Wishful thinking versus reality

Posted on January 16, 2011 by jewamongyou

Sometimes we fool ourselves and give credit where credit is not due.  While browsing the FCC’s website, I found that they actually link to (among other things) a review of the book “A Manifesto for Media Freedom” by Brian Anderson and Adam Thierer.  The first paragraph reads:

The alternative-media revolution of the last twenty years has smashed the liberal monopoly over news outlets and created a true marketplace of ideas. Rather than fight back with their own beliefs, today’s liberals work relentlessly to smother this new universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign finance reform and media regulations.

Not only that, but the FCC’s blog clearly allows some conservative oriented comments.   For a brief moment, I felt as if there may be some objectivity even within government agencies.  I soon realized my mistake and saw that the FCC, like every other government entity, does not actually have our best interests, or the protection of our liberties, in mind.  Instead, it is obsessed with controlling us and advancing the cause of non-whites.  Never is any concern, whatsoever, shown for whites.  I submitted the following comment on one of their forums:

You express concern about the needs of minorities.  But there is an entire television network dedicated to blacks: BET.  There are several dedicated to Hispanics.  I want to know what the FCC is doing to encourage the creation of a network specifically for whites.  Especially since whites are slated to become a minority in the near future (and already are in some states and many cities).  Everybody has the right to feel good about what they are – and this includes white people.  Especially white children.

My comment was rejected; any concern for the welfare of whites is perceived as “hate” and will not be tolerated.  So, seeing that the FCC is a publicly funded organization – and, therefore, its website public property – how do they justify such biased and discriminatory practices?  They do not need to justify anything – because they refuse to even acknowledge opposing views.
This is why any claims, on their part, that they are only interested in defending our freedom of speech, must be taken with great skepticism.  If they have no qualms about censuring a blog that I pay for through my taxes, then is it really such a leap for them to censure speech that is paid for with other money?  Let me pose this question differently: Right now the maximum percentage of our income that can be taxed, through the income tax, is 35%.  In the past, it has been as high as 94% (at least in theory).  This illustrates the fact that virtually all of our money is seen, by our government, as up for grabs.  All they need is some sort of excuse to take it.  The same applies to our liberties.  Members of Congress, who actually stop to consider whether the bill they are voting on is constitutional or not, can be counted on one hand.  So, there is absolutely no reason to trust criminal syndicates such as the FCC to refrain from censuring our speech based on their anti-white agenda.
But back to the apparent tolerance the FCC shows for conservatism, I think it would be better if they would simply show their true colors and allow only “liberal” views to be represented on their site.  That way people would not be fooled into thinking they have any conservative sentiments.  Most likely, any conservative statements found on such government websites are merely to give the perception of impartiality and fairness.  It is all a ruse.  To expect actual honesty from them would be like expecting good table etiquette from a pig.
Of course, this should not be a revelation to most readers.  But I wanted to underscore the ease with which we can be tricked, if only momentarily, into believing what we want to believe.  Since we want to believe that government is working toward our general welfare, it is easy for politicians to fool people into accepting their sincerity.  Since we want to believe that all people are essentially the same, it is easy to swallow the multiracial propaganda that is constantly being shoved down our throats.
We can take this to the next level.  We like to believe that our dogs, cats and hamsters are far more similar to us than they actually are.  We cling to every human-like antic, made by our pets, and we call it “cute”.  I think “cute” is a code-word for something that mimics a human baby or child – because, from an evolutionary perspective, it is advantageous to us to find the young of our own kind cute.  I have noticed a tendency among (white) racial egalitarians (so-called “liberals”).  They will go out of their way to shower praise and affection upon black children more so than white children.  My take on this is that deep down, they don’t consider those children fully human.  Their praise and affection is as if to say, “how cute!  It almost looks human!” – just as they might react to a monkey in a zoo.  Perhaps these feelings cause them guilt, so they’ll go out and adopt one just to prove that this is not so.
Many will read the preceding paragraph and cringe.  So I’ll pose a simple question: have you ever seen a “liberal” who does not find black children to be cute – and will readily admit it?  Of course I am not referring to all black children; only to those who are typical of their race.  I am fairly certain that my own standards of beauty/cuteness are fairly representative of white Americans (amongst whom I grew up).  Yet I openly admit that I do not find most black children to be cute.  I think some of them are cute – but not the ones with typical Negro features.  This is not a value judgment and it does not mean I consider them less than human, just as I would not consider an ugly woman less human than a pretty one.  It would be astounding if every single left-leaning human in the Western world just happened to find Negro features in children to be cute.  But they want to find them cute, so they act as if they are.  Not all dogs or cats are cute.  Some are ugly – and people have no qualms about expressing this.  They do not fear offending the animals. But, when it comes to some children, it is considered “racist” to not find them cute.  Of course, there are plenty of ugly white children too.  But what makes them ugly is not their Caucasian features; it is simply that they are ugly in a generic sort of way.
The common thread, in all the above, is that people believe (or say they believe) what they want to believe.  Honesty is a rare commodity these days.

Posted in examples of propaganda, freedom of speech issues, government/corporate discrimination against whites, libertarian thought | 3 Comments

The religion of miscegenation and of anti-miscegenation

Posted on January 15, 2011 by jewamongyou

We are all familiar with the religion of miscegenation; it’s generally a thinly veiled wish for the destruction of whites as a race.  But I now realize that there’s also a religion of anti-miscegenation.  This may seem odd, coming from a person such as myself.  For I strongly appose genocide, whether it’s accomplished through weapons or through lust.

But whatever practice one chooses to oppose, one of the questions he should ask himself is “to what degree do I oppose it?”  Many people have a slight distaste for miscegenation; we find them saying things like, “I would rather my daughter date a white man, but if she brings home a black man, I would accept him as well – as long as they’re happy.”  Most white nationalists (and black nationalists and Jewish nationalists etc.) would react much more strongly.  Many would disown their own children for this transgression.  Others would even go so far as to murder them.

Although I have misgivings about quoting him, somebody showed me these appropriate, if vulgar, words from Birdman Bryant:

Suppose you were left abandoned on a desert island with a black girl for a substantial period of time. Are you telling me you aren’t going to fuck her? Well, unless you are some kind of very weird dude or yr root’s gone limp, you will. And suppose you have kids with her — are you saying you are going to kill them? Not likely, Bro. Chances are you will raise them and love them as your own. And suppose you return to civilization and tell your white racialist comrades what you did with your little negress — do you expect them to nail you to a cross and burn it? Somehow I don’t think so.

Birdman seems to believe he’s the smartest man on Earth.  I don’t know about that, but his words do have an element of truth in this case.  Just how far are we willing to go to avoid miscegenation?  A friend of mine, anticipating an upcoming trip to Asia, jokingly remarked, “maybe I’ll meet somebody there”.  I replied, “an Asian wife is better than no wife at all” – and I stand by my words.  The man in question is quite young and, in my opinion, there is no justification for him to seek a wife among the Asians*.  But what about a not-so-young man or a disabled man whose prospects for a white wife are practically non-existent?  It’s not necessary to go into detail here; each of us has our own specific situation and requirements.  But one can imagine a scenario where the choices are a) live out your life alone or b) marry outside your race.  Which would you choose?

After Word War II, some Jewish men in Poland found themselves in precisely this predicament.  These survivors faced either life alone or life with a gentile woman.  I don’t believe that any of them chose the first option.

Another scenario where miscegenation should be tolerated, though still discouraged for the bad example it sets, is among old people.  they’re not going to start families and simply wish to enjoy each other’s company in their waning years.

I don’t deny that there are individuals who, through their great inner strength and firm resolve, would meet the challenge and (in a manner of speaking) become martyrs.  There is a Talmudic story of a couple that was madly in love.  When it became clear that, due to social restrictions, they could never marry, they each lived out their lives in celibacy so strong was their devotion to each other.

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that I admire those who sacrifice so much for their principles.  On the other hand, I think it’s unfair to demand the same from others.  I think there is a fine line between strong moral conviction and blind religious faith that doesn’t allow for any distinctions or grey areas.

*Yes, this does make my remark rather irrelevant; it was meant as a general observation and it was said without much thought.

Posted in miscegenation, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 9 Comments

Africans in Thailand

Posted on January 14, 2011 by jewamongyou

Sagat has posted an interesting article about Africans in Thailand.  If the Asians are smart, they’ll nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand:

An article in the Bangkok Post details the Thai police’s efforts to crack down on West Africans and the illegal drugs that they peddle. While this operation was promoted as an effort to attack the drug trade, the Thais explicitly targeted the Africans in the country, who have long been seen as a problem in Thailand.
There’s a small but significant population of West Africans(mostly Nigerians) in Thailand. They’ve been a source of social friction for some time in Thailand with both Thais and tourists alike objecting to their presence. Many are in the country illegally and deal in the black market. Through bribes and corruption within the Thai police, they’ve been able to keep their presence strong. Now Thais are making an effort to change that…

Posted in pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 22 Comments

Why do whites discriminate against blacks?

Posted on January 14, 2011 by jewamongyou

We often hear tales of discrimination against blacks, and these tales are invariably used to justify the current anti-white status-quo.  Whether the incident makes news headlines or whether it was just a minor personal experience, they tend to accumulate within the public psyche and maintain the perception that “racism is out there” and that it is pervasive.
Of course, some of those “racist incidents” had nothing to do with racism at all.  Blacks are not immune from encountering jerks or those who have had a bad day.  But they are more likely to attribute them to racism (partly because this is what they are trained to expect) while the rest of us  simply assume the culprit is having a bad day or has mental issues.  But this post is not about those imaginary incidents of discrimination*.  It is about real cases, where whites really do treat blacks differently and in a negative way – where whites yell “nigger” out the car window when passing a black on the street, or when whites really do avoid hiring blacks for a job or renting to them.  I think it is important to distinguish between the various motives behind such behavior and not lump them all together as one monolithic “racism” – though government, the MSM, the education system and big business prefer to avoid such distinctions.
1)  Innate fear of other races.  Jared Taylor writes:

Pre-school children show racial preferences even when they have not been taught anything about race or had any experience with people of other races. An Australian study of four- and five-year-olds found that white children preferred to play with white dolls. They would not play with an Aboriginal doll; one child even said “It’s yuck, yucky. Put it back.” White children would not accept an Asian doll, either, with one saying it “could not be Australian.” It could be argued that these children simply picked up the unconscious prejudices of their parents, but it is also possible that their reactions reflect innate preferences…
Steven Neuberg of Arizona State University has also done experiments that suggest instinctive bias, which he, too, attributes to evolution during our long, hunter-gatherer past. “By nature, people are group-living animals—a strategy that enhances individual survival and leads to what we might call a ‘tribal psychology’,” he says. “It was adaptive for our ancestors to be attuned to those outside the group who posed threats such as to physical security, health or economic resources, and to respond to these different kinds of threats in ways tailored to have a good chance of reducing them.”

2)  A preference for one’s own race that was learned from one’s parents and other elders.  This is the type of discrimination that we are supposed to believe is the norm.  It is the one most accurately termed “prejudice”.  But would it also not be prejudice to disregard the opinions of one’s parents and elders without looking into them thoroughly?  The typical story we are told involves a young person from the South who was taught negative things about blacks.  Later, when he grows up, he meets a black man (or has his life saved by one) and it dawns on him that what he was taught was all wrong.  If his parents had taught him that all blacks are evil, then yes, he was taught wrong and his parents were sabotaging their own credibility.  The fact is that most people are of average intelligence or less, so lessons tend to get dumbed down.  The more accurate lesson of “be wary of blacks because they tend to be more criminal and less trustworthy, but realize that there are good and bad in every group” gets dumbed down to “blacks are criminals and untrustworthy”.  Such blanket statements, and attitudes, are bound to be exposed as false as soon as the child grows up and experiences the real world.
3)  A distaste for blacks due to bad experiences with them.  Given the huge amount of black on white crime, it is surprising this type of discrimination is not more common.  Of course, the MSM works overtime to dilute our own personal experiences with their own positive messages about blacks and other non-whites.  But it should be no wonder if a woman, who was mugged by blacks, raped by blacks and verbally abused by blacks, has negative feelings toward blacks and then translates those feelings into action when she can.  Though such actions are not always justified, they are human nature.  Society would do well to address the root cause of such animosity, rather than the symptoms.  In other words: address the problem of black on white crime.
4)  Resentment due to preferential treatment for blacks at one’s own expense.  No matter where we go, or what we do, in America today (and Europe), we cannot escape anti-white bias.  It is in the news, at school, at work, in movies, billboards and at the doctor’s office.  Due to this bias, many whites are denied access to higher education (at least to the schools they hoped to attend).  Their job opportunities are curtailed.  They miss out on raises and they cannot get away with the same sort of conduct that non-whites engage in; doing so would get them fired.  They cannot agitate for their own people without acquiring a social stigma or worse.  When every institution, that has any measure of power over our lives, conspires to oppress whites as a group, we should not be surprised when some whites choose to even the score whenever they can.
5)  A desire to maintain a white majority in one’s own traditionally white homeland.  Since, for most of us, taking up arms against the ever-increasing tide of non-white immigration is not practical, another way to combat the invasion is to make life as uncomfortable for the invaders as possible.  Society at large calls this attitude “xenophobia” – but would Native Americans have been “xenophobic” had they opposed white settlement of their homelands through various raids and trade sanctions?  Population replacement policies, such as those pursued by governments in historically white lands, are clearly genocidal.  They are not acceptable and each individual has a duty wage his own personal battle in whatever little ways he can.  Of course, most American blacks did not migrate here by choice – so this motive would only apply to recent immigrants.
6)  A desire to maintain the value of one’s own home and to defend his neighborhood against encroaching crime.  This, of course, goes hand in hand with defending his own family.  When large numbers of blacks move into a neighborhood, crime almost always increases.  So it is not hard to understand why a homeowner would avoid renting, or selling, to blacks if this will upset the current ethnic character of his neighborhood.
7)  Fear of lawsuits or ethnic tension in the workplace.  We are constantly told that “diversity is our strength” but the reality is that ethnic diversity is a great weakness.  It is expensive, often awkward, dangerous and corrosive to trust.  A common culture and language is a great strength to any enterprise and a business owner who values this may well avoid hiring those of different backgrounds; he wishes to maintain the cultural integrity of his business.  Many business owners have discovered that firing an out-of-control black employee can be costly.  The employee may avenge his dismissal with a discrimination lawsuit.  Better to avoid this altogether and avoid hiring blacks.
8)  In some positions, the employee may have to interact with the public.  If the business is in a predominantly black area, then it might make sense to hire a black for the position.  After all, people prefer to do business with those who look like themselves.  But what if the business is in a mostly white area?  Might it not make sense to hire a white person?  What if the employee must speak to customers on the phone but his ghetto accent might turn business away?  Might it not make sense to hire somebody who customers can both understand and better relate to?  Sometimes physical beauty is important for the position.   White women are usually considered more attractive than black women.  This is why black men so often prefer white women.  In fact, given the chance, most men on Earth would prefer a white woman over one of his own race.  So it should be no wonder if a white woman is preferred for such a position.
9)  The person in question may not trust blacks, for certain positions, because he is familiar with HBD.  He may have made a conscious decision to keep his workforce white (or Asian) because, by his calculations, the risks are much less for him this way.  One wonders how many basketball teams consciously recruit black players for much the same reason.  Where are the protests over that?
10)  He may simply dislike black mannerisms, appearance, smell or tastes in music.  Even if he holds no animosity toward them, has never suffered from them and has no rational reason for avoiding them, his own personal tastes may lead him to keep them out of his workplace.
11)  Some people, including some whites, are bullies by nature.  They will find a reason to pick on others if they can.  Sometimes, the trigger will be the victim’s short stature, or the fact that he is bald or obese.  Other times it might be that the victim is of a different race than the bully.  There is no rhyme or reason for such thuggery – but if the bully is white, and the victim black, the powers that be interpret this as “racism”.  So yes, there is discrimination in these cases, but it is merely discrimination of convenience; the bully was looking for an excuse to leap into action and he found one.  I would include those who act out due to mental issues in this same category.  The mentally unstable person might lash out at the slightest provocation.  It is not unusual even for the anti-white establishment to recognize this type of behavior as distinct from standard “racism”.
We may each draw our own conclusions, regarding each type of discrimination listed above (and some I may have missed), as to whether it is reasonable, justified, repugnant or criminal.  We may each also decide if eliminating them would be a worthy goal – but to do so would certainly require an understanding of their root causes.  Lumping them all together as “racism” and “evil” will not do much to advance this goal.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with discrimination, as long as it does not trample the rights of others.
*When I use the term “discrimination” in this sense, I mean it in its neutral sense; it is not a value judgment.

Posted in activism, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 17 Comments

Naughty heroes

Posted on January 13, 2011 by jewamongyou

This is a piece I wrote a while back, but wasn’t sure I wanted to post on the blog – partly because I am not certain I agree with it 100% myself.  But, since I have nothing else lined up for today, and since this blog is as much to encourage discussion and debate as anything else, here it is:
If Julian Assange is, indeed, guilty of sexual misconduct, he is in good company.  He can join the ranks of almost every famous or powerful man since the dawn of time.  Women are naturally attracted to men who boast fame, power or notoriety.  Men, being men, are inclined to take advantage of these new opportunities.

Linderborg, though, says there is a widespread sense in Sweden that Assange’s rise to fame fuelled his libido and ego.
“Plenty of women are attracted by his underdog status and the supposed danger of spending time with him. He has several women on the go at once. One person told me he screws more often than he eats,” Linderborg said.

Since time immemorial, it has been understood by the wives of the rich, famous and powerful, that their husbands would be shared.  Whether it was in the form of concubines, other wives or mistresses, polygamy has been one of the perks of prestige.
Generally speaking, the public is accepting of such indulgences.  Even if, long after their deaths, not only excesses, but perversions would come to light.  It seems that, for some odd reason, people expect politicians (who are not known for their integrity or morality) to exist on a higher plane than the rest of us.  So we are regularly treated to sex scandals featuring “respectable” leaders of each political party.  But much as I loath politicians, I would not hold them more accountable for their sexual indiscretions than the common man.  There are plenty of other deeds they are guilty of that would condemn them to the fiery bowels of hell.
Those of us who are pro-white are quick to blame Martin Luther King for his extramarital dalliances.  But prominent men of the white nationalist movement are also alleged to have seduced the wives of other men as opportunity presented itself.  Although blacks are far more likely to give in to their sexual urges, no race holds a monopoly on such conduct.
Name a famous man and beneath that facade of respectability can be found – a man.  The odds of that man’s sexual preferences being the same as yours are slim to none.  This might make him a pervert in your eyes.  You might be one in his.  One man’s fetishes are another man’s perversions.  Let us not be quick to judge, for nobody gets to choose his sexual preferences ahead of time.  It is also quite normal for men to push the limits of morality when the doors of sexual adventure are flung open for them.
I am not saying that, when it comes to sex, anything goes.  My point is that, since almost all of us are naturally sexual beings, we should give some slack when it comes to this sort of thing.  Hypocrisy, stealing, murder and blatant corruption are what we should be more concerned about; few of us are born with such inclinations.  Many great men have been alcoholics.  Others have been drug addicts.  Some have had serious mental diseases.  The list goes on – but this does not detract from their greatness.  I think it is possible to recognize a man’s greatness, and respect his contributions to his field of expertise, even though he turns out to be tainted in some other respect.
It seems the definition of “rape” is rather broad in Sweden.  That is to say, it is the broad who defines it.  So I would not be quick to judge Assange in these matters.  Instead, let us judge him by his noteworthy deeds.  At least for the time being.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Mass murders of the 20th century and the Talmud

Posted on January 12, 2011 by jewamongyou

Somebody posted the following off-topic comment (which I deleted):

I know this is off topic but i found a blogspot you might enjoy or might not caesartort.blogspot.com/

The heading reads “The West’s Darkest Hour” and I get the impression, reading through that blog, that the authors do not like Jews very much.  Here is an excerpt from a book review by J.A. Sexton.  The book is called “Hellstorm” and it tells of the horrors perpetrated upon ethnic Germans by advancing Russian troops at the end of the war:

Ehrenburg, like any skilled propagandist with a penchant for revenge and training in human psychology, appealed to the basest instincts of his men, urging them to rape and wantonly slaughter other human beings at will. There would be no penalties for this injustice as it was all officially sanctioned. Ehrenburg:

Kill!Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.

I shall spare my readers the graphic detail the review goes into.  Suffice it to say that it makes one question whether mankind is worthy of ruling over the other animals.  The blog claims that Ehrenburg, and his partners in propaganda, were Jews and it lays the ultimate blame upon the Jews.
I have seen many accusations leveled against Germans and their collaborators and I have seen many accusations leveled against the Jews.  Call me lazy but I refuse to spend my remaining years researching the dynamics of the horrific holocausts of the 20th century.  I was raised to believe, like most of the West, that the Germans were evil and guilty of enormities beyond human comprehension.  That many Jews died under Nazi rule is beyond question.  That many were tortured is also certain.  As for the numbers and many of the details, I do not claim to know.  It turns out that many of those who disseminate “holocaust history” have less than honorable motives and are guilty of sloppy research.  One cannot simply take their word for anything.  By the same token, I am not willing to take the word of anti-Jewish fanatics either.  I have seen their sickness and they are consumed with hatred toward me and toward my people.  It seems that they obsess about Jews every waking hour – and probably also in their dreams.
While it is true that many of my co-ethnics have been conspiring to destroy Western civilization and to eliminate the white race or reduce it to miserable remnants, it is not only Jews who have been involved in this evil.  Almost all influential white gentiles are also in on the conspiracy.  So when neo-Nazis say to me, “look jewamongyou!  See what terrible crimes your people have committed against whites?” it makes me wonder what they want from me.  Perhaps they believe I am in possession of inside information on a vast Jewish conspiracy which, for some reason, I have so far withheld from the public.  Or maybe they want me to renounce my heritage and convert to another religion or grow my foreskin back.  It is clear that, in the eyes of some, a Jew is irredeemable (“seed of the devil”).  Lucky for me, it is not my mission in life to make them happy; it is a lot easier for me to make myself happy.  Fighting the good fight makes me happy.
When I read about the atrocities perpetrated upon my own people, it makes me sad.  It makes me sad when I read about atrocities perpetrated upon innocent Germans as well.  Growing up, the worst anti-German sentiment I encountered among other Jews was a refusal to buy Volkswagen cars.  I do not recall anybody calling for the indiscriminate slaughter or rape of Germans, let alone gentiles in general.  As for certain statements in the Talmud, the average neo-Nazi is far better versed in it than the average (secular) Jew. Jews do not wile away their days poring through those volumes trying to find derogatory statements about “the goyim”.  I spent years studying the Talmud in yeshivas and very little attention was paid to such statements, the emphasis being almost completely on matters of practical Jewish law.  I never encountered anybody who, upon reading such comments, stood up and said, “I’m gonna kill me some GOYIM!”  Instead, the derogatory statements were met with mild amusement (or ignored altogether) – which would last all of a few seconds, until the debate at hand resurfaced.  The various Roman persecutions against the Jews, specifically Jewish scholars, plays prominently in Jewish liturgy on certain holidays.  It is understood that the ancient sages were men of their day and that, when they spoke evil of  non-Jews, it was against this background.  Their words should not be taken literally, in such a way that derogatory statements about “non-Jews” would refer even to peoples they knew nothing about.  The sages engaged in Oriental hyperbole and yes, sometimes they would say careless things, especially by modern, Western, standards.  Most Jews who study the Talmud have enough common sense to understand that what was said about ancient Romans or Persians (even if the term “goy” was used) does not automatically apply half a world away and centuries later.  I will be the first to admit that religious Jews do some crazy things and have some peculiar attitudes.  This is true – but Talmudic study does not strip away all human intuition or decency.  It does not turn otherwise moral people into those who would mindlessly hate all gentiles.  If somebody is already a mindless hater, then yes, he might comfort himself with those parts of the Talmud. It all comes back to there being good and bad in every group.
I do not know all the facts of history but I do know that right now, in America, most Jews do not hate whites (or even Germans) and most whites (even Germans) do not hate Jews.  A German is perfectly safe walking through a Jewish neighborhood and a Jew is perfectly safe walking through a German neighborhood.  This is a state of affairs that we should all strive to perpetuate.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 17 Comments

My first encounter with a "geniza"

Posted on January 11, 2011 by jewamongyou

The word “geniza” may be familiar to some of you because of the remarkable discovery of the “Cairo Geniza” in the 19th century.  Literally, “geniza” means “a place of burial” – but not of bodies.  It is a place where old, worn out, holy books find their final resting place.  It is considered disrespectful to discard them in the garbage, so they are buried or otherwise stored away.  Did I say “final resting place”?  Well, not always; sometimes curious people like myself disturb their rest and disinter them.  There is nothing disrespectful about this – as long as we treat them with deference.  One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure.
My first experience with a geniza was not nearly as exciting as the discovery of the Cairo Geniza; nothing can compare to that.  But it was exciting nevertheless.  I was attending a yeshiva in Jerusalem and this particular building had been in use for quite some time.  There was a somewhat secluded roof area and, adjacent to it, a large covered area – which served as the geniza.  In order to reach it, one had to climb over a stone arch.  To fall from it meant certain death.  Few ever ventured there for this reason.  But I was young, foolish and curious so venture there I did.  The place was dark and danky.  It crawled with various spiders and insects and it contained numerous barrels and burlap sacks, all full of old books, manuscripts and other worn out religious items.  I was like a kid in a candy store but I knew nothing about old books at the time.  If I encountered something that looked interesting to me, I would keep it.  After each such expedition, I would wheeze and gasp for breath – because the dust was so intense.  My whole body would be covered with dust, spider webs and God knows what else.  Some of the books I salvaged were moldy and many had worm holes in them.  Over the course of a Summer, I had gone through every barrel and every sack.  My collection was mildly impressive.
Shortly thereafter, somebody had carelessly tossed a cigarette butt into the geniza – and the entire structure disappeared in a blaze.  Not the entire building; just the geniza.  This was about 30 years ago, and I still have some of the books I’d salvaged from that place.  They are not particularly valuable, but they were interesting enough for me to keep all these years.
Decades later, I had a similar experience.  I was married with kids and we lived in a multiplex here in the U.S.  The area we lived in had a small Jewish community which had been larger in the past.  One day, for whatever reason, I entered the basement and, aside from a litter of kittens, there were a couple of boxes containing old Hebrew books.  Most of them were of little value and in poor condition – but I did find a Yiddish manuscript that had (as far as I can tell) never been published.  It was a history of the town of Rotneh, Ukraine.  There was also an old photograph of an unknown child.  Since none of the other residents of the multiplex were Jewish, it was clear that those items had no owners.  They had obviously been there for many years.  Less than a week after my salvage operation, the landlord had the entire basement emptied and its contents hauled to a landfill.  It was considered a fire hazard.

Rotneh

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 2 Comments

Are "people of color" ignored by the media?

Posted on January 10, 2011 by jewamongyou

In the blog “Feministing” a writer, who goes by the name Rose, tell us that…

Mainstream media outlets ignore people of color

Mainstream newspapers, cable and network television, radio, and news websites do not care about the lives of people of color. According to The Pew Research Center’s latest analysis of news coverage,  African Americans had less than 2 percent of coverage, Hispanics had 1.3 percent and Asian Americans had 0.2 percent. This is so offensive considering the demographics of the United States.

The article goes on to compare overall population statistics, the implication being that if 40% of the U.S. population is “people of color” then 40% of news coverage should deal with “people of color”.  To a casual reader, who avoids thinking about it too much, this might seem like a legitimate complaint.  But let us delve a little deeper.  If we look at the original Pew analysis, this is what we find:

… These findings come from an examination of more than 67,000 national news stories that appeared between February 16, 2009 and February 15, 2010 in different mainstream media outlets, including newspapers, cable and network television, radio, and news websites.

Just 643 of those stories, 1.9% of the total newshole examined by the study, related in a significant way to African Americans in the U.S. [1] (To be considered a “significant” part of a given story, 25% of the content of that story must be about a demographic group and its race/ethnicity). However, this was more coverage than was given in the same time period to two other minority groups — Hispanics (1.3%) and Asian Americans (0.2%). As a percentage African Americans make up 12.9% of the U.S. population.

The press coverage that did emerge tended to be a reaction to events involving black newsmakers rather than to issues relating to African Americans more generally. The arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, the Obama presidency, the death of Michael Jackson and the attempted Northwest Airlines terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab accounted for nearly half (46.4%) of all coverage that had a substantial mention of African Americans during this time period…

Clearly, what Pew is talking about is not the appearance of non-white faces in news media.  If a television program shows a group of school children, and 60% of those children were non-white, this would not count as “coverage” for non-whites.  It only counts as “African American coverage”, for example, if the news story specifically addresses the needs or concerns of the “African American community”.

After reading all the above, we might ask, “What kind of coverage does the European American (white) community get from the media?” Are there any programs that relate specifically to whites – not implicitly but explicitly, in the same way that “Black in America 2” relates specifically to blacks?  Although I do not watch television, I am fairly certain that if we conducted such a survey, we would find that such programs amount to 0% of all coverage.  The implication is that whites have no special interests, concerns or needs.

What about the total proportion of people shown on television who are non-white?  In his book, “The Development of Social Maturity“, David McClelland writes (regarding blacks):

Because of pressure from black groups, the current proportion of blacks on television approximates their number in the United States population; however, blacks are more likely than whites to be cast in minor roles (Hinton et al., 1973).  The formal social-occupational status of blacks has also been elevated since the early days of television.  While they used to be cast as servants or entertainers, blacks are not represented as “regulators” of society in positions such as teachers or law enforcers (Clark, 1972; Roberts, 1970).  Based on overall representation and formal status, a child viewer would be expected to respect blacks.  However, their character portrayals may weaken the overall impression.  Blacks are portrayed as good and likable but neither forceful nor powerful.

McClelland’s book was published back in 1982.  Since then, the chorus of demands has grown, not only by blacks but by every other minority group in America. Needless to say, a lot of thought goes into which, and how many, roles get played by persons of which race.  Those who work behind the scenes consider it their duty to portray minorities in the most favorable light possible.  In Entrepreneur.com, we find Dana E. Mastro & Maria A. Kopacz, writing for the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media telling us…

Support for a Media-Based Model of Policy Reasoning

In an attempt to provide a comprehensive, media-inclusive model of racial policy reasoning, Tan et al. (2000) incorporate insights from research on media priming, heuristic models of decision making, and models of media use in the specification of their affective model of policy reasoning. Indeed, each path in their reasoning chain finds substantiation in empirical research.

Support for media use as an exogenous variable in the policy model can be anchored in the research on media priming. Examinations of the priming effects of the media link exposure to positive race-based exemplars with more favorable evaluations of racial and ethnic minorities (Bodenhausen et al., 1995), whereas consumption of negative stereotypes results in disadvantageous racial judgments (Johnson, Adams, Hall, & Ashburn, 1997; Peffley, Shields, & Williams, 1996; Power, Murphy, & Coover, 1996). From this perspective, stereotypes are understood in their capacity to serve as heuristics or structures for the organization of knowledge. Conceptually then, stereotypes do not necessarily carry negative implications.

When racial dynamics in media is reduced to a science, the inevitable result is that very little is left to chance.  Although the mainstream media attempts to give the illusion of randomness, in reality there is nothing random about the number of black/Hispanic faces shown at any given time on television or any other news outlet. When Obama gives a public speech, great care is taken as to the ethnicities of individuals visible behind him as he speaks.  If a company is casting for a commercial, they already know what race the candidates must be.

For those of us who have never personally experienced what goes on behind the scenes in the world of media, “Coloring the News” by William McGowan is a must-read.  It describes how decisions are made and why they are made.  Though most of his book deals with the coverage of crime, immigration and homosexuals, the underlying mentality he describes applies equally here.  The book was published in 2002 and things have certainly not improved since then.  Given the politics of our era, and the clout of special interest groups, any impression of racial randomness in the media is mere illusion.  If this is indeed the case, then the epitom
e of diversity – the black male – has certainly lost any claim to randomness.  If a black man is shown on television, or featured in a news story, it is because the bosses on high specifically called for a black man.  Even if his story is newsworthy for other reasons, the amount of coverage he gets will be determined based on the fact that he is a black man.  The only possible exception to this rule might be sports news – but even sports coverage might be tainted with racial politics.  I’ll let readers fill me in on this in comments; I am sports-illiterate.

This is the background I should have given prior to publishing my earlier post “Cleared by DNA“.  The media did not make up the story in order to further their racial agenda – but they did take advantage of it, slightly distort it, and leverage it toward this goal.

Posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 4 Comments

Hasty memos and half-baked accusations

Posted on January 9, 2011 by jewamongyou

While reading Occidental Dissent, I found a disturbing comment.  It seems the hate-mongers are at it again, this time taking advantage of the tragic shooting in Arizona to cast suspicion upon American Renaissance.  As for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), apparently all it takes is for some deranged individual(s) to provide an anonymous tip linking American Renaissance to the shooting, and it is taken seriously enough to leak to Fox News:

There is no direct connection, but a strong suspicion, that the accused shooter was influenced by a group called American Renaissance. This is based on some of the videos he posted on YouTube. This group’s ideology is anti-government, anti-immigration, and anti-Semitic. Congresswoman Giffords is the first Jewish female elected to a high position in Arizona.

Anybody who is even remotely familiar with American Renaissance knows that it does not fit the description above at all.  But it is pro-white, and this is enough for some people to label it “racist”.  Once a person, or group, acquires the label “racist”, it follows (according to their reasoning) that all other negative epithets also apply. Thus, a “racist” must also be ant-Semitic, terrorist, fascist, ignorant, Nazi, Communist, pedophile, misogynist and a cannibal.  After all, evil is evil, right?
That Fox would publish such an accusation, obviously without the slightest effort to verify its veracity, shows that The Left is right about one thing: Fox News is not news at all.  The level of recklessness required to fling such ignorance at the public shows that, if Fox wishes to be taken seriously, it had better clean its own house and show more responsibility.
If I am right about the anonymous tip, then this incident shows us how far the United States has transformed into a police state.  We already know that, in places like Stalin’s Russia and today’s Afghanistan, people strike at their enemies by “informing” against them to the government.  In a police state, the government is a tool that can be used, by unscrupulous people, against anybody.  We are told, “report suspicious activity” over and over again.  Once in a while, suspicious activity may be a legitimate warning of impending terrorist strikes.  On the other hand, the sort of mentality we are being urged to adopt leads to a constant erosion of our liberties.  It makes me wonder if an occasional terrorist attack is a better choice.  Sometimes the treatment is worse than the disease.

Posted in activism, examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 7 Comments

Shop right, buy white pt. II

Posted on January 9, 2011 by jewamongyou

Here is a letter I just received from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous:
Hi JAY,
You posted something awhile ago about “shop right, buy white.” I think this is a great idea and I would like to start, or see started, a website along those lines (last I checked, shoprightbuywhite.com is still available).  However, I don’t know many people in the white advocate/white nationalist community (my focus is more on eugenics) so you might be more knowledgeable (or know someone who is) who can help with this.
It would be good to have a website which focused on white advocacy in terms of media and consumer goods. You mentioned the movement needs more women. Well, women make most of the purchases for any household, if they “buy white” in large numbers Madison Ave. will sit up and pay attention. Plus, political activism is not for everyone; this is a way for a larger number of people to directly participate in a white advocate movement and a way for it to get more exposure.
“Shop right, buy white” is catchy and it sticks in people’s minds. Like “Dresden recovered, Detroit did not.” People may rage all they want, but once that idea’s in their brain it won’t get out again. Also, many people in liberal areas––doctors, police officers, public defenders, Newark survivors––who are racially realist, and very, very lonely. I know so many surface-liberals who are actually race realists trying to keep the peace at work. If these sayings got around a bit, and if people started googling “buy white” or “Dresden recovered,” it wouldn’t be hard for a moderately competent group of white nationalists to google bomb the results and present a well-documented case for why whites should act in their own self-interest. Once liberal whites stop fearing the disapproval of other whites, many of them will start to be more overt––or more aggressively covert––about helping other whites.
If you want to post this idea on your blog, or anywhere else, feel free to do so. However, I’d prefer you not mention who wrote it; if anyone in my life finds my tumblog, I’m already screwed once over for writing a eugenics blog, let alone commenting on a white nationalist website without spluttering disapproval. If they find out that I proposed this to you, it could be all over before it began. (I’m 23)
I’ve included a copy of a letter I sent to NBC about the tv show “Community.” I tried to watch it b/c I like Joel McHale, but the supporting cast (and background extras) were too much for me. Not sure if it’ll interest you, but it outlines the kind of approach “Shop Right, Buy White” campaigns could take.
best,
Eugenicist
Letter Copy –
Dear NBC Studios,
I was very disappointed with one of your latest shows, “Community.” You may be trying to reflect the changing demographics of the nation in your show’s cast. However, many of your viewers have to deal with diversity day in and day out; when they come home, they would like to see a show with a more homogeneous cast, whether homogeneously black, white, asian or something else.
Diversity weakens community, and “Community.” Ethnically diverse schools, neighborhoods and nations have more strife, less engagement and less happiness than homogeneous ones. On top of that, diversity makes neighbors less friendly and less trusting, and more likely to stay with their own kind.
The chirpy, sassy banter of mixed-race tv show ensembles almost never occurs in real life. More often than not, different groups tolerate each other, form surface connections and ignore the tension until it becomes beneficial not to. I’m sure there are exceptions to this rule, but I doubt any exist in any community college tutor group, anywhere in the United States. What do you think?
I understand and appreciate the hard work of NBC’s staff and of the cast. However, it pains me that such a good show as “Community” takes the approach that it does. If you are trying to portray a fantasy, why not fulfill your viewer’s fantasies more completely, and show an overwhelmingly white (or black, or asian, or jewish, or ____) cast? And if you are trying to portray reality, why on earth would you do so in a situation comedy?
Of course, you won’t change the series, even if you receive ten thousand similar letters. As is your right, which I don’t begrudge you. I hope you know that you are losing potential viewers, young viewers even, because of your casting choices, and are not doing this out of ignorance and the misguided belief that people enjoy diversity. Perhaps you are right––people do enjoy theoretical diversity, as shown on your show. Too bad that doesn’t exist.
Yours sincerely,

Posted in activism | 3 Comments