The ever-expanding definition of "racism"

Posted on July 25, 2012 by jewamongyou

The word “racism” has never had a precise definition. It’s a tool of oppression against whites. As such, its definition is constantly changing. Though, according to reputable dictionaries, it is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits, or that one’s own race is superior to others, these days it can refer to practically any statement involving non-whites.
Take the case of Voula Papachristou for example. Her life ambition has been shattered because she pointed out the obvious in a tweet. According to Opposing Views:

Voula Papachristou was kicked off Greece’s Olympic team on Wednesday for making a racist, derogatory comment on her Twitter account.
Why did her insensitive tweet bring about such a harsh punishment? Well, according to the Times Union, because she made ” statements contrary to the values and ideas of the Olympic movement.”
Papachristou, an unapologetic supporter Greece’s extreme right Golden Dawn party, posted this controversial message last Sunday:
“With so many Africans in Greece, the West Nile mosquitoes will be getting home food!!!”
As you would expect, the joke was met with something of a negative reaction.That plus her affiliation with Golden Dawn (a party which rose to international infamy a few weeks ago when spokesperson Ilias Kasidiaris smacked a communist woman in the face) ultimately forced Greece to seriously reconsider her position on their national Olympic team.

Perhaps it’s just me but I don’t understand what’s so controversial about her comment. It’s a harmless joke that indicates no hatred or animosity whatsoever. She didn’t call for the killing of those African invaders. She didn’t say they are dangerous, stupid, ugly or unwelcome. All she did was point out, in a colorful way, that there are many of them in her country.
It appears that these days it’s “racist” even to notice that there are many foreigners in your country. Failure to ignore this fact leads to harsh consequences. Even George Orwell would have been shocked at this state of affairs.
To make matters even worse, she did the worst thing possible after the accusation was made: She grovelled. When will people learn that grovelling accomplishes nothing in the face of accusations of racism. But Papachristou is still young, and she is beautiful. I hope that she accomplishes great things in her life, that she encounters no harm from the Africans of whom she spoke, and that she has many Greek children.

Posted in freedom of speech issues, government/corporate discrimination against whites, immigration/ Hispanics | 16 Comments

Cock fights in Puerto Rico and PETA

Posted on July 24, 2012 by jewamongyou

Cock fighting is perfectly legal, and encouraged in Puerto Rico. Government fees have forced much of it underground, but few are calling for a crackdown, except for organizations such as PETA. According to Yahoo news:

In fact, the territory’s government is battling to keep the blood sport thriving, as many matches go underground to avoid fees and admission charges levied by official clubs. Although long in place, those costs have since become overly burdensome for some as the island endures a fifth year of economic crisis.

The business once generated $100 million a year in revenue for government-owned clubs across the U.S. territory, among the few places in the world where such fights remain legal. Recent figures are unavailable, but many say revenue at such clubs has plummeted…

Nowhere else is cockfighting allowed on U.S. territory, although many matches still take place in secret. Terry Mills, who investigates blood sports for the New York-based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said the group opposes all cockfights regardless of whether they are held in legal or illegal venues.

To be sure, there are people all over the world who oppose unnecessary cruelty to animals. But, for the most part, this sentiment is part of the modern Western Civilization package* – that also includes concern for the rights of homosexuals, women, children, the environment and the darker races.
Though they do not know it, supporters of PETA are touting the superiority of modern Western (white) civilization over others. For them to champion the rights of animals and, at the same time, be supporters of multiculturalism/mass immigration, is a gross contradiction. My guess is that most of them simply do not think these matters through.
I was curious about PETA’s stance on immigration, so I checked out their website (not really expecting to find anything on immigration). In all honesty, I fully agree with a lot of what they say (crazy as they are when it comes to certain issues) and I give them credit for taking the high moral ground. This is from the FAQ section:

If having superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human for his or her purposes, why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans?
There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability, for example. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights? Nineteenth-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?” The measure of who deserves protection is not intelligence, it is the capacity to feel pain.

It’s a good point, though my position is a bit different. But I do wonder about their position on insects. They make it perfectly clear that we should avoid lethal measures to control them, but it is not, as far as I know, clear that insects experience pain and suffering. Perhaps somebody can correct me on this. I found it interesting that they include, in their FAQ’s, section called What about insects and other “pests”? but they don’t seem to assign any rights to creatures so small the human eye cannot see them. In other words, if humans can see you, you have rights. Otherwise, you’re out of luck! How do they reconcile the rights of diarrhea bacteria with the rights of blacks in Africa? Sure, blacks are smarter – but what if it turns out microbes can suffer?
Also in their FAQ section”Wasn’t Hitler in favor of animal rights?”

However, even if this weren’t the case, the merits of an idea cannot be determined by the character of its proponents. If Hitler believed in the theory of relativity, does that mean we should not believe in it? What if Gandhi also believed in the theory of relativity—how would we reconcile the two? An idea must be judged on its own merits.

Of course. Now let’s apply this principle to more controversial matters, such as racial and ethnic differences. It will be a cold day in Hell when PETA does this. Still, it seems to me that PETA is more rational than many other leftist organizations. We can learn from their tactics. For example, they refuse to take a stance on gun-control except where it pertains to hunting animals. Otherwise, they’re neutral. That’s exactly the position pro-whites should take on issues such as homosexuality. They use imaginative tactics, such as nudity, in their campaigns to draw attention to their message. Imagine the publicity we could get if hundreds of pro-whites marched nude with signs proclaiming how happy they are with their white skin, and that “hate” is not part of their philosophy.
But back to multiculturalism. PETA actually does take a stance on this. There’s a question, in the FAQ called “What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that depend on using animals?”:

The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated job retraining and restructuring. This is simply an ingredient in all social progress—not a reason to deter progress.

In other words, they admit that not all cultures are equal. It’s a start.
* It’s possible that Iberia was culturally damaged from its long Moor occupation. The same might be said of Russia from its Mongol occupation.

Posted in activism, immigration/ Hispanics, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 10 Comments

When white men mass-murder

Posted on July 21, 2012 by jewamongyou

It’s no use trying to ignore it. A white man massacred dozens of people at a theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 of them. It’s not the first time something like this has happened and for the pro-white crowd to remain silent about it*, even as we constantly draw attention to the (much worse) black/Hispanic proclivities for violence, only serves to diminish our credibility.
None of us ever claimed that whites are perfect. It goes without saying that, in a country that includes tens of millions of whites, some of them are going to be crazy or disturbed. But this sort of thing does appear to happen more often as the years pass – or perhaps it’s only the fact that today’s media works at the speed of light.
The enemies of gun rights are, predictably, leveraging this to their advantage. They claim that, had guns and ammo not been available to James Holmes, the mass killing would never have occurred. Yes, this is possible – but the shooting should not serve as justification for depriving us of our guns. The biggest murderers, over the last hundred or so years, have been agents of government. Are “gun-control” advocates demanding that guns be taken away from government?
A republican representative has stated that the loss of Christian values contributed to the massacre. That and the fact that none of the victims had his own gun with which to eliminate the threat. Considering how well-armed Holmes was (and dressed in body armor), I doubt it would have made much of a difference.
It’s too early for us to know what motivated Holmes to take the lives of so many innocent people. It’s possible Holmes himself doesn’t know. But it’s not too early for me to make two points:
1) Some tragedies are just that, and nothing we do can prevent them. We punish, we weep and life goes on. I don’t know if this is one of those tragedies.
2) Pro-whites should talk about such incidents openly and head-on. Whatever it is that motivates white males to commit such deeds, should be laid bare for all to see and pro-whites should be at the forefront talking about it.
*Of course I’m not accusing anybody of ignoring it; the incident only occurred yesterday.

Posted in crime and violence, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 33 Comments

"Cro-Magnon" by Brian Fagan

Posted on July 19, 2012 by jewamongyou

I just finished reading Cro-Magnon by Brian Fagan. Overall, it’s pretty good reading, though it’s clearly meant as a primer. It doesn’t have much in the way of Earth-shattering, ground-breaking, material.
From an HBD standpoint, I wanted to highlight some interesting statements that Fagan makes:

Neanderthals may have also interbred with moderns in Europe, where they survived alongside Cro-Magnon for a long time… Perhaps it resulted from very rare encounters between solitary or near-solitary individuals rather than bands, where commonly shared prejudices, especially among modern human groups, might have militated against any form of close contact, let alone sexual intercourse (pg. XI of the preface).

I’ll admit it’s likely I’m missing something obvious here, but this looks like a Freudian slip to me. Why would Fagan assign prejudices more to modern humans than to Neanderthals? Is there any evidence that early Cro-Magnons were more prejudiced than late Neanderthals? I seriously doubt it. I think Fagan is sub-consciously equating Cro-Magnons with whites, and Neanderthals with blacks. Since it’s customary to be critical of white prejudices, but not black ones, Fagan carries this over to prehistory as well.

What can we say about them from this research? They were striking people, with brains as large as our own, but their heads were shaped differently. We have high foreheads and rounded heads, whereas the Neanderthals had long, low skull vaults, which were larger and protruded at the back. A pair of large, rounded, and continuous ridges overhung the eye sockets. The front of the skull was somewhat flattened and constricted like that of much earlier, archaic humans. This may be significant, for it is in this area, the so-called prefrontal association cortex, that much of our thinking takes place( pg. 46).

Is Fagan a proponent of phrenology? I doubt it. Most likely, he would make a distinction between comparing the skulls of members of the same species and those of different species. Though both human, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were certainly different species – or were they? Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, in “Race and Human Evolution” (which I reviewed here) claim we are the same species. Either way, we have here an admission that consistent differences in skull shape may have deeper meaning. How would Fagan’s description of modern skull structure pertain to this person?


For all I know, the man could be a genius; I don’t believe we can conclude anything, about an individual, from his skull shape. But if this skull shape is typical for his population, it isn’t far fetched to surmise that it may have deeper significance – at least according to Fagan.

The African Eve is a fictional person, a product of molecular biology… If such a person existed, she would have been dark haired and black skinned, a member of a small hunting band, and strong enough to tear apart human flesh with her hands and carry heavy loads (pg. 89).

This is a rather bold statement, especially considering the fact that much of Africa was populated by Khoisan-type people until they were overrun by Bantu tribes only a few thousand years ago. The Khoisan are not “black skinned”. In fact, Fagan himself writes (pg. 91):

They concentrated much of their effort on the Khoi and San peoples of southern Africa, because they are surviving representatives of ancient hunter-gatherer traditions – people with a slender, light build… Their paternal and maternal lineages are along the deepest branches known among modern humans.

What would motivate a scientist to make such a statement without any evidence? It looks more like a political statement than a scientific one.

The harsh environmental conditions after the Toba disaster would have fostered strong pressures for cooperation over longer distances, even entire regions. Such cooperation would have come from expanding social networks far beyond the limited contacts between neighbors…
These developments came at a time of stress and reduced population, when only a few thousand people lived south of the Sahara and when Africa was cut off from the outside world by intense drought. Then, after seventy thousand years ago, Africa’s population began to grow once again as the cold receded. Small numbers of people, with all the cognitive abilities of modern humans, now moved out of Africa into Asia and lands beyond…

Fagan elaborates upon the pressures of a harsh environment. He makes much of the Toba vulcanic eruption, which occurred 70,000 years ago. But would not the much longer ice ages, which affected Eurasia far more than Africa, have exerted at least as much pressure? It makes no sense to assume that these ice ages exerted no evolutionary pressure upon the humans who lived through them. According to Fagan, once humans attained the status of “modern humanity” (a title arbitrarily bestowed by people such as himself), then their cognitive abilities must be equal to our own. Fagan allows for no variance, in cognitive ability, within Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Fagan is even more blunt about his position on page 146, where he writes:

How, then, does one explain the sudden appearance of sophisticated cave paintings at just one location? Certainly, painting the Chauvet art was well within the intellectual capabilities of people who had exactly the same cognitive abilities as painters of later millennia…

Was Fagan there to administer I.Q. tests to both populations? Even if he was, how can he be sure they weren’t “culturally biased”? I think it’s irresponsible for a scientist to make such blanket statements. Perhaps he believes that his experience and expertise gives him carte blanche to make, under that same authority, any fanciful statements he wishes. But getting back to the rigors of the ice ages, Fagan writes (pg. 170):

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.

Fagan chose his words carefully. It is becoming more and more obvious that mental capabilities are largely heritable. But there is far less consensus when it comes to the heritability of “mental attitudes”, “self-assurance” and “competence”. Note that Fagan carefully avoids using the word “intelligence” or “cognitive ability” in the above paragraph. Doing so would have implied that the colder environment might have led to smarter people. Perhaps Fagan knows this, but he prefers to avoid controversy. In any event, it doesn’t take much “cognitive ability” to replace the words “mental attitudes” with “mental capabilities” in the above paragraph – and understand that the statement makes just as much sense. We don’t need Fagan to tell us that.
Along the same lines, Fagan implies that civic mindedness was also a trait that was more necessary in the cold north:

All of these qualities would have served the Cro-Magnons well in a world where climate change was often rapid, winters were severe, and periods of warmth and abundance were usually short. Of course there were exceptions to the norm: quarrelsome individuals, volatile family situations, interpersonal violence, and other far-from-ideal circumstances –  but in general, the personal qualities shared by the Cro-Magnons, and their encyclopedic knowledge of their world, were their most powerful weapons for survival… (pg. 173).

Indeed, the subtitle of the book is “How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans”. So maybe Fagan is a closet believer in HBD, not that he’ll admit it. But he does proclaim pride in his own heritage at the very end of the book (pg. 264):

The genes of the Cro-Magnons are still dominant among modern Europeans today. My DNA tells me that genetically I’m one of them, and I’m proud of it.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 31 Comments

Voice of Reason interviews Unamusement Park

Posted on July 18, 2012 by jewamongyou

Unlike myself, Unamusement Park (who calls himself “Richard Smith” for this interview), actually does have a good radio-voice. I thoroughly enjoyed this interview and I’m sure many of y’all will too:
Click here to listen to the interview.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 23 Comments

Blog obituaries

Posted on July 17, 2012 by jewamongyou

Mangan’s blog is now available to invited readers only. I’m certain that Mr. Mangan knows what he’s doing, but I can’t help but wonder what the purpose of a blog would be if only subscribers (I.E. those who already agree with you anyway) can read it.
The Tribe of Ice People hasn’t posted anything new since early December of last year. It appears all she wanted to tell us was that anti-semitism is bad for whites. Well, alright then. I’ll keep that in mind.
StatSquatch hasn’t written anything new since October of last year. His blog has now become a statistic.
Uhuru Guru (sometimes confused, by yours truly, for “South Africa Sucks”) hasn’t posted anything new since November of last year. I hope the Kaffirs haven’t gotten him.
Seed of Japheth has retired from blogging as of April of this year. May Krishna smile upon his next reincarnation.
Robert Lindsay still experiences some sightings, but he seems to focus mostly on Bigfoot and socialism these days – which is fine if that’s your cup of tea. Keep leaving those tracks Robert!
Reluctant Apostate has published nothing new since December of last year. I understand he’s a busy person; hopefully he’s doing great things in real life.
Eugenicist posts rarely these days and not on matters that pertain to this blog.
I know I’ve missed a few and yes, I realize that blogs come and go. Most of the above blogs, though not active, are still online – and they still link to me. So I’m not sure if I should remove them from my blog roll  and replace them with more current blogs.
Please share your opinions, insights and gossip in the comments!

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

How liberals victimize blacks

Posted on July 16, 2012 by jewamongyou

Unless you live in a cave, you’ve heard it a million times: Blacks are victims of white oppressors. We are supposed to believe that black people suffer from white racism from cradle to grave, that they find it difficult to get jobs, advance their careers, get fair trials or even get into prestigious schools. We are supposed to believe this – but all it takes is a little research and objectivity to discover it is all lies.
But let’s take a look at a recent article from Ebony.com entitled “The 5 Stages of Black Manhood”:

… I have found that Black men experience this world in ways that are quite similar to the widely known Kubler-Ross “5 Stages of Grief” model:
1. Denial. In his life, every Black man is afforded a period of unburdened optimism. The length varies for each individual, and some may not remember it. Whether it lasts until they turn five or 50, there’s at least a moment where a Black man can look out into the world and see it as full of opportunity. There exists no limits in his mind as to who or what he can become. It’s a time free of history’s lessons and society’s prejudices …
2. Anger. Who can blame Black men for being angry? You’re born into a legacy that includes slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, marches, protests, and riots. From the moment you’re old enough to know what it is, you’re told that it’s likely you’ll end up in prison, and you start to believe it as you watch fathers/uncles/brothers/cousins be hauled off. Everywhere you go, you’re viewed as a problem that needs to be solved.
How can you not be angry when it seems like every other week you’re learning the name of another brother you’ll never meet, for all the wrong reasons? Trayvon Martin. Sean Bell …

The article goes on to say some outrageous things, such as the claim that black men suffer from depression more than others. The opposite is true. But I want to focus on point number 2. No-one can deny that black men are angry. They are angry from the moment they learn to talk. Their music is full of anger, and their lives consumed by it. Often, their lives are extinguished by it or it motivates them to  extinguish the lives of others.
What is the source of this anger? The true, authentic, legacy of slavery is gone. What we have today is an industry of artificially propagated anger, hate and resentment whose tools of choice are school textbooks and the media. The ancestors of many whites suffered serfdom for a much longer period of time than black Americans suffered slavery – and the serfdom, in many cases, continued on into much more recent times as well. Today’s blacks should not be angry over slavery. They should be angry over the fact that liberals have force-fed them the “legacy of slavery” to the point where they’ve become crippled because of it. I would much rather be around a dull-witted black man with a good attitude than an intelligent one with a chip on his shoulder over something that ended 150 years ago.
Should black men be angry over lynching? Only if they are fed an assortment of lies by the liberal establishment. As I’ve pointed out in a previous post, most lynching victims were white. Most black lynching victims were criminals, and only a minute number of blacks were lynched because they were black. Furthermore, blacks also participated in lynch mobs. Read more about lynching here. Again, blacks should not direct their anger at white racist lynch mobs of the past, but rather at the liberals who have filled their heads with lies.
Jim Crow may not have been fair, but it was a practical way for whites to protect themselves against pervasive black violence. In our generation, the media does its best to hide the magnitude of black-on-white crime. It has  not been very successful – except when it comes to the most gullible sectors of society. Personally, I prefer voluntary segregation. But, if black culture is something to be celebrated to the point where it merits its own publications (such as Ebony), then why should black men be angry over being deprived of the company of whites? On the contrary. They should support segregation, because it allows them to enjoy their own culture without interference from racist whites. Separate but not equal may, indeed, have been the rule in the Old South. But does it really make sense to be angry today over inferior schools 60 years ago? Is it not ironic that that same anger contributes to black schools being inferior today? Your grandparents had to sit at the back of the bus? Get over it! I can understand being angry over such things for a week. Maybe for a month. But at some point the time comes to move on.
“Marches, protests and riots” are certainly things to get angry over – if you’re white or Asian. After all, it’s almost always blacks doing the rioting (euphemistically called “protests” by the media). If black men are angry over these marches, protests and riots, then I would suggest that they stop participating in them.
Should black men be angry that they’re told they’ll likely end up in prison? Perhaps – if this were the case. But this is not how blacks are portrayed by the media. Instead, they’re portrayed as super scientists, charismatic politicians, heroes and selfless martyrs. They’re consistently held up as the ultimate of manhood. Black kids watch more television than any other group, so their minds are infused with heroic, positive, masculine portrayals of black men. Perhaps they are so accustomed to this that they don’t even realize it, and when they are exposed to a not-so-positive portrayal of black men, they recoil in horror.
“How can you not be angry when it seems like every other week you’re learning the name of another brother you’ll never meet, for all the wrong reasons? Trayvon Martin. Sean Bell…” Again, it’s the liberal media black men should be angry with. It’s the media that blows such incidents out of proportion, while ignoring the alarming number of horrific crimes committed against whites. Whites are the real victims here – but blacks also get a few crumbs of victim-hood. After all, they are condemned to perpetual anger.

Posted in Africa and blacks | 18 Comments

My response to Irish Savant's observations on Anti-semitism

Posted on July 15, 2012 by jewamongyou

In a recent post, titled, “An Observation on the History of Anti-semitism“, Irish Savant writes (in part):

I’ll just make one observation at this point and it’s on something that absolutely jumped out at me. It’s this. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, did I encounter any acceptance on the part of Jewish sources that Jewish behaviour might have contributed in any meaningful sense to the problems they encountered. (And folks, they did encounter endless problems, no arguing with that). But in every case it appears that the Christians, Muslims, Nazis…….Stalin when he turned on them, in every case the opposition was irrational, based on falsehoods and caricatures and hence totally unjustified.  Essentially anti-Semitism has been, and continues to be, driven by Christian antipathy towards those guilty of deicide, and/or envy at Jewish accomplishments.
Let there be no doubt that those two factors were powerful motivators throughout history.  But come on…there has never been a dispute in the history of man where one side was totally right, the other totally wrong.
Now I discern a larger – much larger – problem with this.  You see, if you believe that your behaviour is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, if you’re impervious to the real impact on and the perceptions of others, well, it seems to me you’re heading for a fall at some point. I believe that in fact there are many signs of this at present.

It’s painfully obvious that official Jewish sources (including the rabbis) avoid blaming Jews for anti-semitism as a matter of policy. But Jewish tradition is quite conscious of the fact that bad behavior by Jews can cause ill feelings among the gentiles. There is even a name for this: “Hillul haShem” (literally, “the desecration of the name {of God}). Conversely, when Jews behave well in front of the gentiles, it’s considered praiseworthy. This is called “Kiddush haShem (literally, “the sanctification of the name {of God})*. So, in theory, the cause-and-effect relationship is recognized. But I’m not aware of mainstream Jewish leaders saying such things as, “If only we weren’t so stingy, there would be less anti-semitism.” Though individual Jews will often recognize this.
Every ethnic group will have traits that other ethnic groups consider negative, especially if the group in question is from a different part of the world. This cannot be avoided – and it is also inevitable that outsiders will notice these flaws. It was not by choice that Jews became a Diaspora people (though individual Jews may have made that choice). This was forced upon us by the Babylonians and the Romans. Once we did become a Diaspora people, we wished to maintain our identity. Any time there is a distinctive people living among other peoples, there will be animosity. In theory, this is possible even if the distinctive people were above reproach. Over a long period of time, history will always accumulate a record of anti-“fill in the blank”. This is especially the case when the people in question are middlemen. Witness the Chinese in Malaysia or the Lebanese in West Africa. I believe that such persecution only makes the negative traits worse. It makes clannishness even more pronounced. It makes penny-pinching even more common. It accentuates distinctive physical traits (due to stricter patterns of in-marriage).
Regarding Savant’s statement: “… there has never been a dispute in the history of man where one side was totally right, the other totally wrong”, Savant almost makes it sound as if there has been an ongoing conflict between Jews and non-Jews non-stop throughout history. Reading histories of anti-semitism, it’s easy to get this impression; there has been a lot of it. But if things were that simple, with the two camps going at each other as the normal state of affairs, then Jews would have been exterminated long ago. In reality, there were many times when Jews and gentiles got along very well. Kings, emperors and Caliphs were intimate friends with famous rabbis. The Gentile peasantry and the Jewish peasantry were both very poor most of the time. They had more in common than differences. It often took venomous sermons by priests, reminding the masses that “the Jews killed Jesus” to whip them up into a bloodthirsty frenzy. Looking back at Jewish history, it’s the bloodshed, persecutions, expulsions and libels that stand out. But this was not the normal state of affairs.
The gentile peasantry was held in a state of slavery for centuries. Sometimes, it revolted and their resentment needed to be held in check. It is no secret that a scapegoat is sometimes needed to divert this frustration. Within our own lifetimes we’ve seen our governments eat away at our liberties, using the scapegoat de jour as an excuse. I remember when it was the communists. Then it was extremist Muslims. Racists and pedophiles are favorites these days. But an oppressive power always needs some sort of scapegoat and sometimes, in the past, it was the Jews. I must interject that the concept of Jews as scapegoats has been repeated ad nauseum by the Jewish hostile elite. So I hate to write the same thing myself. But let’s face it, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Getting back to Savant’s statement about blame-sharing for past anti-semitism, as it stands, most Jews place all the blame on the gentiles, while many (if not most) white nationalists place all the blame on the Jews. It would be nice to have more balance in both camps.
It’s not possible for us to conduct surveys of past anti-semites, but no doubt a variety of root-causes were at work. My own early encounters with anti-semitism led me to believe they were fueled by tradition. I remember three off the top of my head: One from a ghetto black, another from a redneck white and a third from neo-Nazis. None of those people knew me personally and the first two were very young and must have learned it from their parents. But the anti-Semitism of today is most likely fueled by abominations such as Ireland’s Alan Shatter, who do everything in their power to destroy the indigenous peoples of Europe. If Shatter were about to be burned at the stake, I would gladly provide the match.
*This is not merely because good-will is beneficial to Jews. It’s also because it’s considered a duty to sanctify the name of God.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 24 Comments

The theft of white youth

Posted on July 12, 2012 by jewamongyou

The hostile media has grown so accustomed to using the term “youth” as a euphemism for “niggers” (unruly black savages) that even white nationalists have come to use the term this way. We say to each other snidely, “Did you hear about the most recent ‘youth‘ attack?” or “Be careful of that neighborhood; it’s got a lot of ‘youth’.”
It’s easy to forget that whites can also be youths – in the classical (archaic?) meaning of the term. It is white (and Asian) youth that bears the brunt of crimes such as forced integration. Adults may feel bad about white children living in fear and getting beaten up or worse – but it’s the white children who must deal with these realities face to face each day. It’s the white children who are being forced to attend school with animals and it’s white teens and young adults who, because they can’t afford a car, are forced to share the buses and trains with savages.
As if this is not bad enough, white youth is punished for the sins of NAM (non-Asian minority) youth. For example, the Portland leftist rag The Willamette Weekly writes (July 4, 2012 in a piece called “Teenage Wasteland”):

Portland is a paradise with cool bands, no cover and cheap drinks – if you can get past the bouncer’s flashlight.
It’s not so kind to the underage.
Cops are on the lookout for packs of kids brawling in Laurelhurst Park. The Gresham MAX station blares classical music to deter loiterers. The city might ban skateboards from some streets.

“Laurelhurst Park”… that name rings a bell. Ah yes! That’s the park where a pack of feral niggers (I’ll use the technical term here since white “youth” is the topic of this post) were beating up whites. How convenient for the Willamette to forget this detail. Is the Gresham MAX station blaring classical music in order to repel white youngsters? I doubt it. But white kids do skateboard. They had to throw something in that is relevant to whites.
Are cops targeting black kids at Laurelhurst Park? Woe be to them if they do; we’d never hear the end of it! That would be RACISM!
Are our nation’s cities plagued by gangs of white youths wreaking havoc and mayhem in their wake? Hardly. It’s black and Hispanic youth committing the crime. And yet the law cannot distinguish, when enforcing curfew laws, between violent gangs of NAM’s and harmless white kids. Police officers, using whatever common sense they are allowed, will make this distinction on occasion. But this use of common sense is frowned upon:

Are curfews racist?
Not inherently, but usually they turn out to be. Curfew laws give a great amount of discretion to police officers, which for reasons we won’t get into here, often leads to racist enforcement of curfew laws. Curfew laws are heavily enforced in black neighborhoods, but not as much in white neighborhoods. Likewise white youth are less likely to be stopped by police than black youth. Because of this, the rate of arrest for blacks in 2000 was 71% higher than that for whites.

There is no comment option at “NYRA”, so we are unable to inform the author that black neighborhoods experience much higher crime rates than other neighborhoods – and that these crimes are (get ready for this…) committed by blacks. Police officers figure this out fairly quickly and thus, they become “racists”. Yes, knowledge and experience will make you racist.

Most readers of this blog are already aware of the tragic cost, in blood, that whites pay for “diversity”. Let us not forget that whites, even when they survive to adulthood, often have their youth stolen from them as well.

Posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence, examples of propaganda | 25 Comments

Intimate Voices from the First World War

Posted on July 10, 2012 by jewamongyou

I just finished reading “Intimate Voices from the First World War“, edited by Svetlana Palmer and Sarah Wallis. To say I was impressed would be an understatement. Yes, I am a sentimental person – but few books have jerked tears from my eyes like this one. The letters, and diary entries, are expertly selected, translated and intertwined together into a majestic portrait of that terrible war as experienced by the people most touched by it.
Not long ago, I had read History of the World War, in which one passage, in particular, stood out in my mind (pg. 32):

Millions of gallant, eager youths learned how to die fearlessly and gloriously. They died to teach the vandal nations that never-more will humanity permit the exploitation of peoples for militaristic purposes.

But Intimate Voices provides a more realistic view of that war. For example, here is one letter by Russian soldier Vasily Mishnin (pg. 39):

I have to go and relieve the guard under the cover of fire that’s pouring on to the enemy trenches. My heart pounds, it is a terrifying thing to walk to your death. The seven of us climb out of our trench and go up to the barbed wire boundary. We find a hole in it and crawl through it like cats. Bullets and shells keep flying out of the German trenches, lighting up our position. We get to the guard post, let the previous lot off duty and take their places. It is frightening even to sit or lie down here – the rifle is shaking in my hands. My hand comes down on something black: it turns out there are corpses here that haven’t been cleared away. My hair stands on end. I have to sit down. There is no point in staring into the distance – it is pitch dark. All I can feel is fear. I am so frightened of the shells that I want the ground to open up and swallow me…
I leave my post and climb into my dugout. It is packed, everyone is shaking and asking again and again, ‘What’s going on? What’s going on?’ One explosion follows another, and another. Two lads are running, shouting out for nurses. They are covered in blood. It is running down their cheeks and hands, and something else is dripping from underneath their bandages. They’re soon dead, shot to pieces. There is screaming, yelling, the earth is shaking from artillery fire and our dugout is rocking from side to side like a boat.
The explosions come nearer and nearer. The injured from the 1st Company arrive and crawl into our dugout crazed and in agony, so we drop all our gear and try to crawl out, to run away – somewhere, anywhere. And at that moment a shell flies right into our dugout and my mates Kozhukhin and Blinov, who’d just crawled out, stand staring at it, as if they’d gone out of their minds.
We are running, but God knows where. Our CO had run off to the forest. I suppose he thought it was safer in there. As if. None of us can understand what’s going on. Everyone is trembling. We crouch down on the ground in silence, then when a shell bursts right around our ears we move on.
Samoudrikhin and I scramble into a peasant hut. We press ourselves against a wall, sit down and wipe our eyes. Our eyes are full of tears, we wipe them away, but they just keep coming because the shells are full of gas. We are terrified. Samoudrikhin and I lie face down and we just want to dig ourselves into the earth. Under our breath we pray to our Lord God to save us from this, just for this one day…

Tragedy brought home

We read about the blooming romance between a young German girl, Piete Kuhr, and a German lieutenant, Werner Waldecker. On their last date, he tried to kiss her – but she wouldn’t let him, even though she secretly wanted the kiss. That kiss was never to come, for we read (pg. 254):

When I entered the classroom, Greta Daluge and Trude Jakobi were parting from each other. They had shocked faces and were quite embarrassed. I asked, ‘What’s the matter?’ Trude Jakobi stammered. ‘Don’t you know? Werner Waldecker has crashed.’ ‘Dead?’ ‘Yes. Dead. He was going to go over to Bielefeld tomorrow. To his mother.’ All she knew was that Waldecker had taken off from the airfield that morning and had crashed soon afterwards. I picture his face, his flashing eyes, the wisps of fair hair. Is all that shattered, broken to bits, smeared with blood, his skull in pieces? What am I to do now? How can I hide my feelings from all the people, from Grandma, Willi, Androwski, my friends?

Even more poignant are the last diary entries of Austrian officer Virgilio Bonamore. He wrote (pg. 155):

I slept badly. I have a terrible feeling that something will happen to me. I saw myself lying pale like a dead man on a stretcher. My mother and sister stood over me. They kissed me and shed floods of tears.

Only four days later (pg. 156) he wrote:

It is enough to drive you insane. Dead, wounded, massive losses. This is the end. Unprecedented slaughter, a horrific bloodbath. There is blood everywhere and the dead and bits of bodies lie scattered about so that…

The editors explain (pg. 157):

The diary breaks off here in mid-sentence as the Austrian officer unknowingly records the moment of his own death. A Hungarian officer finds the body when the firing dies down at the end of that day, adding to the diary underneath the Austrian’s last words: ‘I found this diary in the hand of a dead officer on the Doberdo plateau: God bless him.’

Humanity shines through

Many readers are no doubt familiar with the Christmas truces that were observed on the Western Front during WWI. According to one of the letters in “Intimate Voices”, there was at least one such truce on the Eastern Front as well. From a diary entry by Josef Tomann, writing of the brutal siege of Przemysl by the Russians (pg. 77):

On Christmas morning our scouts found three Christmas trees the Russians had left in no-man’s land with notes that said something like: ‘We wish you, the heroes of Przemysl, a Merry Christmas and hope that we can come to a peaceful agreement as soon as possible.’ There was a truce on Christmas Day, they neither attacked, nor fired.

The Russian soldiers make a neighing sound whenever they see our troops, as they know we are forced to eat horsemeat in the fortress. A few days ago one of our patrols found a note they’d left us, showing where the potato and cabbage fields were and saying they would stop shooting while we fetched some food. It was true! When our soldiers went over, the Russians shot two blanks high into the air, just to let them know they’d seen them. The next day we all went for some more.

Unfortunately, according to the diary of Polish woman Helena Jablonska, this kindness did not extend to the Jews, who were brutalized by the occupying Cossack troops.

“Intimate Voices” is graced with photos of some of the people whose diaries and letters make up the book. The editors went through the trouble of researching biographical information about these people and, where possible, tell us about the remainder of their lives. There is also a short description of the political fates of each major player in the war and how it impacted the rest of the century. Even how it shaped the world we live in today.

It is ironic that those few years of brutality, disease, suffering and death could be brought so much to life within the 375 pages of this book. Needless to say, I strongly recommend this book!

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links | 5 Comments