S.W.P.L. – Saving whales

Posted on July 6, 2011 by jewamongyou

What is it that arouses the sympathies of people (especially leftists) toward animals?  Whales are held in the highest regard, as we see from this video:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBYPlcSD490&w=425&h=349]
What if somebody made a similar video (with the same dramatic narrative) – about his success in rescuing a sardine from a net.  Instead of being awed, viewers would laugh.  When my mother asked me what I thought of the video, which had been circulating through the family, I replied, “I guess size matters when it comes to animals”.  Then I asked her if she would be similarly impressed by a video of a sardine rescue.  She laughed.
Americans eat sardines by the million and think nothing of it.  Even vegetarians eat sardines and think nothing of it.  If we were to confront a sardine-eating vegetarian, and ask him why he allows himself to eat the flesh of this creature – and why he considers the life of a sardine worth less than the life of a dolphin, he might give one of these answers:

“And I’d rather kill a cow than a human but that doesn’t mean I have to do either. Why do other animals have a right to life but fish don’t? Most animals that we eat like cows are incredibly stupid, I doubt they really have that much more self awareness than a fish. Plus fish still feel pain as far as I know. It seems quite arbitrary to have fish as the cut off point, why not include all animals that can feel pain?”
“I follow a pescetarian diet but I do it for health reasons. I have been thinking about cutting out all fish for a while now for ethical reasons and I was trying to think of justification for eating fish but not all other animals and I couldn’t find any.”
“You don’t have to do either, no, but I don’t mind people doing what’s practical for them as long as they are doing something. I’m vegetarian but not vegan because it’s not practical for me at the moment. I’m okay with that. Some people will be pescatarian but not vegetarian because it’s not practical for them to be vegetarian at that time. Some people might eat meat less often. None of it is pointless because it’s better than nothing. You can give £10 to charity when you could easily give another £10 and it’s still a good thing to do even if you could do more.
“I think fish are less capable of emotions like fear, a sense of loss at losing their babies etc., and are less self-aware than mammals. Humans can see certain emotions in mammals that they can’t see in fish. It doesn’t mean that fish don’t suffer, but they probably suffer less.””
“I think it’s quite easy to see where the line can be drawn. Fruit and vegetables don’t have central nervous systems, they don’t feel pain, they don’t feel anything. They don’t know who their ‘children’ are and they probably don’t care. It’s impossible to harm a fruit or vegetable.
A lot of animals kept for consumption aren’t really kept in very good conditions for any of their lives because its expensive to give them good living conditions. Free range is okay but it’s expensive. I went to an abattoir once and it actually traumatised me, it was horrible and the animals were really agitated. It was like they could sense what was coming, they were all just lined up waiting to be herded in and shot. It’s that that puts me off eating meat. I actually wouldn’t mind eating meat if I went along to a farm and someone just went out and picked a cow/chicken whatever and just killed it quickly.”

The underlying theme seems to be a goal to minimize suffering.   Since fish (apparently) don’t experience as much pain as mammals, it is therefore more acceptable to catch, and eat them.  Sardines are assumed to experience little, or no, pain.  Whales do appear to experience pain.  Larger mammals have been observed exhibiting human-like behaviors such as joy or mourning.  The large lizards and crocodiles can live a long time – but they do not arouse our sympathies because they are not like us.  Their cold eyes and their cold blood seem alien to us.  But more importantly, they are dangerous to us.  It is difficult to feel a connection with a creature that would think nothing of tearing us to shreds and devouring us.  The large tortoises, posing no danger to us – but who live a long time – do arouse our sympathy somewhat.

If we don’t count pets or livestock, then we might come up with a list of priorities that help determine whether we are likely to feel a connection with an animal:
1)  Intelligent (assumed to go hand-in-hand with the potential for suffering)
2)  Similar to us (preferably a mammal)
3)  Large (not a bug or microbe)
4)  Pleasing to the eye (butterflies and ladybugs)
5)  Useful to us
6)  Not particularly dangerous to us
The left is used to seeing things in black and white.  It lacks the ability to see shades of grey or to allow for fine distinctions.  The mind of the leftist is dominated by boundaries.  His most sacred boundary is, of course, the line between human and non-human.  All the distinctions listed above, that apply to animals, lose their importance when dealing with humans.
1)  He will not value the life of a less intelligent human more than that of a more intelligent one (not that we should either, when dealing with individuals).
2)  He will not value the life of a large human over a small one (not that we should either).
3)  He will deny that any humans are more, or less, similar to himself to the degree where he would value one over the other (allowance is made for his own family of course).
4)  He sees no difference in degree of beauty between a Bantu and a Japanese (or so he says… in practice, he will much more likely take a Japanese wife than a Bantu one).
5)  He is careful to remain ignorant as to racial differences in achievement.
6)  He is careful to remain ignorant as to racial differences in crime.
Obviously not all of the criteria, listed above, should be applied to how we value other humans, either as individuals or as groups.  There is no reason for us to value large humans over small ones – except for women, who care first and foremost about an eligible man’s height and sports teams.  As for intelligence, obviously there are other factors that help us determine how much we value another individual.  But, when it comes to groups of people, we will always value the more intelligent over the less intelligent – unless we intend to use them only as slaves.
If I were given a choice between two populations, both of whom wish to immigrate to my country, I would use all the above criteria (except for size) in my decision.  Who, in his right mind, would disagree?  Would you rather have the dangerous group come to your country or the safe one?  The more intelligent one or the less intelligent one?  The one that is similar to the native population or the one that is very different?  It is important to remember that, in this scenario, we cannot judge each potential immigrant as an individual; all we have is general information about them.
Leftists tend to be as rational as the rest of us when choosing their favorite animals – but when it comes to humans, they turn into blundering idiots.  They realize, subconsciously, that there are racial differences, but their urge to deny this forces them to reach conclusions that are the opposite of reality.  They end up favoring the least desirable races (at least verbally) and disdaining the more desirable ones.  Perhaps by doing this, they imagine they are doing a good deed by giving a crutch to those who were shortchanged by nature.

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 1 Comment

European dark beauty – from the Middle East?

Posted on July 5, 2011 by jewamongyou

Seed of Japheth recently wrote about “genetic theft”:

… Genetic theft is when a race acquires some genetic material of another race, the amount of genetic material gained is a small enough amount so that the genetic material of the other race can be assimilated into the gene pool without the racial integrity of the race doing the assimilating being threatened.
Genetic material refers to sperm of the male and ovum of the female.
A question arises, should white people engage in genetic theft of their own and at what point is it a good idea to accept someone into the fold of the white race?

Though it might be argued that lower-quality whites (“white trash”) would benefit from an infusion of Asian blood, these are not the sort of whites we find doing so.  As Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray explain in “The Bell Curve“, like attracts like.  Thus, it is not the chain-smoking, beer guzzling, foul-mouthed trashy whites who end up marrying Asians (unless it’s trashy Asians).  Rather, it is those who stand to gain the least from such liaisons:  The successful, intellectual elites.  I don’t think it’s a good idea to encourage miscegenation among whites, at least not on any large scale.  Does anybody encourage the Spotted Owl to mix with the Barred Owl?  As for who should be considered “white”, I have already written about this.
But I found myself thinking along the lines of Seed of Japheth recently.  I was at a social event and was chatting with a certain fellow.  The man’s appearance was exceptional, with thick eyebrows and sharp features.  If I were a woman, I’d say he was handsome.  As for his young daughter, it was obvious that she’s going to blossom into an stunningly beautiful woman.  Our conversation drifted to DNA testing and he mentioned that his test showed some Yemeni heritage.  He was under the impression that there might be some Jewish blood in his family.  I told him it is more likely that one of the Yemeni soldiers (Yemen always participated mightily in the Arab wars of conquest) had left his DNA in France before the Arabs/Moors were turned back by Charles Martel.  In any event, this conversation reminded me of a pet theory I’d had since childhood – that some of the more exotic features, found in trace amounts among the darker-haired peoples of Europe (and, perhaps, their dark hair itself), have their roots in the Middle East.  These features often make for very good-looking people.
There was a guy at my high school (not the ghetto high school, but the mostly white one) who was known as “the Jew”.  He wasn’t Jewish, but he looked like he could be.  Nobody would call him that around me, because they knew I was a real Jew and they feared offending me.  In any event, since that time, I’d always assumed that the darker features of some Europeans had come from the Middle East during the Neolithic migrations that accompanied the spread of agriculture.  I will not begrudge the Nordics their beauty, but there is also beauty of the dark-haired/dark-eyed variety.  The contrast between light skin and dark hair/eyes has its own appeal.  If this combination dates from Neolithic migrations from the Middle East, then this could be described as “genetic theft” and whites could be said to have benefited from it – at least aesthetically.
On a related note, check out this  interesting article on the mutation that causes ultra-light skin among Europeans (SLC24A5).  It’s possible/likely that Southern Europeans, lacking this mutation, simply retained the pigmentation of the original Europeans.  But we now know that there is a certain percentage of Middle Eastern genes in Europeans, and that this percentage increases as we move South-East from the Baltic toward the Balkans and Turkey.  So, while dark hair and dark eyes may well be indigenous to Europe, the vaguely Middle Eastern features we sometimes find among native Europeans might have arrived later.

Posted in miscegenation, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science, Uncategorized | 18 Comments

Muhammad Ali tells it like it is

Posted on July 4, 2011 by jewamongyou

This is an old video and I hope he hasn’t since changed his mind about these things.  The way he shoots down his white leftist interviewer (a D.W.L.) is priceless (though I would have been happier if he’d also gotten up and smacked him in the face):
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4&w=425&h=349]

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, miscegenation | 13 Comments

Smoking cigarettes can cause your baby to be born black

Posted on July 3, 2011 by jewamongyou

Thanks to Charles for bringing this to my attention.  This MSNBC article highlights new warning labels that cigarette manufacturers will be required to include on their packaging by 2012.  I quote:

One of nine new warning labels cigarette makers will have to use by the fall of 2012. In the most significant change to U.S. cigarette packs in 25 years, the FDA’s the new warning labels depict in graphic detail…

Apparently, MSNBC uses affirmative action employees to do their proofreading.  But beware!  Smoking cigarettes can cause your baby to be born black:
Once he is born black, he is at increased risk for deadly diseases such as AIDS or diabetes.  Jewamongyou recommends pregnant women smoke marijuana instead – if they absolutely must smoke.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Catherine the Great

Posted on July 2, 2011 by jewamongyou

I’ve been reading the biography of Catherine the Great (by Joan Haslip).  Though I am less than half-way through it, I thought I’d share some of my thoughts with the wider public.
I find my self admiring her – for her cunning, patience, determination and the suffering she endured prior to her rise to power.  Here was a woman who knew what she wanted, set her goals high – and achieved them without undue bloodshed.  Her treatment of my ancestors, though not fair, certainly could have been a lot worse.  Nevertheless, the things she did, in order to seize power, might be considered morally questionable today (to put it mildly).
But, compared to Empress Elizabeth (who preceded her – if we disregard her infantile husband, Peter), she was quite merciful.  Empress Elizabeth had found it necessary to incarcerate the infant Czar, Ivan VI in the fortress of Shlusselburg, where he rotted for his entire miserable life.  This dastardly deed was considered acceptable in order to gain power.  Empress Elizabeth was a deeply religious woman.  Apparently, she felt there was no sin in locking an infant in a dungeon for life so that she may rule.  Perhaps “superstitious” would be a more appropriate description of her than “religious”.  For her, religion was no more than one, of many, means to further her advancement and secure her power.
Catherine also shamelessly used religion to fool the masses into thinking she was as sincere in her faith as they were.  We are told about the throngs of peasants, who came to pay their last respects to Empress Elizabeth at her funeral (pg. 108):

Not one of them could fail to notice the veiled woman in black, kneeling at the foot of the bier and apparently so lost in prayer that she seemed unaware of their presence.  It was the new empress, sharing the mourning of the Russian people, kneeling on the cold stone and prostrating herself in prayer like the most fervent of Orthodox believers.  She was there every day and almost all day, a heroic effort for even the healthiest of women, but doubly so for one who was already six months gone with child… but never did she falter, thereby winning the crowds…

Things have not changed much regarding the role of religion in politics.  Politicians still feign devoutness to win over the masses – and it still works.
But Catherine knew tenderness, passion, shame, anger and pity – just like the rest of us.  She was no less human.  In studying this woman, and in asking myself why I admire her, I found myself asking why I have admired the Romans.  Especially given the horrors they perpetrated upon my own people.  Until now, I had never given it much thought; I had simply assumed it was some sort of misplaced nostalgia, romanticism or a holdover from the education of my youth, when Roman civilization was still highly regarded (for their accomplishments and culture) in public schools.
It is possible that all the above is correct – but, in any case, now I have a more legitimate reason:  The Romans – and Catherine the Great – represent a perfection that I, myself, lack.  Having been raised in liberal America, I am flawed.  My flaw is that I care too much about other people.  I am too sensitive and have too much empathy.  I am not the only one; much of Western civilization suffers from this affliction.  If we view, as a continuum, a lack of empathy that progresses toward an overabundance thereof, the question presents itself:  Where, in this continuum, should we strive to stand?  A society composed of sociopaths cannot function.  It should be obvious that too much empathy is also not a good thing.  Clearly, Western society has taken empathy too far, and this excess empathy is leading us to our demise.
What is the optimum amount of empathy?  I do not believe there can be a precise answer to this question, but there surely must be a range, at the middle of the continuum, that is healthy.  Perhaps we can view this in terms of genetic interests.  We should strive for just enough empathy to benefit ourselves and those close to us – but not so much that we worry about outsiders to the detriment of family or clan.  As we move to the right, we pass through an area of  “praiseworthy”, which gradually fades into “foolhardy”.
In a monarchy, like 18th century Russia, a person like Catherine could rise to the top and make a difference for her nation.  I admire her for her (apparent) good balance of empathy and cruelty.  What about recent American presidents?  Did they also maintain such a balance?  I can’t answer that question – but here I tread on dangerous ground.  It’s against my faith to admire politicians – and I just shot myself in the foot!

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

Is forgiveness only for whites?

Posted on July 1, 2011 by jewamongyou

The front page of the “Metro” section of Wednesday’s Oregonian featured the family of a man who was shot to death recently at a bar.  Large photos of the survivors feature prominently in the paper.  There is also a photo of the victim himself, Leonard Irving.  All are black, and The Oregonian tells us that…

It’s easy for those of us whose blocks don’t regularly ring out with gunfire to ignore the rising tide of violence –much of it gang-related, most impacting historically African American neighborhoods — that Portland is experiencing this year. It’s tempting to write off an event like Sunday’s shooting as the kind of bad thing that happens to bad people, or at least people foolish enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This particular article says hardly a thing about the perpetrator but, from the context (and the fact that his photo is not included in the story) it is obvious that he is also black.  But the problem, we are told, is not black criminals.  Not at all.  The problem, called a “tide of violence” is something that just seems to happen all by itself – like some sort of virus or weather phenomenon – and it “impacts historically black neighborhoods”.  So, if a neighborhood has only been black for  five years, it is not likely to be impacted by this “tide of violence” – because it is not historically black?  Somehow I doubt that.  Obviously, the word “historically” is used in order to give the impression that it is – you guessed it – the legacy of slavery that is to blame.  But of course!  Young black men murder other black men because of slavery.  Incidentally, a photo of the murderer can be found here.
The story the Oregonian tells us is one of a struggling family trying to overcome drugs and crime and, to a certain degree, prevailing.  Far be it from me to judge this family; I don’t know them and there is nothing to be gained from rubbing salt in their wounds.  But, reading through the article, I couldn’t help but notice something missing.  There is a certain element that we find over and over again, when the media deals with victims of violent crime.  When Carter Strange, for example, had recuperated enough, from the savage beating he got from vicious black thugs, one of the first things asked of him (and his father) was if he could forgive his attackers.  Forgiveness is typically one of the first things reporters ask about, when interviewing crime victims or their survivors.  Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong, but is it only whites who are expected to forgive?

Posted in crime and violence, examples of propaganda | 18 Comments

Some of Jewamongyou's ancestors

Posted on June 29, 2011 by jewamongyou

I was just sent this photo.  It is of my grandmother’s grandparents.  Apparently, the little boy in the photo had made a name for himself in the Yiddish theater and in radio.  His name was Menashe Skulnick.  He is not my ancestor, but his parents (seated) were.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 7 Comments

Mivtsoyim* update for today

Posted on June 28, 2011 by jewamongyou

While out shopping yesterday, I got upset at the blatant pro-black bias of Office Depot.  Upon returning home, I wrote the following flyer:

STOP THE HATE

TAKE A STAND AGAINST ANTI-WHITE BIGOTRY AND VIOLENCE

Certainly you have heard of the recent, racially-motivated mob attacks in Chicago against whites, the savage beating, by racist blacks, of Carter Strange in South Carolina, the anti-white pogroms in Philadelphia and the brutal beating, by blacks, of white transgender Crissy Polis in Baltimore.
All of the above incidents, and many more, occurred within the last few months.  If you haven’t heard of them, it is because you get your “news” from a media that does not want you to know about them.
Interracial crime is overwhelmingly black on white, or black on Asian.  The Justice department tries to obscure this fact by counting Hispanics as “white” when they are perpetrators, but as “Hispanic” when they are victims.  Even so, the trends are clear.  White people are being victimized, because of their race, all over the country.
It is high time that whites grow a backbone and stand up for their group rights – just as every other race, and ethnicity, has done.  It is time to stop being ashamed of your own heritage, to tell your teachers, college professors and the media – most of whom openly hate whites as a race – to keep their hatred to themselves and to stop infecting vulnerable young people with self-loathing.
When you hear the following expressions, and words, from the powers that be, here is what they actually mean:
“Affirmative Action” = anti-white discrimination
“Diversity” = the denial of freedom of association for whites and the destruction of white societies as cohesive communities.
“Hate Crime” (in the racial context) = a crime committed by whites against non-whites.
“Not a Hate Crime” = a crime committed by non-whites against whites, even when racial epithets are used.
“Racist” = a white person.
For more information, please visit www.jewamongyou.wordpress.com

Today, I distributed 50 of them door-to-door.  I am happy with the results, not because I opened anybody’s eyes (that has yet to be seen) but because I did my duty well.  As I walked down the street, putting the flyers on people’s doors and giving them to people directly if they were home, I held my head high and smiled at them.
It is not difficult to walk down a quiet residential street, in early Summer, and distribute flyers.  It is also not expensive or even risky.  Nobody went “antifa” on me and no vicious dogs were let loose on me either.  Now that I’ve done it once, it will be even easier in the future.
Hopefully, some of the rest of y’all will do the same and y’all can write of your adventures here.
*”Mivstoyim” is the Habad-Lubavitch term for public/street activism.  I have adopted the term because it’s appropriate and because I’d like to co-opt  it to mean the specifically pro-white activism I encourage in this blog.

Posted in activism | 22 Comments

My new work-safe bumper-sticker

Posted on June 27, 2011 by jewamongyou

I ordered several of the following bumper-stickers, and now sport one on my car:

It’s hard to see how this could offend anybody but, at the same time, it might get people to start thinking.  I’ve got a few others in the pipeline as well – and a new flyer I designed.  You can read about that later.

Posted in activism | 10 Comments

Hispanic drunk drivers in Texas

Posted on June 26, 2011 by jewamongyou

Eric Peters has informed us that it is now legal, in Texas, for cops to extract blood from drivers whom they stop randomly.

Next time you get pulled over by a cop – or stopped for absolutely no specific reason at one of those random “sobriety checkpoint” – you might want to remember the following laugh line: It’s called the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which reads, in part, that “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
It’s a laugh line, because, like, so many of the other amendments to the Bill of Rights, that “godamn piece of paper,” as George W. Bush referred to it, pleading the Fifth – that is, declining to assist the authorities in your own prosecution – has become a sick joke.
Cops now have the legal authority in Texas (though not the right) to forcibly extract blood from you in order to use that blood as evidence against you in DWI cases – which are of course criminal proceedings.
An appellate court recently affirmed the legality of this practice – and bet your bippie it will be expanded to a State Near You soon.
Refuse to take a Breathalyzler or decline to perform the trained monkey act by the side of the road (perhaps because you’re not coordinated even when sober and probably a lot less so under pressure and in the glow of a policeman’s flashlight) and you may find yourself thrown down across the hood of a squad car while some random cop jams your body with needles in order to get the blood that will then be used as evidence against you at your trail.

We should all worry about the loss of our civil liberties and I agree with Eric on this point.  However, I do not think his article goes far enough in explaining why our civil liberties are being eroded.  They are being eroded, in part, because of the sickness called “diversity”.
Anecdotal evidence tells us that Hispanics are more prone to drunk driving than the rest of us, but, at first glance, the statistics show otherwise:

In Texas, drinking and driving poses a great danger for Hispanics, where they make up over one third of the population. Key statistics:

  • 33 percent of all DUI fatalities in Texas in 2009 occurred in crashes where a Hispanic driver was under the influence of alcohol. (TxDOT, CRIS)
  • 21 percent of all Hispanic DUI drivers involved in crashes in 2009 had a blood alcohol level of .08 or above. (TxDOT, CRIS)
  • Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Hispanics one to 44 years of age, and 15 percent of U.S.-born Mexican Americans had a DUI within the past 12 months according to a 2008 study in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

Well then, if Hispanics make up over a third of the population of Texas, and they comprise 33% of the drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes, then Hispanics are no more likely to drive drunk than anybody else.
The above statistics appear in quite a few places and it made me suspect there is something they are not telling us.  It didn’t take long to figure out that the missing information has to do with age.  Let us take a look at some other statistics:

Of the 25,145,561 people counted in Texas in the 2010 Census, 37.6 percent were Hispanic and 45.3 percent were non- Hispanic whites. Yet Hispanics disproportionately fill the ranks of younger Texans. Hispanics comprise 48.3 percent of Texans under the age of 18, up from 40.5 percent in 2000. The percentage of non-Hispanic whites in the same age group fell to 33.8 percent from 42.6 percent in 2000, according to census data released yesterday.

So nearly half of the under-18 population is Hispanic while over a third of the total population is Hispanic.  What this means is that, if we were to isolate those of driving age, we would find that Hispanics make up considerably less than one third of Texas drivers.  Given the information above, we cannot know exactly what percentage of Texas drivers are Hispanic, but it is clear that they are over-represented among drunk drivers.
As young Hispanics come of age and start driving, the menace of drunk drivers on our roads will increase substantially.  In response to this menace, more and more draconian measures will be taken “to protect us”.  There are only three ways to protect us:  a)  take away our freedoms* or b)  racially profile Hispanic drivers or c) reduce the number of Hispanics in the country.  Since it is not politically feasible to reduce the number of Hispanics or racially profile them, we shall watch our remaining freedoms ebb away.
I’ll end on a positive note:  When stopped by a cop, you’ll be able to pay him a bribe and be on your way.  Have a nice day!
* Solutions such as “educate the public” or “raise awareness among Hispanics” also involve taking away our freedom, since they involve taxing us more for such programs.

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, libertarian thought | 9 Comments