Thank you Gay State Girl

Posted on February 16, 2012 by jewamongyou

After I was attacked on Robert Linday’s blog, Gay State Girl came to my defense.  This is some of what she wrote:

If you delve deeper into JAY’s blog, you’ll find out that he is quite sympathetic to the Palestinians-and he reserves his biting rhetoric for Blacks and Latinos, (which is contradictory in itself as he also claims their behaviors are inate) my emphasis…

Thank you Gay State Girl.  Now let me address the “contradiction” in my approach.
Yes, I believe genetics has a role in behavior, and that the responsible genes/alleles are not evenly distributed among human populations.  This much should not even be controversial.  It would take an act of God to see to it that humanity was uniform in this respect.  It also would not make any sense, given the huge variation in environments that humans have adapted to.
But I do not believe that humans are automatons with no free will, or that they lack responsibility for their own actions.  For example, my own genetics cause me to be attracted to that beautiful woman I see walking down the street.  Yet I do not pounce on her and have my way with her.  This is because I am intelligent enough to understand both morality and consequences.  Even if my I.Q. were 85, I would still be able to restrain myself.  This is why even the not-so-bright are punished for their crimes.  People who are truly mentally retarded are not held responsible for their crimes; they are held to the same moral standard as animals.
Most blacks and Hispanics are not mentally retarded.  They have the ability to make choices.  We understand that, since they tend to be less intelligent than whites and Asians, on average they will make poorer choices than the latter.  But this does not absolve individuals from responsibility. Our genes help define who we are.  They give us strengths and challenges.  It is up to each of us to make the best of our lot.  Therefore, we have the right to praise, or condemn, others based on their choices.
Furthermore, there are enough bright people within the black and Hispanic communities to serve as leaders.  These leaders should take the weaknesses of their respective groups into consideration.  A true leader understands his people and keeps their best interest in mind.  Black leaders should be encouraging blacks to pursue livelihoods that fit their skills and aptitudes.  Instead, they tell their flock that every single one of them is Ivy League material.
Hispanic leaders should be looking at what makes white societies so successful and such a pleasure to live in.  Then they should urge Hispanics to be more like whites in those respects.  Instead, they tell their flock that the U.S. should be a part of Mexico.  If Mexicans come here for “a better life”, then this is the exact opposite of what they should be advocating.
But our grievance is also against the powerful people who deny us the right to live among our own.  Even if nature has condemned black and Hispanic societies to be less desirable than white ones, whites would not end up suffering from them if not for the forced integration policies that have been put in place.  We need to place the blame, for these policies, where it belongs and work to change them.  So, when I direct my “biting rhetoric” at blacks and Hispanics, it’s not that I care about how they run their own societies.  It’s because I resent the fact that we are not allowed to separate from them and enjoy our own.

Posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 16 Comments

Those dastardly Mormons

Posted on February 15, 2012 by jewamongyou

Human stupidity sent me an interesting story (he sends me a lot of stuff) about how the Mormons have apologized for posthumously baptizing Jewish Holocaust survivors:

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Mormon church leaders apologized to the family of Holocaust survivor and Jewish rights advocate Simon Wiesenthal after his parents were posthumously baptized, a controversial ritual that Mormons believe allows deceased people a way to the afterlife but offends members of many other religions.

Wiesenthal died in 2005 after surviving the Nazi death camps and spending his life documenting Holocaust crimes and hunting down perpetrators who remained at large. Jews are particularly offended by an attempt to alter the religion of Holocaust victims, who were murdered because of their religion, and the baptism of Holocaust survivors was supposed to have been barred by a 1995 agreement.

Yet records indicate Wiesenthal’s parents, Asher and Rosa Rapp Wiesenthal, were baptized in proxy ceremonies performed by Mormon church members at temples in Arizona and Utah in late January.

In a statement, the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced the baptismal rites.

“We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon temples,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean at the center.

The church immediately apologized, saying it was the actions of an individual member of church — whom they did not name — that led to the submission of Wiesenthal’s name.

“We sincerely regret that the actions of an individual member of the church led to the inappropriate submission of these names,” Michael Purdy, a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement issued Monday. “We consider this a serious breach of our protocol and we have suspended indefinitely this person’s ability to access our genealogy records.”

“Outraged”, “insensitive” and “apologized” seem to be all-to-common words these days.  Why stop at being “outraged”?  Why not use boiling oil, testicle-crushers and toe- screws on those evil Mormons?  How dare they desecrate the names of Holocaust victims by using them in their private ceremonies!  Apologies?  How about posthumous circumcisions (by a bearded rabbi) on all deceased Mormons. Take ’em out of their graves and posthumously circumcise them, even the ones who are still alive!  That’ll show ’em!!
Or better yet:  Yawn and bake some hamentashen.  Hamentashen, according to Jewish folklore, commemorate the failure of Haman (in the Book of Esther) to kill all the Jews.  Now that was something to be worried about.  Yes, I would worry about somebody wanting to kill all the Jews (even a few of us).  I would not worry about somebody “posthumously baptizing” some Holocaust survivors.  Somehow, I doubt the actual “victims” would have been all too worried about it either.
As a token of goodwill, I’ll allow the Mormons to posthumously baptize me too – for a fee of course.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 17 Comments

Should "white" be capitalized?

Posted on February 14, 2012 by jewamongyou

I was recently attacked, at American Renaissance, for not capitalizing “white” in the context of the white race.  Here is the thread in question:

Me: Here’s a bizarre twist:  The “mainstream media” is reporting this!  I saw it on Yahoo news. But don’t hold your breath and expect them to report black on white mayhem.  After all, a profanity-laced comment by a celebrity is far more important than a few thousand white and Asian lives ruined due to black violence.
Anon: Capitalize White if you are going to capitalize “Asian”.
Me: “Asian” means a person from the continent of Asia.  So, even though we often use the term in a more narrow sense, it has become convention to capitalize the word.  “White”, “black” and “brown”, on the other hand, are colors.  Colors are not capitalized, so the convention is to use lower-case even for ethnicities that derive their names from those colors.  If I were to capitalize “white”, then I’d also have to capitalize “black”.  Yet I don’t see you insisting that I capitalize “black”, nor is it considered correct to capitalize “brown” when referring to Mexicans, Indians etc.
Juggernaut: The term “brown” is not used by the media to refer to a people group because it is considered demeaning.  It is either “Hispanic” or “Mexican-American.”  Both capitalized.  I doubt a single media outlet anywhere allows the term “brown” to be used in reference to Hispanics.
“African-American” is the preferred term for blacks in the media.  I have seen nothing else used in higher education.  Note the capitalization.
The term “Indian” is rarely used, the pc term is “Native-American,” which the media use solely.  I doubt there’s a single style book left that suggests “Indian” be used instead of  Native American .  Ditto higher education.   Always capitalized.
“white” (uncapitalized) is used by the media to demean Whites as a people group.  Please start capitalizing it.  The word “Jewish” used in reference to people is never left uncapitalized.
The style manuals of  the American Psychological Association, the venerable Chicago Manual of Style, and the University of Pittsburgh all say to capitalize White.
Me: I see your point.  But I also notice that you don’t capitalize “blacks”.  I’m looking for consistency.

The general consensus, in the wider world of English language “authorities” seems to support what I wrote.  For example, this is from the Helium guidelines:

RACE
Capitalize names of races (African-American, Caucasian, Asian, Native American), but do not capitalize “black” or “white” when referring to race. See also Sensitivities (page 12).

Obviously, “African-American” is the P.C. substitute for the more accurate “Negro”; we wouldn’t describe the president of Ghana as “African-American.  “Negro”, according to this, should be capitalized.  Helium’s guidelines are based upon those of the Associated Press, which state that capitalization is to be used for…

ethnic groups:
–
The preferred usage for African Americans is “black.” The term is not capitalized.
–
Preferred usage for Caucasians is “white,” also not capitalized.
–
Preferred usage for Asian people is “Asian,” capitalized. Please note that in British usage the term applies only to people of the Indian Subcontinent.
–
“American Indian,” capitalized with no hyphen, is preferred over “Native American.”

However, other sources are unclear about this.  For example:

Capitalize the names of religions, races, and nationalities
Example:
Iranian (nationality)
African-American (race)
Muslim (religion)

So, if we’re using the word “white”, or “black” as the name of a race, then perhaps it should be capitalized.  I would add that even if “white” is not being used to describe a race, but an ethnic group (such as American Whites), it would still be capitalized.  After all, as Juggernaut points out, “Jewish” is always capitalized.  Similarly, “Gypsy” and “Roma” are capitalized because it is an established ethnic group.  “Jewish” is capitalized not only by virtue of being an established ethnic group, but also because Jews originally came from “Judea”, which was a (capitalized) nation.  “Asians” come from “Asia”, which is a (capitalized) continent.  Whites come, primarily, from Europe – and “European” is capitalized just like “Asian”.  Blacks come, primarily, from Africa – and “African” is also capitalized.
We live in a transitional era where “white” does not exactly refer to race, nor does it exactly refer to an ethnic group.  “White” can be either a description or the name of a race, depending on context and who is doing the writing.  In our era, whites are a people in the making, as I have pointed out elsewhere.  Since “white” and “black” can mean many things during this transition, there is much confusion.
I think consistency is important.  So, if we are to capitalize “White”, we should also capitalize “Black”.  By bringing them to the New World as slaves, early Americans began the formation of a new ethnicity:  The American Black ethnicity.  With the founding of America, two new nations were conceived.  Some would say more.
As it stands, whether to capitalize “white” and “black” should be up to individual discretion.  Thus far, I have chosen to use lower-case.  If it makes my fellow pro-whites happy, I would gladly switch to upper-case.  However, if I do so, I’ll be using upper-case for “black” as well.  I don’t see the point in getting into a “capitalization war” where people capitalize only their own race; that would be silly.

Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 16 Comments

Don't dam the river of knowledge

Posted on February 13, 2012 by jewamongyou

I have some enemies out there.  People who disagree with things I have written.  Well here’s an interesting tidbit:  Even I don’t always agree with the things I have written.  Yes, I sometimes change my mind.  I sometimes write things in order to get people to think, to question what they believe they already know.  I often do so for myself, to help myself develop new neural pathways and keep my mind young.  Blogging is therapeutic.
An ongoing question for me is whether or not I should go back and delete the posts I have had second thoughts about.  Commenters have sometimes raised good objections to what I have written.  On one or two occasions, I have deleted posts that were clearly unfounded.
But there are two types of people in this world:  “Lake people” and “river people”.  Lake people float about, on the waters of knowledge, with no direction.  They drift wherever the winds of fashion nudge them.  At the end of their lives, they are better at floating – but they missed out on the journey of wisdom.
River people have purpose, and an objective, to their floating.  Sometimes the river flows vigorously and all they need to do is lay back and enjoy the ride.  Sometimes the river is sluggish and they must row.  They must often navigate around boulders and logs.  Dangerous fish and crocodiles inhabit the waters and the river people must be wary of them.
The river never ends.  There is no final destination where a river person can rest and say, “I have finally reached my goal”.  This is fortunate – for the satisfaction is in the journey itself, not in its conclusion.
I like to think of myself as a river person.  This blog is a chronicle of my journey.  It’s a chronicle of the journeys of all those who comment as well.
So, to the people who condemn me for having bumped into a log or boulder on occasion, I say:  “Go ahead and enjoy your lake.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

"White privilege": The power of an illusion

Posted on February 12, 2012 by jewamongyou

All informed Americans know, by now, that we live in B.R.A. – Black Run America.  If you are black, you get first dibs on almost everything.  If you are white, you get leftovers if you are lucky.  This is how the system is set up, and this is how it has been for quite some time.  I won’t list the evidence in this post; it’s readily available to anybody willing to spend a few minutes a day reading American Renaissance or any similar site.
A scientist recently lost his job for publishing the obvious:  That black women are less attractive than white women, and white women less attractive than Asian women.  Kanazawa may lack diplomacy, but it is hard to deny that black women are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to attractiveness.
There is some dispute regarding black men though.  I have claimed that, all else being equal, black men have an advantage.  I am not alone in making this claim:

During the study, the researchers found that white people tend to choose other races when asked to rate which faces they find most attractive.

Men and women aged between 18 and 30 were shown 600 faces of the opposite sex and asked to grade them for attractiveness.
The women tended to go for black male faces, followed by white and then Asian.
Men plumped for Asian women, followed by white, then black.
The Department of Psychology at Cardiff University, which carried out the study, said that the results of their research are reflected in society.
Government figures show around one-and-a-half times more black men marrying white women than the other way around in the UK.
More white men have also been found to marry East Asian women – compared to Asian men marrying white women.
“It will come as no surprise to many that facial attractiveness makes up part of the decision of who we marry,” the Daily Mail quoted Michael Lewis, the study leader as saying.

“And it’s no coincidence that groups perceived as more attractive – black males and Asian females — feature more often in mixed-race marriages.

Given the media bias that favors black men and white women, there is some doubt as to whether the above preferences are innate or learned.  I think it’s a combination of the two.
Statistically speaking, white and Asian men have an edge due to their higher intelligence and overall more responsible behavior.  What about the myth of “white privilege”?  Might that also steer women toward white men – and isn’t this something we should want?  After all, women are attracted to men of higher social standing.  So perhaps it’s not such a good idea to try to educate the public about the second-class status of whites in the Western world; maybe a better strategy would be to allow them to go on believing in “white privilege”.  If young women were aware of the benefits of being black, even more of them would flock to black men.  Single white men need all the help they can get, so it may be in their interest to let the charade go on.
 
 

Posted in miscegenation | 39 Comments

The Stark Truth interviews jewamongyou (again)

Posted on February 9, 2012 by jewamongyou

Listen to the latest interview here.

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

Finding the right balance

Posted on February 8, 2012 by jewamongyou

Every time a person commits to a cause, he must strike a balance.  A balance between the various layers of morality that sometimes contradict each other, a balance between violence and diplomacy, and a balance between his own personal interests and those of his community.
With the 2012 American Renaissance conference only five weeks away, we should bear in mind that none of us can accomplish much on our own.  We need like-minded people to help us attain our goals.  I am not attending the conference in order to hear the speeches, though I’m sure they’ll be interesting.  I will not regret my decision if only 50 people show up instead of the 200+ we’ve had in the past.  My primary motivation is to meet like-minded people face to face, to make new friends and to be a part of something greater than myself.
With that I’ll share a short animation I just found.  Some of you may have seen it before.  It’s called “Balance”:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBMimsvTKI&w=420&h=315]

Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 1 Comment

Affirmative action for math-challenged women

Posted on February 6, 2012 by jewamongyou

If you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer and you’re a white male, then you’re just a “dumb person” with few rights or privileges.  But if you’re also a “minority” or female, then this works to your advantage.  “Affirmative action” is a polite way of saying, “Not the best qualified, but we can use this person to keep the diversity gestapo at bay.”  If you are a white male who happens to be of superior ability, then you have little to worry about; affirmative action was not designed to victimize you.  It was designed to victimize white males who are less than brilliant in their respective fields, i.e. most of the rest of us.
Affirmative action for women is nothing new, but human stupidity (who sends me a lot of stuff) has brought my attention to a more novel way to persecute white men:  Affirmative action for women in math tests.  From the link he sent me:

Affirmative action for women in math contests boosts participation without dropping results

Despite advances in many areas, women are still underrepresented in the upper levels of corporations, electoral politics, and some scientific research fields. This lack of parity is all the more striking because, in much of the developed world, women’s educational achievements have surpassed those of men. (In 2009 in the United States, 57 percent of currently enrolled students were female, a trend that has been fairly stable over several decades.) This imbalance has been ascribed to two factors: continuing gender discrimination, and lower desire for competitiveness among women.
Focusing on the competitiveness aspect, a new study indicates that policy-based initiatives can increase women’s participation and competitiveness in math and the quality of the resulting work. The particular experiment performed by Loukas Balafoutas and Matthias Sutter, released February 2 by Science, involved three methods that provided an initial advantage to women in a math competition. The authors found that, in each case, women entered the competitions more readily, but the aggregate performance of the participants was unaffected, and sometimes even improved.
The common feature in all three methods is an affirmative action approach: the active promotion of the underrepresented group. Passive methods (such as increasing potential rewards for everyone) do improve participation by women, but they also improve men’s performance as well, which leaves the gender gap in place. Affirmative action, on the other hand, not only changes the odds of success by women, but (according to the authors of a related study) also increases their confidence and willingness to compete in the first place…
Left unexplained is why it is a bad thing if women are “underrepresented” in certain fields.  A commenter points out that there doesn’t seem to be much concern that men are underrepresented in traditionally female fields.  I would add that there doesn’t seem to be any concern that women are largely absent from fields such as garbage collection and mining.
While there is nothing wrong with trying to boost the participation of women in certain professions, if we might be missing out on important talent, I still don’t understand why it is a bad thing that there are gender gaps.  It doesn’t seem to bother most people that men are physically stronger than women, so why would it be a problem if there are more male math-geniuses than female ones?
Predictably, most of the comments call a spade a spade and don’t fall for the obvious double-speak.  One commenter, who calls himself Dr Jay (no relation), tries to justify the practice by writing:

I think people are getting hung up on “affirmative action” and missing the forest for the trees. The key question you have to ask yourself is the following: what is the purpose of the competition?
If the competition is simply intended to identify whoever scores the best in the competition, then there really isn’t any call for intervention. But if the competition is intended to identify the most talented math students (a situation more analogous to real-world situations like job hunts), then you face an issue. The issue could be best summarized by noting the following two points:
1) Research has provided a pretty compelling indication that math talents are equally divided between the sexes (some of this has been covered by Ars in the past).
2) Participation in math contests is not equally divided between the sexes.
So, a contest without intervention stands a good chance of not identifying the best talent. Providing an inducement that tackles issue 2 is a way of adjusting for that.
Now, there are all sorts of potential subtleties here – maybe you’re looking to fill a job that requires both math skills and competitiveness, etc. – that can influence how important it is to handle issue 2. And there are studies that could be done to clarify exactly what’s happening (the most obvious to me is determining whether women with exceptional talents are more likely to enter competitions). But i think the issues here are more subtle than a lot of people’s reactions to them.

But, by that reasoning (and I’m not convinced his claims are valid), we can just as easily claim that math talent is equally distributed among heterosexuals and homosexuals (proportionally), right-handed people and left-handed people, innies and outies, people who like classic rock and those who prefer heavy metal etc.  Would this mean that we must search out statistical variations between the above groups and then try to remedy them?  Of course not; it all boils down to politics.  Women are considered “oppressed”, therefore we are told we must guarantee them equal outcomes for prestigious positions.
Where will it all end?  it is not hard to foresee a future where smart people are penalized in all academic tests and strong people must wear weights in order to offset their advantage over weak people.  I remember reading a science fiction story about just such a scenario once; it described a world few of us would want to live in.

Posted in nurture vs. nature and I.Q., shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 19 Comments

Some thoughts on "black history month"

Posted on February 4, 2012 by jewamongyou

Alas, “black history month” is upon us.  Otherwise known as “Lies, half-truths and distortions Month”.  As a person who doesn’t watch television, I can go through the entire month without being exposed to any of the above – as long as I avoid all large retail outlets, government offices and educational institutions.
Most of the claims of black inventions are, of course, bogus.  Also, we are not supposed to notice that a large proportion of the noteworthy black individuals we are told about are “light-skinned blacks”.  In other words, they were only partially black.  If an individual shows any negro characteristics, then he is considered “black” by the “one drop rule”.  This being said, to expect all noteworthy American blacks to be pure negroes would be unfair.  After all, how many noteworthy Jews were pure Jews?  Perhaps if the powers that be were balanced in their representation of black history, the rest of us wouldn’t feel the need to straighten a crooked tree by bending it to the other extreme.  In other words, we would have no problem acknowledging the achievements of blacks in Western history.
But there simply are not very many notable blacks, outside of sports, entertainment and politics, who would be called “negro” by an unbiased person.  But here, as is so often the case, we are fooled by words.  “Black” can mean many things.  In the U.S., it can mean “negro” or it can refer to an ethnic group that is largely negro in origin.  Thus, a person can be predominantly Caucasian by race, but “black” by ethnicity.  “African-American”, it has been claimed, only refers to ethnicity and not race – but it has plenty of its own problems.  For example, can a Caucasian child, adopted by an “African-American” family, call himself “African American”?  Would a college, university or government accept such an identification?  Probably not.  Would an American negro child, adopted by a white family and behaving like a white in every way, not be good enough to fill a quota?  Obviously, this is not the case.
Those who deny the biological reality of race typically ignore the distinction between “race” and “ethnicity” when it suits their purposes.  They consider Eric Holder to be “black”, and defend their position by claiming that society forces him to be black because he cannot pass as white in our “racist society”.  Hence, race is a “social construct” in their eyes.  In fact, ethnicity is a social construct, not race – but they conveniently ignore the distinction.  By doing so, they are able to include a lot of mixed-race inventors, authors and scientists in their lists of “notable blacks”.
When told that blacks are not as intelligent as whites or Asians, on average, they then point to their artificially inflated list and say, “This list proves that you are wrong!  Can’t you see that there are many great black minds?”  In their view, this is evidence that race is only a social construct.  In other words, they socially construct “blacks” to suit their purposes – and then use those self-same “blacks” as evidence that race is a social construct.  A perfect example of circular reasoning.
I have no problem with blacks celebrating the accomplishments of other blacks, but “black history month” is not just an expression of ethnic pride; it is also a tool that is used to spread confusion about the nature of race/ethnicity – and it is one of many institutions used to bolster the official cult of black deification in our society.  To reinforce the constant message that blacks are superior to the rest of us.  As such, it is a source of resentment for “lower-caste” ethnicities.

Posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 9 Comments

Leftist bumper-sticker politics

Posted on February 1, 2012 by jewamongyou

Here’s a comic recently posted on Facebook:

The largely leftist audience, on Facebook, reacted with predictable approval.  What is it they approve of?  It could be the stereotype of anybody who opposes immigration as an ignorant white hick.  Or perhaps it’s the assumption that opposition to immigration is based on the idea that only those whose ancestors were here first have a true claim to the land.
Considering that very few, if any, modern populations are descended from the original inhabitants of what they now call “home”, the second assumption would necessarily mean that there is no true “home” for any nationality or ethnic group.  Hence – a world without borders.  This is obviously a goal of the establishment Left.  I happen to think life is very pleasant in Samoa.  Would the Left agree that I, and millions of others like me, have every right to move to Samoa?  What would happen to the native culture if we did?  Perhaps the establishment Left would make some qualifications, for example that unlimited immigration should only be allowed into large, “concept nations” such as the U.S. or Canada.  If so, then they must surely oppose such immigration into countries like Sweden – but I have yet to hear of any leftist expressing such an objection.  All indications are that the Left is unanimous that any objection to large-scale non-white immigration into Sweden is “racist”.
No, I think what we have here is a straw-man argument.  We do not oppose large-scale non-white immigration because of any fantasy that “we were here first”.  We are well aware that Native Americans were here first.  Does the Left truly believe we are so ignorant as to be unaware of this fact?  I doubt it.
At this point in human history it is pointless, in most cases, to try to figure out “who was here first” and then give their descendants special rights.  furthermore, very few “Native Americans” today look anything like the one depicted in the comic; many of them sport blond hair and blue eyes.  They are just as much Caucasian as Native American – but it is more advantageous for them to claim their Native American heritage as their own, so that’s what they do.  But not all of them; many of the “white hicks” the Left loves making fun of happen to have Native American blood flowing through their veins.  As a matter of fact, I’d be willing to wager that “rednecks” are, on average, more Native American than leftists.  Put another way, leftists are probably more white than rednecks.
If we don’t care about who was here first, then what do we care about?  We care about whose civilization built this nation.  As it turns out, it was not Africans who built this nation, though admittedly their forced labor was helpful to some.  It was not Mexicans or mestizos who built the nation we now call “The United States of America”. It was not the Chinese, though admittedly their labor was helpful to some.  It was whites from Europe who built this nation and it is their descendants who represent a continuation of that culture.
Except in sports or entertainment, the black contribution to America was negligible.  Those who have been brainwashed, by the public school system and the media, into believing otherwise would do well to google “black invention myths” or watch this YouTube series.  Mexican immigrants are largely Native American, this is true.  But the tribes they are descended from had their homes in what is now Mexico, not the United States.
Though the Native American tribes, and their descendants, made very few contributions to what is now called “The United States”, I am not aware of anybody who denies their right to be here; after all, being here first does count for something.  It could be said that they have “squaw-ting rights”.
In short, the much-acclaimed above comic is representative of typical leftist tactics:  Stereotype the opposition, misrepresent its argument and then make fun of it.  Try to tell them otherwise and they’ll plug their ears and loudly chant, “RAA-CIST… RAAA-CIST!”

Posted in examples of propaganda, immigration/ Hispanics, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 15 Comments