Senior "activism"

Posted on March 3, 2011 by jewamongyou

What should a criminal do when he gets too old for normal criminal activities?  A career of crime does not usually include a 401K plan.  On a related note, when I came across a short blurb recently, in the “metro” section of the Oregonian, that read:

Salem
Man, 81, sentenced to jail in election fraud
An 81-year-old man who used the names of his deceased son and brother to vote was sentenced last week…
The jail time will run concurrently with a previous six-month sentence in federal court for collecting Social Security benefits in his brother’s name.

Salem, like most of Oregon, is a very white city.  So why did I suspect, when I came across this article, that the perpetrator was black?  That was a rhetorical question.  A simple Google search yielded his photo:

Is there any doubt as to which party he voted for and which candidates?  This is a perfect example of how some black criminals view their activities as more than just the pursuit of personal gain.  They probably see themselves as “freedom fighters” against the (white) Man.  With an aging white population, perhaps it’s time whites start thinking along the same lines.  After all, three months in jail is not too heavy a price to pay for such “activism”.

Posted in activism, crime and violence | 2 Comments

The plight of the homeless

Posted on March 2, 2011 by jewamongyou

Well, not so much the homeless – but the plight of those of us unfortunate enough to be stopped at a red light right next to where a homeless man (or worse, a homeless woman) is standing.  Unless we have a morsel of pre-packed food to give him, we may be subject to pangs of guilt no matter what we do.  If we give him money, we know he is likely to spend it on alcohol or drugs.  If we give him nothing, we may castigate ourselves for doing nothing.  While some of us may donate to organizations that help the homeless, there is nothing quite like face-to-face giving.

This in mind, I have decided to put together small packets of food and other necessities.  Inside the packet will be a leaflet that has a positive message that the recipient is unlikely to get elsewhere.  It could be, for example, a message about HBD or a statement of positive identity for whites.  Though most of these messages will go unread and end up as rubbish on the street (where somebody else might read them), some might actually get read by the target audience and open some minds.  In this way, we can accomplish two good deeds at once – and guilt will be a thing of the past.

Posted in activism | 6 Comments

Libya and blacks as a destructive tool of government

Posted on March 1, 2011 by jewamongyou

Steve Sailer writes, in his VDare column:

Kaddafi’s PR offensive in Africa over the last couple of decades was quite a hit with sub-Saharan Africa’s naïve. Trevor Johnson wrote in back in 2000:

“…his Pan-African speeches were taken at face value by the thousands of desperately poor Africans who flocked to work in Libya.”

The population of Libya today is about 6.5 million. By one estimate, there are 1.0 to 1.5 million black African immigrants in Libya.

The natives of Libya have not, on the whole been happy about the influx. Margaret Bald observed in 2000 after urban clashes between Libyan natives and West Africans:

“’Libyans resent the money the immigrants make…and perceive these outsiders as beneficiaries of Gaddafi’s support for African union,’ wrote Cameron Duodu for London’s Gemini News Service (Oct. 6). Gaddafi has been touring the continent to promote the formation of a United States of Africa.”

Still, why would African immigrants want to stay permanently in horrible Libya, when lovely Europe is just a Mediterranean boat ride away?

And this provided Kaddafi with yet another way to benefit from immigration: by blackmailing the Italians into paying him to take back the African illegal immigrants who had set out from his shores. Libya formerly refused to accept them until after each illegal immigrant’s lengthy European Union refugee status hearings had been exhausted—during which, of course, many aliens simply vanished.

I have long held that, if current trends remain unchanged, the entire world will eventually be black.  The reason is that blacks tend to form the most dysfunctional societies and to have the most babies.  Those excess  babies (a heartless term, I know) grow up and move to more desirable parts of the world if they can.  This is nature taking its course when local populations let down their guard.

But Libya is an example of another dynamic: rulers actively importing large numbers of blacks to dissolve the national identity of their own people – thus allowing said rulers to seize even more power due to more racial conflict on the street.  Why do politicians like blacks?  Their lower average I.Q. makes them more easily manipulated.  Their higher crime, disease and social pathology rates give those in power more excuses to expand government in law enforcement and social programs.  They serve to balkanize society, thus creating a greater need for government moderators to tame the resultant rivalries.  Qadhafi likes them because they (the mercenaries, that is) have few qualms about shooting innocent women and children.

Many pro-white activists care nothing about Libya.  It doesn’t bother them that a formerly Caucasian nation is now almost a quarter black.  It should bother them; as Sailor has pointed out, the tide will not magically stop at the borders of Africa.  Furthermore, Libya was an ancient home of whites.  There are still remnants of this white population among them.  As for me, my own personal opinion is that what Qadhafi has done is an inexcusable crime.  It is genocide against his own people and I hope, when he is toppled, that Libyans expel every one of those Africans back to the South.  As a person of mixed Middle-Eastern ancestry myself (being Jewish and all), I see ethnic Libyans as distant cousins and this attack on their national integrity bothers me immensely.  Thanks to Qadhafi, we can no longer claim that diversity is imposed exclusively upon white nations.  On the bright side, we may some day count Algerians among promoters of HBD.

Posted in crime and violence, government/corporate discrimination against whites, immigration/ Hispanics, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 19 Comments

Slow news day? No problem!

Posted on February 28, 2011 by jewamongyou

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen “Hispanic population rises quickly” as the front page headline in a newspaper.  Each time, it is written as if it is some sort of astounding revelation that the average citizen would have never guessed.  Each time, it is presented as a positive development.  “The Columbian”, a local South Washington State paper, recently stated:

St. John is one of five Catholic churches in Vancouver, and the archdiocese 25 years ago tapped it to provide ministry to Hispanics, the fastest-growing minority group in Clark County.
“There’s been this boom,” Perez said.
Clark County grew about 23 percent over the past decade…
As population growth among Hispanics outpaces that of other minority groups, they have become targets of discrimination, said Rosalba Pitkin, a member of the Washington State Commission on Hispanic Affairs…
“Right now, the Latinos feel persecuted,” she said.  “People assume all Latinos are undocumented.”…
“Vancouver benefits from having these wonderful, family-oriented people here,” Perez said.  “Some, like in any community, are here for the wrong reasons.  But as a whole, we benefit more than not.”

Unless we’re talking about tumors, “growth” is usually a good thing.  “Boom” is almost always a good thing.  A “benefit” is always a good thing.   I think we could benefit from some growth in the editorial section of The Columbian.  It would boom if articles such as these were placed there, and not on the front page – where, supposedly, unbiased news is supposed to be reported.
Two underlying assumptions, in the article, fly in the face of typical mainstream opinions: 1) that only recently have Hispanics become “targets of discrimination” and 2) that population growth is a good thing.  By presenting his own opinions as quotes of those he interviewed, writer Erin Middlewood (or his bosses) can deny that such articles, one-sided as they are, are editorials.  This is a cheap, underhanded tactic; they choose, very carefully, who they quote in such pieces.
Even the decision-makers at The Columbian surely agree that there are at least two sides to the immigration debate.  Surely they can see that rising crime, increasingly expensive infrastructure and environmental degradation are worthy to be considered as “the other side of the coin” in this matter – even ignoring the disturbing implication, by Middlewood, that Hispanics are better than other ethnicities and, therefore, worthy of replacing the current majority population.
It’s high time we had a real and honest debate about immigration.  So far, it appears this is not allowed among “mainstream” newspapers.  Perhaps this lack of openness is one reason readership has been declining in recent years.
I have submitted the above article, slightly modified, to The Columbian as a letter to the editor.  I expect, at best, a cordial form letter notifying me that it was not accepted for publication.

Posted in examples of propaganda, immigration/ Hispanics | 15 Comments

San Francisco may ban circumcision

Posted on February 27, 2011 by jewamongyou

San Franciscans may soon have the opportunity to ban circumcision in their city:

Self-described “civil rights advocates” say that a ballot proposition to ban circumcision is on track for gathering signatures, meaning that San Franciscans may vote on the measure this November.

The proposed law is being spearheaded by local resident Lloyd Schofield, according to the San Francisco Examiner.

It’s part of a national push to end the procedure, which some say is steeped in tradition but poses risks and has little medical benefit. TheAmerican Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association do not recommend routine circumcision.

Browsing the various comments, it appears that most conservatives oppose such a ban because it would infringe on freedom of religion.  I think it goes without saying that freedom of religion should only apply when no real harm is done to the child.  Thus, male circumcision is okay but female mutilation is not okay.

One comment, in particular, seemed more rational than the rest:

BRANDONCHESHIRE Regarding Free of Religion arguments: This is protecting the religious freedom of the infant strapped into the circumstaint who may not grow up wanting half his penile skin system removed and/or participate in the parent’s religion. There is nothing in this law preventing adults from circumcising themselves if they so choose it for themselves and their religious beliefs. If your religion wants to perform rituals on those who cannot give consent or decide for themselves whether they want to be a part of your religion or not, you need to rethink what religious freedom means.

Brandoncheshire’s comment makes sense, at first glance, because he adopts a position of total individual freedom and this appeals to libertarians like myself.  But I think that an important element is missing from the whole debate: ownership of our own children.  As a libertarian, I am somewhat hesitant to make this point, but it seems obvious that many of the things we call “ours” are located at different points in the ownership continuum – at least in relation to morality.   Absolute ownership and absolute morality often find themselves at odds.  Absolute ownership implies that I may do anything I wish with the object I own.  Hence, since I own my cat, I may do away with her by any means I choose if I no longer find her convenient.  But by doing so, I would be violating a moral code and a bystander would have the right to intervene and rescue my cat.  But what if I choose to have her declawed?  Few would claim the right to intervene and rescue her from this fate.

We own our children.  This ownership is not absolute; it does not give us the right to torture them or do away with them at our whim.  But, just as we may choose to declaw our cats, so too may we subject our children to certain ritualistic modifications.  Where do we draw the line?  This is a question that can only be answered, with authority, by the moral compass of our culture and community.  Though most of us consider female genital mutilation to be inexcusable, would we invade a country in order to save their girls from this fate?  A better approach would be to try to enlighten them through peaceful means.  If this does not succeed, it is unfortunate but no escalation is justified in my opinion.

The only way to make moral decisions, and to justifiably uphold them by law, is through our culture and community.  Multiculturalism, by definition, destroys cohesive cultures and communities.  It replaces them with a hotchpotch of values and mores.  A confused jumble of definitions of right and wrong.  It should not be surprising when moral chaos ensues.  It is the equivalent of trying to use a compass in outer space, where there is no North or South, up or down.

As Western civilizations fall to multiculturalism, and their moral codes are eroded, so too do their property rights erode.  It used to be that a business owner could choose his employees based on whatever criteria he chose.  But now that there are numerous peoples and cultures in close proximity, government has an excuse to slide his ownership ever more to the left in order to accommodate the “new morality”.  Morality inflation comes at the expense of ownership rights.  It used to be that few would question an individual’s right to own a gun.  But now multiculturalism has thrown our old morality into uncertainty, more individuals become confused even when it comes to taking another human life.  This gives government an excuse to slide gun ownership ever more to the left in a vain effort to offset the violence that its own multicultural policies have wrought.

As multiculturalism eats away at property rights, it was only a matter of time before the matter of circumcision became a referendum.  It is also not surprising that it would take place in a city like San Fransisco.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, libertarian thought, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 21 Comments

Violence against whites on YouTube

Posted on February 26, 2011 by jewamongyou

There have been many recent racial attacks, against whites, that have been posted to YouTube. Sagat linked to one a few days ago.  Hoosier Nation also posted a few examples.  A few have been featured, over the years, on Amren as well.
When we read the comments, we always find the inevitable leftist claim that such behavior is just as common among whites and that race probably wasn’t a factor at all.  It was just coincidence that the perpetrators were black and the victims white and we shouldn’t take it seriously when racial epithets are hurled against the victims.  In their world, there must be a campaign to besmirch the good name of blacks by finding the few black on white attacks, that have been caught on video, and posting them.
Fair enough.  It should be fairly easy to find some similar attacks on YouTube – but featuring white perpetrators and black victims.  I searched YouTube for “whites attack black” and came up with the equivalent of Google’s “did you mean blacks attack white?” – because almost all of the search results featured black on white attacks.  The only exception was of one clearly deranged white woman attacking the black clerk at McDonald’s because they didn’t have the meal she wanted.  The white attacker was just one woman against one woman.  She was not noticeably physically larger than the victim.  She was clearly off her medications and there is, in this case, no reason to suspect there was a racial motive.  There was one other exception and it was a television news clip that made a big fuss over the racial aspect of the attack.  According to the video, no “hate crime” or “ethnic intimidation” charges were brought against the perpetrators – which makes me wonder if they are leaving something out.  But let us, for the sake of argument, assume that this really was a racial group attack by whites against a black.  It is telling that only one or two actual white on black attacks come up through such a search.  A search for “white on black attack” yields similar results.
The vast majority of black on white attacks are, of course, not caught on video.  The vast majority of those that are caught on video do not make it to television news.  There is no doubt that those we see on YouTube are merely the tip of the iceberg.  Furthermore, I would venture to guess that the odds of justice being served in most of these attacks, are slim to none.  Media coverage of such attacks is almost nonexistent.  There are no large organizations, or political parties, to advocate for the victims.  If we so much as complain about this state of affairs, we are labeled “racists” and “haters”.  And people wonder why we are angry.

Posted in crime and violence, government/corporate discrimination against whites | 16 Comments

Firefly

Posted on February 24, 2011 by jewamongyou

I was driving along a couple of days ago, listening to one of my Ramstein CD’s.  I hadn’t listened to this particular CD in at least a year.  I got to the song about “firefly” and thought to myself, “I wonder what they’re saying – and why are they singing about a firefly?”  As this was going through my mind, I glanced to the side of the street – and there it was: a shop with a large sign in front saying “Firefly electronics”.  I rarely drive that way; I had no previous knowledge there was such a shop.  From this experience it seems obvious to me that Firefly is God and He is, some mysterious way, communicating with me!

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Confession of a young race-realist

Posted on February 24, 2011 by jewamongyou

I’ve been a bit under the weather recently, and haven’t had much energy for writing.  So it was nice that a reader (who calls himself “E) sent me this post he found on a site called “grouphug”:
Link: http://grouphug.us/confessions/139354277
Text:

I am 24 years old. I am a race realist and I can’t tell anyone.
I became a race realist in 2008 or 2009, when I read an article by William Saletan about race, genes and IQ. The more I learned, the more depressed I got, and the more I knew that what I was reading was true.
My family is from Detroit, Michigan. My mother grew up in the inner city. To this day she has post traumatic stress disorder, she is always jumpy and frightened. It was worse when I was a little kid, and I picked up on it and adopted it to a great extent. I am always afraid, on some deep level, that orderly civilization is just a thin ice layer over a chaotic abyss, and there is nothing I can do to keep it from cracking and opening beneath me.
I am very angry at the people who let blacks take over Detroit. If they were still alive I would hurt them. They ruined my mother’s life. Her family was poor and her parents abused her. She didn’t need black power on top of that. Hell, even the other blacks didn’t need black power when you think about it. To this day, I’ll never volunteer or donate to any charity which helps black people, unless it helps them stop breeding.
I am not angry at black people, because they didn’t choose their nature. However, I can’t say I exactly love them to bits. If everyone with more than 20% black ancestry disappeared from the planet tomorrow, I would be happy. I would smile. As it is, I would just be happy if they all went back to Africa and if we stopped giving money to Africa and started flushing it down the toilet instead. The second way is more direct, and at least that way, some American sewer workers will clean up (no pun intended).
I am angry at my mother. In one way I see her as a victim, first of her life circumstances, and second of race fantastic propaganda. I only learned that Detroit was black when I was in high school, and by then the brain damage was already done. When she told me stories about sleeping in the bathtub because of gunfire, walking through the streets alone terrified, being holed up in a mafia-protected neighborhood during the riots, being dragged by four or five men towards a van, she never told me what race these people were. I grew up thinking it was white people who did this to her, because we lived in a majority white neighborhood (big surprise) and white, jewish and asian was all that I saw.
When I found out about Detroit’s racial makeup, and the violent nature of blacks, I felt like I’d been betrayed. My parents were supposed to teach me about reality and she taught me that black people are the template for human nature, and that a white person is just as likely to hurt you as a black person is. Because of this I grew up terrified and believing that if anything bad happened to me, I deserved it, because she’d tried to warn me and I hadn’t protected myself enough.
I think she believed that if she told me the truth, I would have grown up hating black people and believing that they are criminals. Well, so what?! She is a smart woman, she could have used a simple analogy like wolves versus dogs.
A few months ago my mom told me she was ashamed that she was scared of black people on the street. I was really upset. It must be Stockholm Syndrome, or maybe the propagandists in the sixties targeted women for psychological reasons. My Dad doesn’t like blacks, he views race fantastic and liberal propaganda as “do-gooder nonsense.”
In a way, I have to thank my parents, for not feeling so guilty they raised me in a “joyously diverse” environment. I am just upset that they were so brainwashed.
My friends are all liberals. I honestly don’t have much common ground with conservatives. I agree with them on many issues, but culturally we are very different. Most race realists are middle aged and many are off on their own tangents, there is no cohesive movement to, say, end immigration and race preferences BAMN, and screw all the other issues and side-issues until those are fixed.
At the present moment, I feel like the snake in the Garden of Eden. I took a bite from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and instead of being expelled from the garden, I was turned into a snake and slung into the tree, where I saw the garden for what it was, an oasis of false calm amid encroaching chaos.
I understand why people resist race realism. It’s not exactly a pleasant thing to believe in, but once your eyes are opened, they won’t close again. And also, there is no new knowledge in the fruit from the tree of knowledge. It is knowledge hidden inside of you, suddenly illuminated, with a light “as blank and pitiless as the sun.”

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments

Videos from the shadow conference now up!

Posted on February 23, 2011 by jewamongyou

Matt Parrott has finished editing and uploading the shadow conference videos.  They can be found here.
The latest interview, by Richard Spencer, with Jared Taylor, can be found here.  But the audio doesn’t seem to work (except for the commercial at the beginning).  Does anybody else have this problem?
On another note, I have finished translating chapter two of “The Ashkenazi Revolution”.  It is turning out to be a very interesting book.

Posted in activism, book/movie/video reviews and links | 1 Comment

An Iranian, a Polynesian and a Jew…

Posted on February 22, 2011 by jewamongyou

An Iranian, a Polynesian and a Jew were at work one day.  The Polynesian and the Iranian were having a discussion about race.  It seems they were talking about white people.  The Iranian, seeing the Jew (yours truly) close by, approached him and asked if he could contribute his own opinion to their dispute.  The Iranian said to me “you’re rather brown yourself, so from your experience, do white people resent it when a brown person shows himself to be smarter than them?  Isn’t it true that whites usually like to consider themselves smarter than other races?” (or something to that effect).  Of course I immediately told the Iranian that whites tend to be the most accepting and tolerant of any race on Earth.  This was not the answer that he expected to hear – but the Polynesian replied, “see!  I told you so”.  The Iranian proceeded to explain that, in Texas, he found whites to be arrogant.  I told him that this might sometimes be the case but that he should consider other factors that may lead to their resentment, such as his accent.  Also, nobody likes others to outdo them intellectually, regardless of race.  Then, paradoxically, he switched to black people and how they often under-perform, leaving the heavy work for others.
What struck me is that the Iranian is an exceedingly friendly person.  He and I get along famously and he is always smiling.  In contrast, there has often been friction between myself and the Polynesian.  If I had to guess which of the two held stereotypical views about whites, I would have picked the Polynesian.  But racial attitudes cannot be gauged solely on other personality traits.  Furthermore, it is possible that the friendly, smiley, Iranian is not so friendly and smiley toward whites.  Perhaps he is nicer to me because he does not perceive me as white.
I am reminded of an odd childhood experience.  I must have been about 14 years old at the time.  A black boy, at school, had decided to befriend me.  We visited each other a couple of times and had some interesting conversations.  It turned out that he was very much intrigued by the black Muslim movement.  He showed me pictures of Muslims hurling stones at a large white boulder.  He explained that the white boulder symbolized whites and this was one way they showed their disdain for whites, who represented the Devil.  It soon became clear that he only befriended me because he did not consider me “white”.  Still, there were plenty of other non-whites he could have befriended and, as far as I could tell, I was the only one so “honored”.  To that friendship I said, “thanks but no thanks”.
Though I can’t prove it, I am fairly certain that some of my interactions with Mestizos have been similarly colored.  I get the impression that a similar skin tone makes us “brothers” on some level, even though they must realize I am not actually one of them.   I know a Puerto Rican who was in prison for a few years.  I asked him how a member of an ethnic group, that has few members in prison, would find protection.  If the inmate is the only Arab or Pakistani, for example, wouldn’t the other inmates make his life a living hell?  He answered that such an inmate can become an honorary member of the Samoan, or Mexican group and find protection among them.  It was clear that neither whites nor blacks would normally accept a brown person as a member.
It seems to be a natural human tendency to treat those who look like ourselves better than we treat those who look different.  America has enough of each race, at this point, that most of us experience a range of racial friendliness levels as we go through life.  It is silly to complain about a lack of friendliness, from some members of a different race, when a surplus of friendliness can be had among members of one’s own race (or a similarly looking race, as the case may be).  If one finds himself in an area where he feels racially out of place, instead of complaining, he should move to a different area.  If he does not do this, then he obviously enjoys the company of a different race more than his own.
Those in power, unfortunately, do not sees things this way.  Their approach is to force us together in the (ostensible) hope that we will all treat each other the same – in other words, that we will cease being human.  Personally, I’d rather be a “racist”.

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 9 Comments