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

NAM's more likely to be heroes

Posted on March 22, 2011 by jewamongyou

I found this story at A Race Against Time.  Here we have a strongly afro-centric publication, USA Today, citing a study claiming that blacks and Hispanics are twice as likely as whites to have performed heroic deeds:

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
New research would seem to support President Obama’s observation Wednesday night in Tucson that “heroism is here, all around us.”

Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford University professor emeritus and colleagues used a nationally-representative sample of 4,000 adults and found that 20% qualified as heroes — they had helped during a dangerous emergency, taken a stand against injustice, or sacrificed for a stranger.
Obama cited Congressional intern Daniel Hernandez, who helped Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords after she was critically wounded, along with doctors and bystanders after an assassination attempt that killed six others and left 13 wounded.
“Heroes are ordinary people,” says Zimbardo, of San Francisco. “You become a hero by doing an extraordinary deed.”
In the study, both blacks and Hispanics were twice as likely as whites to have performed heroic deeds. Zimbardo says they want to do follow-up research on the reasons for the racial/ethnic differences, which he speculates could be attributed to “greater opportunities to respond” or “being discriminated against makes them have more compassion to others in need.”
The study, supported by the Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education at Stanford, asked participants “Have you ever done something that other people — not necessarily you yourself — considered a heroic act or deed?” Those who answered “yes” selected from a list the actions most similar to their own: helping another person in a dangerous emergency; “blowing the whistle” on an injustice with awareness of the personal risk or threat to yourself; sacrifice on behalf of a non-relative or stranger, such as an organ donation; defying unjust authority; or other.
Among the 20% who met the survey definition, 55% had helped someone during an emergency, 8% confronted an injustice, 14% had defied unjust authority and 5% had sacrificed for a stranger.

If we lived in a world where the scientific, educational and governmental establishments were unbiased, then perhaps we could take such studies more seriously.  As it stands, we would do well to be skeptical.  But Philip Zimbardo is a renowned professor and psychologist, who earned fame in his groundbreaking Stanford prison study.
A Race Against Time points out that blacks and Hispanics are held to lower standards, that the definition of “hero” and “emergency” can be fuzzy and that NAM’s may be more likely to consider themselves heroes for having taken a stand against “unjust authority”:

Society implicitly has different expectations for different groups, and the “hero” bar is often set much lower for blacks than for whites. For example, when the restaurant chain Firehouse Subs issued “hero cups” in 2009 to honor firefighters who had displayed “incredible acts of bravery,” they selected four white men and one black woman as heroes. All four of the white men had risked their their own lives to rescue civilians in life-and-death situations, while the black woman’s act of bravery was “spearheading a community-based program to strengthen fire safety education for seniors.”
Similarly, the Stanford study muddles the definition of hero by conflating real acts of heroism (e.g., helping another person in a dangerous emergency) with, for lack of a better word, “affirmative action” acts of heroism (e.g., defying unjust authority, confronting an injustice). The USA Today article doesn’t break the list of heroic actions down by race, and I wasn’t able to find the study online, but I suspect non-whites were more likely than whites to have chosen “defied unjust authority” or “confronted an injustice.” Those terms are so vague that acts such as resisting a police officer or attending an “anti-racism” rally would seem to qualify.
Even if blacks were more likely than whites to report having “helped someone during an emergency,” that could be because of differing views of what truly constitutes an “emergency.” It seems like whenever there’s a news report about an angry fast food customer who made a frivolous emergency 911 call, whether because the restaurant ran out of chicken nuggets or lemonade, because their french fries were served cold, or because they were dissatisfied with the amount of food they received, the caller is invariably black. I wouldn’t consider mediating a heated fast food dispute a heroic act, but some black people might.

All of this may be true but, for argument’s sake, let’s take the professor’s word that NAM’s really are more likely to be heroes.  My take on this is that one has many more opportunities to be a “hero” if there are many crisis situations in his life.  How often do we hear ambulance and police sirens in white or Asian neighborhoods?  How often do we hear them in black and Hispanic neighborhoods?  When a man wishes to become a hero, he marches off to war or visits the jungle.  That is where he is likely to find emergency situations and take action – thus qualifying as a “hero”.  Since most blacks and Hispanics live among other blacks and Hispanics, their war zone (or jungle) is right there – so many opportunities, to be a hero, present themselves.

Posted in crime and violence, examples of propaganda | 3 Comments

Scientists: Evolution and nature made a mistake

Posted on March 21, 2011 by jewamongyou

According to Science Daily, the roots of human suspicion and animosity toward outsiders go back some 25 million years:

Human Prejudice Has Ancient Evolutionary Roots

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2011) — The tendency to perceive others as “us versus them” isn’t exclusively human but appears to be shared by our primate cousins, a new study led by Yale researchers has found.

In a series of ingenious experiments, Yale researchers led by psychologist Laurie Santos showed that monkeys treat individuals from outside their groups with the same suspicion and dislike as their human cousins tend to treat outsiders, suggesting that the roots of human intergroup conflict may be evolutionarily quite ancient.
The findings are reported in the March issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
“One of the more troubling aspects of human nature is that we evaluate people differently depending on whether they’re a member of our ‘ingroup’ or ‘outgroup,'” Santos said. “Pretty much every conflict in human history has involved people making distinctions on the basis of who is a member of their own race, religion, social class, and so on. The question we were interested in is: Where do these types of group distinctions come from?”
The answer, she adds, is that such biases have apparently been shaped by 25 million years of evolution and not just by human culture…

In the article, we get the impression that scientists disapprove of what evolution/nature has wrought.  They describe it as “troubling” and “bad news”.  Not once is it considered that there might be good reasons for this tendency, or that the distinction between “insiders” and “outsiders” is necessary for the development, and preservation, of human biodiversity.  Any rational person, even a layman, should understand that, if evolution lead all primates to distinguish between “us” and “them” in such a way, surely there is an advantage to this.  The reader should be left scratching his head and wondering why, all of a sudden, these scientists are opposed to nature.  Clearly, they wish to relegate nature to the status of “them” and our modern social experiments and goals to the status of “us”.
But there is hope, they say.  Even though “us” and “them” clearly is rooted in biological relationships, nature can be fooled.  The nation-state, organized religion and sports teams are good examples of this.  But these scientists (AKA “social engineers”) do not wish to build onto what nature has given us; they wish to eliminate it:

“The bad news is that the tendency to dislike outgroup members appears to be evolutionarily quite old, and therefore may be less simple to eliminate than we’d like to think,” Santos said. “The good news, though, is that even monkeys seem to be flexible about who counts as a group member. If we humans can find ways to harness this evolved flexibility, it might allow us to become an even more tolerant species.”

“Tolerant” is a useful word; it masks the nefarious intentions of those who wish to erase racial/ethnic distinctions from our species (or, at least when it comes to whites).  What these scientists might not realize is that the old distinctions will be replaced by a new one: the ruling elite and the enslaved masses – under one world government.  Presumably, these scientists are intelligent people, so surely they must realize that the only possible outcome of a world without race/ethnicity would be a world without borders.  Or perhaps they really believe that a completely “tolerant” race/ethnicity can maintain its distinctiveness long term.  Can they be so naive?
 
 

Posted in pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 7 Comments

For Congolese, a low threshold for being "smart"

Posted on March 20, 2011 by jewamongyou

When a screaming, raving, knife-wielding lunatic forced his way into the basketball court this past Saturday, player Christian Ayenga ran away.  According to Yahoo sports:

Police say the man did not have a ticket to the game, but rather used the threat of his knife to make his way through the employee entrance and into the stadium. The intruder ran onto the court, where Cleveland Cavaliers rookie forward Christian Eyenga(notes) was out practicing shooting drills before the road contest. The Congolese native quickly ran back into the locker room, which pleased bemused Cavs coach Byron Scott.
From the Cleveland Plain-Dealer:

“Smart man,” Scott said of the young player who is still learning to speak English. “He understands knife, I guess. I think that goes all the way to Congo. Knife means get the hell out. So he did the right thing.”

After the standoff resulted in the subduing of the possible assailant with the rubber and bean bag bullets, senior vice president and general manager of the Staples Center and Nokia Theater L.A. Live Lee Zeidmanbriefed the media on what little he knew about the arena’s unwelcome guest:

“He was talking a lot of gibberish, making a lot of threats and nobody could understand him,” Zeidman said. “There was a lot of vulgarity, a lot of statements that didn’t make any sense. We, quite frankly, don’t understand why he tried to do this. There were no specific demands.”

Wow.  Those Congolese sure are smart.  Most people would just keep on shooting hoops if that happened to them.

Posted in examples of propaganda | 10 Comments