Madagascar: an "African" island

Posted on March 31, 2011 by jewamongyou

Regarding the earliest human settlement of Madagascar, we read in Wikipedia:

Evidence from faunal extinctions supports this tradition that Madagascar was inhabited prior to the Austronesian immigration. There remain a group of hunter-gatherers on Madagascar, the Mikea, which in their way of life and in their music are completely unlike their Malagasy neighbors. They retained non-Malagasy vocabulary until the 1920s, perhaps a remnant of a Vazimba language.[1]
However, archaeologists generally place the arrival of humans on Madagascar in the centuries between 300 BCE and 500CE, when seafarers from southeast Asia (Borneo or the southern Celebes) are believed to have arrived in their outrigger canoes.[2] These were the original Malagasy, who came to the island as part of the great Austronesian expansion, the movement of people that came to dominate in Indonesia and the Pacific Ocean. Anthropologist Jared Diamond has written about the Austronesian expansion to Madagascar, noting many similarities between Malagasy and Indonesians (both cultures cultivating rice in a similar manner and using outrigger canoes, for instance) and differences between Malagasy and Africans (Malagasy architectural traditions favoring rectangular structures as opposed to African round huts, and wearing cloth (lambas) woven of vegetable fibers as opposed to African animal skins and bark cloth, for instance). Jared Diamond writes of the Austronesians:

“These Austronesians, with their Austronesian language and modified Austronesian culture, were already established on Madagascar by the time it was first visited by Europeans, in 1500. This strikes me as the single most astonishing fact of human geography for the entire world. It’s as if Columbus, on reaching Cuba, had found it occupied by blue-eyed, blond-haired Scandinavians speaking a language close to Swedish, even though the nearby North American continent was inhabited by Native Americans speaking Amerindian languages.“

In summery nobody knows, for certain, who first settled Madagascar.  As for the Mikea “remnants”, it is possible that they arrived, or were brought over, later.  We don’t know.  But the consensus is that the Indonesians arrived first.



As we can see from the map, Borneo is about 4,500 miles away from Madagascar, while Africa is only 250 miles away.  The obvious question is:  How is it that populations from so far away were able to settle the island before Africans – or, in any event, to culturally dominate the Africans?  Mongabay.com writes…

The striking mix suggests that there was substantial migration of people from southeast Asia about 2000-1500 years ago – a mirror image of the migrations from that region into the Pacific, to Micronesia and Polynesia, that had occurred about 1000 years earlier. However, unlike the privations suffered by those eastward travellers, the data suggests the early Malagasy population survived the voyage well, because more genetic variation is found in them than is found in the islands of Polynesia. ‘Bottlenecks’ in evolutionary history, where the population is dramatically reduced in number, are a common cause of reduced genetic variation.
Even though the Africa coast is only one-twentieth of the distance to Indonesia, it appears that migrations from Africa may have been more limited, as less of the diversity seen in the source population has survived in Madagascar.
But why, if the population is a 50:50 mix, is the language almost exclusively derived from Indonesia?
“It is a very interesting question, for which we have as yet no certain answer, as to how the African contribution to Malagasy culture, evident in biology and in aspects of economic and material culture, was so largely erased in the realm of language,” commented Professor Robert Dewar, of The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. “This research highlights the differing, and complementary, contributions of biology and linguistics to the understanding of prehistory.”

To answer to Mongabay’s question, it might be useful to look at the average I.Q. in Indonesia versus the average I.Q. in East Africa.  According to “I.Q. and the wealth of nations“, by Richard Lynn, Indonesia has an average I.Q. of 89, while East African nations hover at just over 70.  This is a larger difference than we find between American whites and American blacks.  So it is no wonder the Indonesians would dominate the Africans culturally or, at least, linguistically.
As I’ve already mentioned, I’ll be travelling there shortly.  I’ll also be travelling to other places and, all told, I’ll be gone a month.  Needless to say, I won’t be doing much blogging during that time.  I’ll be leaving April 10th and, between work and preparations, my posts may be a bit sparse during this time as well.

Posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 28 Comments

Mirror mirror on the wall…

Posted on March 30, 2011 by jewamongyou

“… who is the fairest of them all?”  At which point the mirror replied to the queen, “what do you mean, fair?  Do you mean light-skinned or do you mean pretty?  And why do you use a word than can mean either… are you a racist?”  Well, that’s not exactly how the story of Snow White goes, but it might have had it been written today.  The word “fair” has several meanings, among which are “pretty” and “light-skinned”.  These two meanings often go hand in hand, as we see in the fable of Snow White:

Once upon a time as a queen sits sewing at her window, she pricks her finger on her needle and three drops of blood fall on the snow that had fallen on her ebony window frame. As she looks at the blood on the snow, she says to herself, “Oh, how I wish that I had a daughter that had skin white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair black as ebony”. Soon after that, the queen gives birth to a baby girl who has skin white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair black as ebony. They name her Princess Snow White. As soon as the child is born, the queen dies…

We also see this in the Song of Songs:

My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven.
His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set.
His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh.
His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires.
His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.

While fair skin is not a prerequisite for beauty, it certainly helps in most cultures.  Much has already been written about this and, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll point out that men all over the world prefer their women to be light-skinned.  American blacks are, of course, no exception.  Simple observation will confirm that, among black couples, the woman is far more likely to be light-skinned than the man.  Among white/black couples, the woman is far more likely to be white.
Hand in hand with light skin, childlike features also add to a woman’s attractiveness.   Here is a study that looks at childlike features in women and gauges their attractiveness.  It concludes:

For each set of female faces, the test subjects were asked to indicate  which version they found most attractive. The results of this experiment show clearly that childlike characteristics (large, round eyes, a large curved forehead as well as small short nose and chin) can enhance attractiveness. Only very few (9,5%) test subjects rated mature “original women” as being most attractive. Most of the preferred female faces contained childlike proportions of 10 – 50% (for details see report!). This means that even the most attractive women become even more beautiful, if facial proportions are made more childlike. And again: women who were rated as being most attractive do not exist in reality!

So, if childlike women are more attractive, and lighter-skinned women are also considered more attractive, does this mean that lighter-skinned children are considered more cute?  I think they are.  One afro-centric website asks the question, “are light skinned children treated better?”  It is interesting to read the replies.  An afro-centric blog post states:

In my comments on Laina’s post, “CNN Reports That More Single
Black Women Are Adopting – But Who Are They Taking Home?,”
I said, “I’m wondering, are ready for a child if you’re not ready
for yourself? They’re treating dark skin like it’s a physical
handicap.” And to another person’s comment I responded, “India
also has colorism issues. It seems that areas colonized by Great
Britain carry this burden more often to me. In Asia the self-hate
and desire to look like the conquerer comes out in weeping over
having slanted eyes instead of round.”
Colorism is one more bad effect of racism and the promotion of
white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes as superior. It is not the
focus of the CNN article, which seems to be connected to CNN’s
Black in America 2 special. The article is about single black
women adopting in general and mentions in briefly that some
black women show a preference for babies with lighter-skin:
Yet, there are some single African-American women who are not
emotionally ready to adopt an African-American child who is too
dark, some adoption agency officials say.
Fair-skinned or biracial children stand a better chance of being
adopted by single black women than darker-skinned children,
some adoption officials say.

The poster blames the phenomenon on racism.  But, If we see a preference for light skin across various cultures and continents, then Occam’s razor would categorize this preference as a universal human trait and not a byproduct of racism.
Katti Gray, in The Root, struggles with the disproportionate occurrence of abuse among black children.  She looks at the traditional explanation of “racist social workers” and finds no evidence of it.  Then, lacking the fortitude to consider innate racial explanations, she resorts to the catch-all explanation of “poverty”:

Rates of reported child abuse are disproportionately high for black children, a fact that has long been linked to suspected racial bias by a largely white child-protection workforce. But a recently released study by Washington University researchers debunks that allegation, citing poverty as the main reason black children are twice as likely as white children to suffer abuse…

While it is certainly true that poor parents have fewer options than wealthy parents, it is highly debatable if poor parents love their children less than wealthy parents.  One could even argue that a poor person who chooses to have a baby is willing to sacrifice more for her child than a wealthy person, who can pawn off the difficulties to babysitters and nannies.  But this is an argument best made by leftist equalitarians, not by me; I do not think that most poor babies are planned.  They just happen.
In reality, low I.Q. is an underlying cause for both unplanned babies and for neglecting/abusing those babies later on.  Gray, I suspect, cannot bring this up even if she knows it.
But another cause, for the racial disparity in child abuse, is that black kids are simply not as cute as white kids.  Therefore, their parents tend to treat them less well.  Now, if I walked up to a random stranger and said, “black kids are less cute than white kids”, I would be lucky to avoid being assaulted.  But this is one of those subjects where we’re almost there.  It is not controversial to point out that childlike women are more attractive than mature-looking women.  It is not controversial to point out that light skin is universally held to be more attractive than dark skin (among women).   It is not controversial to point out that women, even black women, prefer lighter skinned children.  So why would it be controversial to point out that darker children (I.E. black children) are not as cute as lighter children*?  Once we shed the burden of social propriety, our mystery is solved.
* Of course, individual preferences will vary.  Take me, for example.  I consider some dark-skinned children, including my own, to be among the cutest.

Posted in crime and violence, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 11 Comments

The "criminal look"

Posted on March 29, 2011 by jewamongyou

Kiwiguy recently linked to an article in Psychology Today that claims people can ascertain the criminality of a person, somewhat accurately, just by looking at him.

Criminals Look Different From Noncriminals

Yes, once again, you CAN judge a book by its cover
Published on March 13, 2011
by Satoshi Kanazawa
As it turns out, humans possess the ability to tell who’s a criminal and who’s not simply by looking at them because criminals look different from noncriminals.In this blog, I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that virtually all “stereotypes” are empirically true.  If they weren’t true, they would not be stereotypes in the first place.  To my knowledge, all of the very, very few stereotypes that are not empirically true, for some reason, have to do with people’s appearance.  Hence, it is not true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it is not true that beauty is only skin-deep.
Another “stereotype” about physical appearance that is not empirically true is “you can’t judge a book by its cover.” In previous posts, I have explained that women can tell which men would make good fathers and which men would make bad fathers simply by looking at them.  And people can tell who are altruistic and who are egoistic simply by looking at a 30-second video clip without sound.
So, contrary to popular belief, you can assess people’s character and personality by simply looking at them.  Nice people look nice, and nasty people look nasty, and it appears that humans have innate psychological mechanisms to tell them apart…
The article proceeds to show us the photos of 32 young males, all with neutral expressions and all looking directly ahead.  These were the test subjects and half of them have criminal pasts.  The author tells us that race may complicate matters.  Well… he doesn’t actually come out and say that, but he implies it by being careful to include only white men in the study.  He also implies that age and gender may complicate matters.  After all, they are all young and all male.
I spent some time staring at the above faces trying to figure out what it is about them that allows us to determine the character of those who wear them.  The closest thing I could come up with, that might qualify as a hypothesis, is the “South Park Reverse Eye Brow Tactic” or S.P.R.E.B.T.  In South Park (and other comics) an evil person is readily recognizable by his sinister eyebrows and narrowed eyes.
 

South Park bully

A real criminal

People who walk around like South Park bullies in real life are probably just trying to make themselves look intimidating and macho.  Real criminals, who are smart enough to compensate and try to fool people into trusting them, will purposefully raise their eyebrows and widen their eyes to give the impression of innocence.
Just a bunch of malarkey from somebody who knows nothing about psychology?  Perhaps.  Look at the photos and judge for yourself.

Posted in crime and violence | 19 Comments

Prostitution versus miscegenation

Posted on March 28, 2011 by jewamongyou

Janice Raymond, in her “Ten reasons for not legalizing prostitution” reveals some of the (ostensible) mindset behind the drive to dictate the private behavior of individuals.   Here is her list:

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution

Janice G. Raymond
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW)
March 25, 2003
The following arguments apply to all state-sponsored forms of prostitution, including but not limited to full-scale legalization of brothels and pimping, decriminalization of the sex industry, regulating prostitution by laws such as registering or mandating health checks for women in prostitution, or any system in which prostitution is recognized as sex work or advocated as an employment choice.
As countries are considering legalizing and decriminalizing the sex industry, we urge you to consider the ways in which legitimating prostitution as work does not empower the women in prostitution but does everything to strengthen the sex industry.

  1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.
  2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.
  3. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not control the sex industry. It expands it.
  4. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.
  5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution.
  6. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.
  7. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.
  8. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not promote women’s health.
  9. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not enhance women’s choice.
  10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want the sex industry legalized or decriminalized.

Of course, there are some obvious flaws in her arguments*.  Firstly, she describes decriminalization and recognition as “state-sponsored” while it can just as easily be described as “state-neutral” or “laissez fair”.  Reason #1 doesn’t even begin.  A pimp earns his money; it is not a “gift” and, even if it were, this is not a valid reason to make it illegal.  Reason #2 also does not begin; it is a circular argument that assumes all sex-trafficking is evil.  The same applies to reason #3.  Reason #4 is basically saying that making something legal will increase “illegal” versions of the same activity.  This is like saying alcohol prohibition was a good idea because it reduced the “illicit” use of alcohol.  Reason #5 may have some validity to it – but one can use this argument to make work at fast food joints illegal as well.  Since it is legal for adults to work in fast food, it stands to reason that it is more likely that the labor of children will also be utilized.  Since it is legal for adults to smoke, it stands to reason that more children will also smoke.  Since adults drive cars, naturally there are better odds that children will also drive etc. etc.  Reason #6 is vacuous because it assumes that no act should be legal unless a clear benefit is derived from it.  Would Raymond argue that poker should be illegal because the game of poker does not protect children from the harm of gambling?  Or perhaps she would criminalize unhealthy sexual practices since such practices do not protect children.  Like the others, this argument makes no sense.  Reason #7 is circular; it assumes that prostitution is immoral and, therefore, anything that increases it is also immoral.  Furthermore, it assumes that anything that is immoral should also be illegal.  Reason #8 – see reason #6 above.  Furthermore, we would be in a sorry state if every risky or unhealthy behavior was illegal.  Reason #9 – same as above but also, how can she state that allowing women to choose prostitution as a career does not enhance their choices? That some women resort to it for lack of  a better alternative does not help her case; the same could be said of janitorial work.  Reason #10 claims to speak for prostitutes themselves.  It makes the ridiculous claim that these women prefer that their clients live in fear of the police, of arrest and fines.  No doubt, this prostitute would disagree.   It seems to be saying that private conduct between individuals should be subject to the approval of a majority.  It also fails to take into consideration that, just like “illegal drugs”, prostitutes can charge more money due to the fact that their trade is illegal.  It is like saying we should require a license to cut hair because most hair stylists are in favor of this measure.  Of course they favor it; it limits their competition and drives up prices.  Furthermore, Raymond makes the common error of describing prostitution as women “selling themselves” or “their bodies”.  They are not selling themselves or their bodies.  They are selling a service.  Does a brick-layer “sell his body”?  Does an engineer “sell his brain”?
No, I don’t think any of those ten reasons amount to anything.  The real reason prostitution is illegal in most of the U.S. is that most Americans find it distasteful.  It goes against their traditional religious beliefs – and it lowers the premium on sex that women can leverage against men.  More to the point.  Americans find prostitution to be distasteful because they perceive it as a social evil.  Prostitution in the neighborhood lowers property values.  People try to hide the practice from their children.  They view it a  cheapening of a special act that is supposed to be reserved for loving relationships.  They consider it to be a degradation of the ideal society that they envision.   In other words, they view it much the same way most of us view miscegenation.
Miscegenation does not directly harm anybody outside the relationship.  It is a private choice made between individual adults.  It has been going on for all of human history.  Not long ago, it was lumped together with prostitution in that both were illegal in most of the U.S.  If anything, there was more tolerance for prostitution than for miscegenation.  Now the reverse is true.  People have been swayed by the relentless propaganda promoting miscegenation – but there is no such propaganda that promotes prostitution.  The acceptance of miscegenation has intensified competition for women.  It has driven up the cost of sex and given women far more power than they ever had.  It used to be that  black men competed for a roughly equal number of black women.  White men competed for a roughly equal number of white women.  Today, many black women remain unmarried.  For the remaining (mostly white) marriageable women, there is fierce competition.  Women enjoy this power.  It is only natural that they would not want to allow men an alternative (real or perceived) such as  prostitution.  So I think there is a connection between the promotion of miscegenation and the increased condemnation of prostitution.
This being said, I do believe that widespread prostitution can damage society.  It can undermine relationships and make casual that which should be special.  But it does not destroy the heritage of a society in such an irreversible way as miscegenation does.  The product of miscegenation my euphemistically claim to have “two heritages”.  In reality, he has none.  Over time, such admixture may dilute itself and a society may recover.  But this is not the agenda of the powers that be; they demand that it become the rule, not the exception.
Behind the condemnation of both prostitution and miscegenation lies an important principle: the union between a man and a woman is not strictly a private matter.  All of society has a stake in it.  Perhaps one reason anti-prostitution authors, such as Raymond, find it difficult to express this principle is that they refuse to acknowledge “society” as a legitimate entity.  A “society” can also be called a “nation” or a “culture” or a “tribe” or a “people”.  I cannot be certain of Raymond’s position on immigration (she seems to be a one-issue activist).  But she is very much a part of academic America.  She is a professor of “women’s studies”.  As such, it is virtually guaranteed that she is pro-immigration and, therefore, anti-white.  It is ironic how collectivists cannot recognize the most important collective among humans : that of a common heritage, culture, religion and language – that is to say, their own race, heritage and culture.
*Yes, she does elaborate on them more fully on her (linked) site, but I couldn’t resist giving my concise objections to her concise reasons.  Much more could be said about this.

Posted in libertarian thought, miscegenation | 11 Comments

The plight of the marginal white male

Posted on March 27, 2011 by jewamongyou

Human Stupidity sent me an interesting article that claims, in a nutshell, that white males are greatly disadvantaged in the competition for females:

To put it bluntly, to be a Marginal White Male, today, in early 21st century America, is to be persona non grata for real. Why? Well, because, if I may be so blunt, America doesn’t need them – at least not as much as they may have once did. And by that statement, I just don’t mean economically, or even politically; I mean it in terms of sociosexually, too.
And that is where the rubber really hits the road, because for all the yammering on about “NAMs” and so forth, when you really get down to it, the MWMs are pissed that they can’t get any – or, get what they really want. A perfect case in point along these lines, are easily seen in the blogs written by Whiskey, OneSTDV or Roissy, just to name a few. Although the latter personally has no problems getting any, he has legions of readers who are far from being able to say the same thing with a straight face, and that’s despite Roissy’s formidable knowledge in this area and his nearly four year track record of attempting to instruct so many of them in the Crimson Arts; the former’s stock and trade is to register the outrage of the MWM; and the guy in the middle has been able to garner upwards of 100 posts from self-identified live-action 40-Year Old Virgins.

While it should be quite obvious that, overall, black males have an advantage over white males and white males over Asian males (Steve Sailer and yours truly have both written about this in the past), nevertheless this is one of the most sensitive topics one could bring up.  For some odd reason, even though nobody could reasonably claim that short men are just as desirable to women as tall men, almost any short man you ask will claim that he has no such problem.  Also, I have yet to meet an Asian man who admits that he is anything less than God’s gift to women.  I’m fairly certain that most fat, ugly women will likewise claim that they get the attention of men all the time.  This lack of honesty makes it difficult to gauge the extent of the damage a lack of sex appeal does to individuals – of any race or gender.
I think that the Obsidian makes a good point in his above post – even if it he is somewhat simplistic and blunt about making it.  The denigration of whites has had a disproportional impact upon white males in the dating market.  But many white (and Asian) men have the power to improve their odds – if only they received some education and training.  I once knew a short, not particularly handsome, Asian man who really was “God’s gift to women”.  He overcame his natural limitations through a powerful personality.  My suggestion, for what it’s worth, is that alpha-males in the various pro-white movements make an effort to educate their less-fortunate (and single) friends to be better “players”.  I think that such a service should be considered a vital one in the white community.  I believe it is important for white men, who are challenged in this department, to cease their self-deception and ask for help.  When they do, they should not be laughed at but treated with respect and kindness as others assist them in improving their skills.  There is nothing shameful about a lack of sex-appeal unless we’re speaking of those who choose to be lazy, gluttonous or negligent about their hygiene by choice – and then complain about the results.  But our society has succumbed to a sickness that equates a lack of skill in “the game” to a lack of worth as a human being or as a member of one’s own people.  We need to tear down the walls of shame in order to address the problem – just as others have done with alcoholism, drug abuse, psychological disorders and gambling addiction.

 

Posted in activism, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 12 Comments

The Sierra Club and overpopulation

Posted on March 26, 2011 by jewamongyou

A comment on an article on Amren lead me to this letter (for some reason, the original link is no longer valid – but it was on this site):

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:  Imagine my surprise upon opening the summer issue of The Social Contract to find myself extensively quoted by Diana Hull based on one private conversation she and I had several years ago [“Cry, the Overcrowded Country: A Post-Earth Day Requiem,” The Social Contract, Vol. IX, No. 4, Summer 1999]. Ms. Hull had identified herself as a member of FAIR’s Advisory Council (on which I also serve) calling to get acquainted.  Since I am a national leader of the Sierra Club, quoting extensively from me in an article criticizing the organization [creates the impression] that I was the source for, or at least confirmed, the many incorrect statements about population, immigration, and the Sierra Club.For example, the Club has never placed “blame for environmental degradation on U.S. patterns ofconsumption alone.” The Sierra Club Board of Directors and all six activists who serve on the Population Committee support stabilizing — in fact, reducing — the population of the U.S. as well as that of the world. The Political Ecology Group was never “given the task” of promoting that the Sierra Club stay out of the immigration issue. They took it upon themselves to become involved, just as did outside organizations and individuals who supported the other alternative in that contentious 1998 Sierra Club debate. The article contains numerous other mistakes of detail and of broad picture.  Many of the comments attributed to me are not my words and are misleading.  Things I told Ms. Hull in confidence are now in print. An offhand assessment I made of the prospect for immigration reform is now quoted as the conclusion of an article in The Social Contract.  Ms. Hull should be ashamed.

Sincerely, JUDITH KUNOFSKY Berkeley, California
Diana Hull responds:
EDITOR:  On August 20, 1997, I had a 40-minute telephone conversation with Judy Kunofsky. The purpose of my call was to ask why she thought environmental leaders would not focus on U.S. overpopulation, and would not work publicly for immigration reform. Who better to explore this issue with than an environmental leader who was also on the FAIR Advisory Board?  I thought Ms. Kunofsky’s views were valuable and part of the historical record.  She confirmed what has long been suspected — that Hispanic elected officials in Los Angeles had refused to cooperate with the Sierra Club on environmental issues, if the Sierra Club was involved in immigration reduction.  I am confused at Ms. Kunofsky’s statement that the Sierra Club Board and Population Committee support reducing U.S. population.  If so, how can they adopt a position of neutrality on immigration?  Are they cowardly— or innumerate?  It cannot be said, as Ms. Kunofsky asserts, that the Political Ecology Group “took it upon themselves to become involved” in this issue. Santos Gomez and Cathi Tactiquin were appointed to the Sierra Club National Population Committee immediately after they joined the Club.  Ms. Tactiquin is on the Advisory Board of the Political Ecology Group and also the Director of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.  Mr. Gomez is on PEG’s Organizing Board.  PEG literature states that “the Sierra Club is a key battleground in the “Greening of Hate” and boasts that they “work closely with ‘progressive’ members of the Sierra Club to resist a takeover by anti-immigration zealots.”  Those zealots are identified as the Federation  for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Negative Population growth (NPG), Population/EnvironmentBalance (PEB), Carrying Capacity Network (CCN), and Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), ecologist Garrett Hardin, et al. The mission of NNIRR is, in their words, “reframing the immigration debate.”  Signatories to the pro-immigration statement include Brian Andreja, Sierra Club, National Environment Justice Task Force, and Julie Beezley Sierra Club, Southern California Sierra Club Task Force.  Ms. Kunofsky was indeed the source of every comment I attribute to her in this article.  I have a detailed record of what she said and every quote is an exact quote.  Ms. Kunofsky never said any of her statements were confidential although she is aware that I write on this subject.  I regret that a cordial and informative discussion on issues I assumed were of mutual concern has resulted in controversy.  I stand by my conclusion that leaders of the Sierra Club, at the highest level, have been either seduced, intimidated, or both, by unscrupulous opponents of immigration reform.
Sincerely,DIANA HULLSanta Barbara, California
EDITOR: Regarding Walter E. Williams’ view that the “Population Bomb” was a Dud: [The Social Contract,Vol. IX, No. 4, Summer 1999] perhaps, Mr. Williams, you could consider Bangladesh.  It has a population of 120 million and a per capita income at one percent of the American level.  Of course, they would like to have America’s standard of living.  Suppose the task was to bring them up to our standard of living within 25 years.  They would need a transportation system of highways, rail, and air.  They would need hospitals, office buildings, streets, factories, energy production and distribution, schools and universities, communications systems, all on a scale equal to half the infrastructure of the United States, because they have half the population.   Also, everyone would have to be brought up to our level of education, skills and training.  This would be a daunting task even for a country with the financial muscle of theU.S.
Yet, if they could do it, they would have to start all over and do it again.  That’s because their population is doubling in 25 years.  Then they would have to double their efforts and do it again for the next 25 years which will bring an additional 240 million.  Thus, in 2050, Bangladesh will have 480 million people on land the size of Florida.  Mr. Williams, either Bangladesh has an overpopulation and a high fertility problem or it doesn’t.  Your remedy:  “the most promising anti-poverty tool for poor people and poor countries is personal liberty” doesn’t even work for those in poverty in America.  A better anti-poverty tool is low fertility for poor people.  Poverty would nearly vanish, if the poor stopped reproducing.  Mr. Williams asks: “suppose the rest of us don’t feel like adopting a one-child policy, then what?  The elite’s answer will be to use brute government force, like China does…”  Why pick on fertility?  Brute government force is used to raise taxes, recruit juries, draft armies, clear houses out of the path of highways.  China is attempting to avoid famine.  What is the U.S. attempting to do when it jails marijuana smokers and prostitutes?  Since all countries use “brute government force” it is clearly the ends and not the means that Williams objects to.  Nevertheless, financial incentives for low fertility would be more appealing than coercion.  PERRY LORENZFort Collins, ColoradoPerry_LZ@msn.com
We invite you to subscribe to THE SOCIAL CONTRACT which will bring you four fact-filled issues of thought-provoking material each year.
Call: 1-800-352-4843Or by mail to: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT445 E. Mitchell St., Petoskey, MI 49770

So, while there are certainly sincere people who attach themselves to the Sierra Club, it could be that its leadership is not much different than the S.P.L.C.  It’s main business is making money.  Protecting the environment is merely a vehicle toward this end.

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 5 Comments

"Atrocities against his own people"

Posted on March 25, 2011 by jewamongyou

Justifying military intervention in Libya, Obama has expressed concern that Gadhafi might “commit atrocities against his own people“.  Statements like these make me wonder what the U.S. government might do to its people if we decided to rebel against it.  Would the Federal Government simply step aside and say, “we respect the will of the people”?
There is no need to wonder.  We need only look back at the War Between the States and General Sherman’s conduct during his infamous “march”.  Though it is far too late to do anything about that, it is never too late to apologize for the crimes or memorialize the victims – as has so often been done for black slaves of the same era.
What does Obama have to say about the Federal atrocities at Waco?  To the best of my knowledge, justice has never been served for those crimes, much less an apology.  Obama is in charge of the same government that committed the above crimes, and many others, against its own people.  While I applaud the (hopeful) downfall of Gadhafi, I do not believe that the U.S. government has any moral standing to condemn others in such cases.  “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

Posted in crime and violence, libertarian thought, Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Dress like a "nigger", be treated like a "nigger"

Posted on March 24, 2011 by jewamongyou

Football player Dez Bryant, and some of his homies, were escorted out of a mall recently for showing too much of their underwear.  CBS news tells us:

DALLAS (AP/CBSDFW.COM) – Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant found himself at the wrong end of the law for not properly covering his hind end Saturday.
Bryant and three of his friends were ejected from the NorthPark shopping center Saturday after a dispute between Bryant and two off-duty officers over the men sagging their pants below their hips, exposing their underwear…
When the officers asked the four to pull up their trousers, Bryant launched into a profanity-laced tirade.  According to the statement, when confronted, Bryant told officers. “What the ****, you stopped me like I stole something.”  That prompted the officers to escort the four from the mall.

A glance through the comments there seems to indicate that most people find such dress objectionable and that they wish people like Bryant would stop dressing that way.  But there is a different angle to this.  Among insects, a particular color pattern serves as a warning that certain insects are poisonous.  A similar dynamic is at work here.  Sagging pants, incoherent “ebonics” and a simian gait all serve as warnings for civilized humans to distance themselves.  All those signs are a subhuman’s way of telling the world, “I am not a productive member of society.  I am not a ‘black man’.  I am a nigger.  So, if you know what’s good for you, you’ll stay away from me.”  The individual might as well have the word “nigger” tattooed on his forehead.
With their low average I.Q. and criminal tendencies, some blacks can be forgiven for allowing themselves to stoop to this level.  As for whites, and Asians, I don’t think there is any excuse.  But, whichever race the “nigger” happens to be, it is preferable for us to know who they are.  They are much more dangerous when disguised as normal humans.  So to them I say, “please, keep on advertising yourselves.”

 

 
 

Posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 8 Comments

A funny from Robert Lindsay

Posted on March 23, 2011 by jewamongyou

Our friend Robert Lindsay shares some humor.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 4 Comments

Jewish lawmaker feels "highly uncomfortable"

Posted on March 23, 2011 by jewamongyou

It seems a Jewish member of Congress is complaining that some of the communal prayers, with which they open sessions, make her feel uncomfortable because they invoke Jesus.  The San Fransisco Chronicle tells us:

A Jewish Minnesota lawmaker is asking Senate leaders to allow only nondenominational prayers to open sessions, after feeling “highly uncomfortable” when a Baptist pastor repeatedly mentioned Jesus Christ and Christianity in one of the invocations.
Democratic Sen. Terri Bonoff says she wants Republican Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch to change the letter submitted to all visiting chaplains to say they are “required,” rather than “requested,” to make prayers nondenominational.
“I’m a very religious woman and believe deeply in God,” said Bonoff, of the Minneapolis suburb of Minnetonka. “We honor God in public and our political discourse, and that’s proper. But in doing a nondenominational prayer we are honoring him without violating the separation of church and state.”

I’d be willing to bet that at least 90% of the bills Sen. Bonoff votes for would make me “feel uncomfortable”, either because they are blatantly unconstitutional or because they serve as excuses to steal even more of my money.  For example, she voted in favor of a bill granting illegal immigrants in-state tuition status.  That makes me feel uncomfortable.  She has voted for practically every bill authorizing increases in public education (indoctrination) budgets.  That makes me feel  uncomfortable.  She voted to use tax dollars to fund a football stadium.  That makes me feel uncomfortable.
There is a Talmudic saying that Bonoff may be familiar with: “The laws of the kingdom are the law”.  In the U.S., the ultimate “law of the the kingdom” is supposed to be the Constitution.  By ignoring the Constitution, she is ignoring Judaism.  I doubt her sincerity when she calls herself “a very religious woman” and I would much rather have Jesus sitting in that Senate seat than her.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, libertarian thought | 3 Comments