred from donating – not because they are immigrants – but because of where they’re from. If you were born in an African country, forget about it. If you’ve lived abroad for many years, forget about it. But if you’re giving blood in Des Moines, chances are you grew up near Des Moines. Land and labor are much cheaper in the Midwest than on the coasts. And when the pastor says during church that there’s going to be a blood drive, most people in the congregation sign up.

Mitchell blames the low rates of blood donations on the coasts to African immigrants. But the numbers, even according to black sources, don’t add up. According to The Root:

Only 3 million African Americans are immigrants. Of that number, nearly two-thirds were born in Latin America, the other one-third of the immigrants were born in Africa.

Needless to say, it doesn’t make much sense to blame the dearth of coastal blood donors on 1 million people. It would make more sense to blame it on the unwillingness of blacks, in general, to be donors. According to Blood Centers.org:

To meet the needs of patients, Blood Centers of the Pacific must collect more than 150,000 pints of blood each year. Yet, of those eligible to donate blood, less than 4 percent do. And of those who give, just 3 percent are African-Americans.

Blacks make up over 12% of the U.S. population – but less than 4% of blood donors. I suppose it would have been unacceptable for David Mitchell to have simply pointed that out – and surely he is aware of it. As for being disqualified from donating blood because of having lived abroad (outside Africa), this does not appear to be the case at all. According to the Red Cross…

Those who are at increased risk for becoming infected with HIV are not eligible to donate blood. According to the Food and Drug Administration, you are at increased risk if:

  • you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once;
  • you have ever used a needle, even once, to take drugs or steroids that were not prescribed by a physician;
  • you have taken clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia;
  • you were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria since 1977 (This requirement is related to concerns about HIV Group O.
  • you have taken drugs or money in exchange for sex since 1977;
  • you have ever had a positive test for HIV virus;
  • you have symptoms of HIV infection including unexplained weight loss, night sweats, blue or purple spots on or under the skin, long-lasting white spots or unusual sores in your mouth, lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin that last more than a month, fever higher than 99 degrees that lasts more than 10 days, diarrhea lasting over a month, or persistent cough and shortness of breath;

Funny how political correctness takes a back seat to safety when it comes to blood donations – except that certain African countries, that have very high HIV infection rates (such as South Africa) are conspicuously absent from the above list. But that’s for another post.
I also found Mitchell’s insinuation that church-goers are more likely to be blood donors than others interesting. If so, then the highest concentration of donors should be in the South. I think it’s more accurate to say that conservatives are more likely to be donors than liberals. Conservatives are more generous than liberals and whites are more conservative than non-whites. Hence, whites are more likely to be generous than non-whites. That’s the answer that David Mitchell would have given – if it were permitted to speak the naked truth, about race, in publications such as Sky Magazine.

Posted in Africa and blacks, examples of propaganda, immigration/ Hispanics | 12 Comments

Must "domestic partners" be gay?

Posted on September 6, 2012 by jewamongyou

Even though I’ve long been banned from change.org (for expressing non-orthodox opinions on race), I still get their petitions  via email. Their latest petition renewed my interest in a long-standing question I’ve had: Must “domestic partners” be gay? When two same-sex people choose to become domestic partners, it’s generally assumed that they are homosexual. When domestic partnerships for straight people is discussed, it typically refers to a man and a woman who want to formalize their relationship – but not actually get married.
There are benefits to being recognized as a couple (married or “domestic partners”). If I want to share my medical insurance with my straight male friend, or housemate, making ourselves “domestic partners” is a good way to do so. We can both also save money on auto insurance.
As soon as we recognize the concept of non-sexual domestic partnership, we wouldn’t  see anything wrong with two brothers, or a man and his son, being domestic partners. Nobody would even blink an eye – since the bond of a domestic partnership is not sex but trust. If two people trust each other enough to share insurance plans, bank accounts or what have you, then they can be domestic partners. For all the talk of “gay rights”, does anybody actually check to make sure that the couple in question is gay? Are they required to have sex in front of witnesses? Of course not, because just as two people can have regular sex without ever getting married, so too can people be domestic partners without ever having sex. In fact, even a man and a woman can have a “marriage of convenience” without the slightest pretense of love or affection. If a man and a woman can do it, so can two men or two women.
But why stop at two? As soon as we’ve established that a domestic partnership is merely a matter of trust, then what’s stopping 3 or 4 people from trusting each other enough to enter into such an agreement? Why not 100? The only reason to limit it to two is that the concept of “domestic partnership” is rooted in the old-fashioned, Christian concept of marriage between one man and one woman. By limiting domestic partner benefits to only two individuals, gay rights activists are showing their own backwardness and bigotry. But perhaps I assume too much. It could be that many gay rights activists would have no objection to multitudes of people entering into domestic partnerships.  So I’ll ask right now.
Gay rights activists, do you support domestic partnership benefits for straight people who are just good friends? Do you have a problem with more than two people becoming domestic partners? If so, why?

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

It's 2012 so…

Posted on September 4, 2012 by jewamongyou

Here’s an “end of the world” question. If our planet got struck by a large heavenly body, so that it shattered into millions of pieces, what would our last moments be like? Let’s say you happened to be standing in a field, which ended up being in the center of a piece of crust 100 miles across, and the entire piece was ejected into space. We’re assuming that the actual impact was far enough away from you that it wouldn’t be the immediate cause of your death. How long would it take for the air to dissipate? Would microgravity kick in immediately? Would the vacuum of space kill you within seconds? Would some of the larger pieces be able to hold an atmosphere  long enough that people could float around on it for a few hours to ponder their fate?
I’m guessing that those on intermediate sized Earth-pieces would feel a jolt, feel the air pulled out of their lungs, see the sky go black and suffocate. It would be a silent and eery way to go. Unfortunately, if such an event occurred, I’d probably have to retire this blog. Though I might still be sitting at my desk, typing at my computer for a few moments as I float in space.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

ABC's blatant double standards

Posted on September 3, 2012 by jewamongyou

An ABC headline reads:

Class Reunion Letter Lists ‘White Graduates Only’ Party

Graduates from the St. Martinville, La., Senior High School Class of 1973 decided that after nearly 40 years, they would stop holding segregated class reunions, but a letter announcing the change included an after party for “white graduates only.”
Michael Kreamer, who is the principal of the Louisiana school, said the letter was brought to his attention on Friday morning.
“It’s disappointing to see something like this,” he said. “The school was really not involved at all in it.”
On Sept. 21, a reception will be held at the school, followed by the homecoming football game, which the letter notes all graduates are welcome to attend.
After the game, “white graduates only” are invited to a classmate’s home and are encouraged to bring a “food dish to share.”

Sadly, those naive souls who depend upon the corporate controlled media for their news/worldview believe that what they are getting is “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. One comment (in reply to another comment) expresses this sentiment well:

What’s the big deal?? I can guarantee that if the blacks held a graduation party for blacks only, nothing would be said. Why is it only racist if the whites do it? Posted by: JimP | September 2, 2012, 8:29 am.
LOL! Because it IS only the Whites that actually did it HERE, TODAY, in REALITY. Just because you BELIEVE that IF some Blacks also did it, no one would say anything, does not make your belief a fact. Or a statement of truth. It is nothing more than your own personal opinion. And clearly your opinion is, racism is OK. What’s the big deal?

The writer is oblivious to the fact that any blacks-only reunion would simply not be reported. Thus, he would know nothing of it. People actually believe that if ABC fails to report something, it never happened!
One recent incident that “never happened” according to ABC is the vicious beating of Andrew Quade, in Savannah, Georgia, by a mob of blacks. They sent him to the hospital because they didn’t approve of his dating a black girl. So, according to ABC, what is more newsworthy, anti-white mob violence by blacks in the South or a whites-only class reunion in the South? Good luck getting a straight answer from the editors and staff of ABC.
It’s not as if this recent beating was an isolated incident. Back in 2010, a white teen was savagely beaten by blacks for the same offense. In 2008, Sergeant Jan Pietrzak and his black wife were tortured and murdered by four of his black men. It is likely that racial animus was among the motives for this heinous crime.
The fact that ABC, and all the other major networks, filters its “news” according to its own agenda turns even its “accurate” reporting into propaganda.

Posted in Africa and blacks, examples of propaganda, miscegenation | 7 Comments

The Stanley Dunham complex

Posted on September 1, 2012 by jewamongyou

In the South Park episode “Fatbeard” Cartman convinces some of his friends that their comfortable suburban life is miserable, and that a better future awaits them as pirates in Somalia. After their arrival in Somalia, Cartman manages to maintain this illusion for a while – until reality catches up with them.
Spoiled children in well-to-do countries like to imagine that life would be better elsewhere, if only they could escape the boredom and monotony of the only life they have known.
Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, was an only child.  As a leftist and an adventurer, Stanley seems to have been partial to non-white men. Perhaps white men were too “bland” for her. She ended up marrying an unprincipled Kenyan philanderer who had abandoned his pregnant wife in Kenya. Through him she bore the illegitimate son we now know as “Barack Obama”.
Purely by chance, I came upon a blog that contains first-hand accounts of a woman much like Stanley Dunham: Sacha Stevenson. Like Stanley, Sacha is an only child. Like Stanley, Sacha had a bit of gender confusion and grew up fatherless. Both women moved around a lot and lacked solid roots in any one place. They were both “hippies” and they both ended up in Indonesia. Both women also dated black men first and then moved on to Asian men. I believe that Sacha’s account of her experiences in Jamaica throw some light on this type of mentality and how they try to reconcile it with reality. Here are excerpts from Sacha’s Jamaican experience (my comments in parenthesis and bold):

At 17, I arrived at the Kington airport in Jamaica. I remember feeling absolutely free for the first time in my life. I had all I needed in my life in my backpack, adrenalin pumping through my veins, and a rape whistle that my mother gave me tightly attached to my wrist. She said, “if you are in danger, blow the whistle!” You see, Kingston, Jamaica, at that time anyways, was not well known for its hospitality. In fact Kingston was labeled “The murder capital of the world”! Luckily for me, I had no serious problems, but it REALLY OPENED MY EYES! I got to see Bob Marley’s house. I got to see the bullet marks in the wall from the assassination attempt he spoke of in the song “Ambush in the Night”. (Jamaica had been romanticized for her from an early age. Her young mind was overwhelmed with excitement – and she was emotionally vulnerable).
I was the target of racism myself for the first time in my life and I understood completely why some people there held a grudge. (She couldn’t accept that blacks can be bad people; instead, their racism was understandable because it was a “grudge”. I wonder if she is as forgiving toward white racists).
I saw poverty for the first time, I saw guns and violence, but I also saw the kindness and beauty of perfect strangers in the least expected places. (Up until that point, she had led a sheltered existence. She didn’t understand that all human societies contain kindness and beauty of some sort – or they wouldn’t be human at all. But this was a place where guns and violence were far more common than in Canada and, in her mind, the presence of kindness and beauty offset this flaw).
I also met a Jamaican guy in Kingston and we started seeing each other, but because Kingston became too dangerous for us (he was physically attacked for dating a white woman). (It was inevitable that she would meet a Jamaican guy; it was probably part of her fantasy – and a dream come true for the lucky Jamaican. But she discovered that racism is far more prevalent among blacks than among whites).
Living in Jamaica was a treasured experience I’ll never forget, but it was so difficult to live there due to the racism, poverty, hatred, jealousy and domestic abuse that was encircling me. I was endangering myself and my boyfriend by staying any longer. This is when I left Jamaica…. (She discovered that life among blacks is not a bowl of cherries. One wonders if the “domestic abuse” was also directed at her sometimes).

Her experience in Indonesia was completely different. She had received a real-life lesson in HBD and learned that Asians, overall, are much safer to be around than Africans. She remains in Indonesia to this day. It’s a pity that she never really gave her own race a chance.
From the stories of Stanley Dunham and Sacha Stevenson, we can identify some common factors that might cause young white women to lose their own racial/ethnic identities and seek greener pastures:
1) Growing up with a single parent, specifically only a mother. Incidentally, this may also explain why so many black men seek out white women: They have no father figure to look up to who had married a black woman – and available black women probably remind them too much of their own domineering mothers.
2) A lack of solid roots in one place and no real attachment to any community.
3) A parenting style that deprived them of a sense of adventure in their own lives, causing them to seek it elsewhere and with “the other” (men of other races). But this is only an educated guess; I have no evidence for this.
4) Discomfort, of some sort, with their own gender. A girl should have a girl’s name and be encouraged to act like a girl.
5) A lack of siblings. This probably goes hand in hand with a lack of community, and a lack of a sense of belonging.
I might add that the mothers of both girls failed to provide their daughters with solid knowledge of other cultures and countries. In Sacha’s case, she was infused with idealistic visions of Jamaica. Fortunately for her, she escaped that island alive and without child. Apparently the same applies to Stanley’s upbringing. How else can we explain that she accepted the word of an older Kenyan man, that he was divorced. Her mother should have warned her about men in general, and black men in particular. But it would also be a mistake to fill a child’s head with unreasonable fears of other peoples and races. At some point these fears are bound to be exposed as lies – and then the child will abandon all caution. The child should be taught caution but not hysteria.
Overall, I’d have to say that Cartman caught on a lot quicker than either of these two women.

Posted in Africa and blacks, miscegenation, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 35 Comments

Again: The limits of verbal thinking

Posted on August 30, 2012 by jewamongyou

I just read a very good article about the pros and cons of legal prostitution. It is written from a libertarian point of view and pertains to other issues as well. I strongly recommend it, even if just to exercise your brain muscles. You can find it here.
In essence, Hasan argues that the concept of “coercion” does not apply when it is circumstances that force one to do undesirable things in order to survive. Only when another human, through force, removes one’s options can we say that an action is coerced. Thus, if a person must clean toilets in order to survive, this would not be coercion. Similarly with prostitution.
One problem with this, arguably, simplistic point of view is that modern life involves so many variables, complications and options that it is almost impossible to say where choice ends and coercion begins. We humans have an unfortunate habit of inventing words and then expecting reality to accommodate them neatly. I’ve already written about this here.
I’m tempted to say that “choice” and “coercion” are artificial constructs. In the world of words, they are real. In courts of law, arbitrary definitions of these words carry enormous weight. But the Law and the dictionary are both artificial. I realize that I’m not the first to say this. That many others have argued against the concept of free will. Though I’m not sure I like it, as I grow older I find myself agreeing with them more and more.
If we disagree with laws that are based upon the belief in fictional concepts such as free will versus coercion, then what’s the point in fighting the inevitable? Neither the public nor law-makers possess the free will to change them anyway.
The best we can do is to extract whatever happiness we can out of whatever fate has decreed for us. Wait… was that a choice?

Posted in libertarian thought | 9 Comments

A funny video

Posted on August 29, 2012 by jewamongyou

Thanks to my friend Portland Realist for sharing this with me. Read between the lines for race-realism. I especially like the part where they both claim they’re not racist because they “like black girls”. It’s always been customary to “like the girls” of the people you’re exterminating. Blacks do it all the time – so kudos to those two for dishing some of it back.
 
 

Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 3 Comments

The "White Card Campaign"

Posted on August 28, 2012 by jewamongyou

I found this on The Oculus Report:

But what if we could speak? What if there were a way that White people could let Mitt Romney know that they are willing to vote for him precisely because he is white? What if there were some method by which the Anglo-Saxon community could show the Gov that they are ready to support the White Candidate?
It turns out there is a way. A poster in a comment thread over at Occidental Dissent came up with it. “Write to Romney,” the commentator advised, “And tell him you are voting for him, Because he is the WHITE candidate. Say, ‘I’m voting Anglo-Saxon.'”
What an excellent idea.
I have taken the idea to heart. In order to make it easier to do, I’ve created a simple postcard by which we can communicate our pro-Anglo sentiments to Mitt. I call it the White Card. It is a standard U.S.-size postcard (4.25″ x 6″) with black-ink printing on one side. The card is pre-addressed to the Romney 2012 mailing address and has an area which can be filled out with the sender’s name and address. Below this is printed the following message: “I am a White person and I am proud of what I am. I am voting for you because you are the White candidate.  I’m sending you this White Card to let you know that I am voting Anglo-Saxon in 2012. Thank you for speaking up on behalf of our people.” A space for the writer’s signature follows. A box for the necessary $0.32 postage stamp appears at the upper left corner.
The other side of the card is white — beautiful, pure white.
You can download the card by clicking Save Link As on the image below (PNG, 68kb).

Great idea Oculus! I’ve sent mine out and I’ve given a couple to a friend. It costs 32 cents for the stamp and probably about the same for the card stock. What’s your excuse White America?
Posted in activism | 12 Comments