Shame on Vdare

Posted on September 21, 2010 by jewamongyou

While it is important to forge allies with those who share our beliefs, I think that some sort of standards should be upheld.  I find Vdare’s decision to feature the article “Let My Brothers-In-Law Go – Home” on their front page disturbing.  The author of this piece, a certain Hal Netkin, boasts on his website that he…

… is Jewish, is married to a Latina who illegally immigrated from Mexico in 1989 (now a proud U.S. Citizen), and Hal and his wife have three adopted daughters whose combined ancestry is Mexican, Honduran, and Filipino. An older daughter of Hal’s is married to a Black-American, and Hal’s brother’s wife immigrated from El Salvador. How’s that for family diversity?

Mr. Netkin supposedly believes in principles that are “strong, traditional and decent”.  One wonders whose “tradition” he believes in since his own family seems to have no specific tradition it can call its own.  If he studied American history, he would know that this sort of “diversity” is not what made America great.  Instead, he would realize that the “diversity” he so celebrates is responsible for the very corruption he himself bemoans in Los Angeles.
Vdare is supposed to be one of our greatest allies in the struggle to preserve the white race and its civilizations.   There is no lack of competent writers who share this goal.  What would possess them to scoop sewage sludge from the gutters of Los Angeles in order to populate their website?




Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 11 Comments

Those pesky do-gooder Muslims

Posted on September 21, 2010 by jewamongyou

These days, it is easy to hate Islam and, by extension, to hate Muslims.  After all, they have been responsible for notorious terrorist attacks, for swamping white homelands with demanding immigrants and imposing a regime of fear upon most of the world.  Unfortunately, reality is a bit more complex than Muslim = bad.  It shouldn’t be necessary to list specific acts of kindness or courage done by “Muslims”.  Or, more accurately perhaps, good people who happen to call themselves “Muslim”.   Despite what it says in the Quran, some Muslims have been known to risk their lives to save non-Muslims from death and persecution.
When it comes to Muslim atrocities, such as the recent fatwa issued against a Seattle cartoonist, evil plans are hatched in my mind to put those Muslims in their place.  I am inclined to write pages of the Quran, in beautiful Arabic calligraphy, on pig skin and sell them online  (note to Muslim extremists: for a million dollars, I might reconsider and refrain from carrying out this plan).   But then I think of all the decent Muslims, the ones who would stand up for what is good and right when push comes to shove, and I consider how my actions might radicalize them and convince them that “those infidels really are a bunch of bastards after all.”  I wonder if there is a way to insult only the bad Muslims without inflaming the good ones.
Then, in moments of introspection, I remember my own attitude when I lived in Israel.  At the time I witnessed Arabs being abused by Jews and I knew that, if I ever had the opportunity to save an innocent Arab from a violent Jewish mob, I would do it.  Would my attitude have changed if some Arabs had gotten together and burned a Torah scroll?  Not at all; I would have recognized that the actions of a few do not represent the attitudes of them all.  Furthermore, I would have understood that such demonstrations might simply be protests against Jewish persecution*.  Not necessarily hatred for all Jews.  This is a distinction that must be made.
But there are some questions that need to be asked:
If it was one of the Torah scroll burners whom I had the opportunity to save, would I still save him?
If a Muslim were considering saving me from a violent Muslim mob and he knew that I was the one who wrote the Quran on pig skin, would he still save me?
Furthermore, would an impartial jury condemn the Muslim for not saving me?
I do not have the answers to any of these questions.
*My opinion on persecution in Israel has always been that it is a two-way street.  Arabs persecute Jews and Jews persecute Arabs, each using the tools at their disposal.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Worshipping a mass murderer

Posted on September 20, 2010 by jewamongyou

Who was the worst mass murderer in recorded history?  Many people would instinctively answer “Hitler” – and they would be wrong.  Stalin was certainly worse in this regard; he was responsible for about twenty million deaths (mere statistics, in his view).  I am speaking here of civilian deaths, not military ones.  But even Stalin probably does not take first prize amongst mass murderers.  By most accounts, the man responsible for the most civilian deaths was Mao Zedong.
One disturbing aspect of the above ranking is that the number one murderer is also the only one who is still held in high regard by his victims’ survivors.  Most Russians despise Stalin.  The vast majority of Europeans loath Hitler.  Certainly Pol Pot is not held in high regard amongst Cambodians.  Yet the personality cult of Mao is still alive and well in China.  If most Chinese spit upon his memory, they can only do so secretly because, officially, he is still a god.
I once visited China and, behaving like the typical “ugly American” I was quite outspoken about my disdain for certain things.  I told Chinese, to their faces, that I’d nicknamed Beijing “Mucus City” because everybody smoked and spat their mucus upon the street so that pedestrians must watch where they step.  I was almost arrested for photographing a pathetic amputee beggar clinging to the leg of a passerby.  My tour guide was confused when I told him Mao was the last “emperor”.  He replied, “no.  He was not an emperor; he was Chairman Mao.”  I retorted, “if he wanted you dead, you were dead.  He had absolute power and even had concubines.  How was he different from an emperor?”  The tour guide had apparently never thought of that; he stood there dumbfounded with no answer.  When street vendors tried to sell me “The Sayings of Mao”, I told them, “I do not like Mao”.  It is a wonder I was not arrested.
Perhaps I should have been less outspoken, while in China, about my distaste for Mao and cigarette mucus – well, at least about the mucus.  It is, arguably, a good thing to show your dislike for a brutal dictator who brought about the deaths of tens of millions of people.  Could it be that most Chinese are unaware of his crimes?  I could only imagine the pain and anger of those Chinese whose families and friends were murdered by Mao’s ruthless regime, but who must see him adored publicly.

I also wonder about those street vendors who sell “The Sayings of Mao”.  How many of them were orphaned because of Mao?  There is a certain irony in this situation.  What would a true communist say about his books being sold on the free market in the streets?  Perhaps, at some level, those vendors see this as a small measure of revenge.

Posted in libertarian thought | 7 Comments

Kosher and halal

Posted on September 19, 2010 by jewamongyou

In order for meat/poultry to be kosher, the animal must be slaughtered by an observant Jew.  Its throat must be cut using a sharp blade and in one stroke.  The animal is then inspected to verify it had no maladies or wounds.  The meat must be “kashered” prior to consumption by smearing it with salt and letting most of the blood drain out.  The Torah prohibits the consumption of blood.  It also, according to standard interpretation, prohibits cruelty to animals.  “Cruelty to animals” is only prohibited if there is no benefit from the suffering.  As it so happens, we cannot eat meat without killing the animal (it is also forbidden to eat the limb from a living animal).  Killing is otherwise considered “cruel”.
Islam copied the laws of kosher slaughter along with many other things.  Of course, Muslims do not require a Jew to do the slaughtering.   According to Islam, any food that is kosher is also permissible to Muslims.  This does not work the other way; even though kosher is halal, halal is not kosher.
Through most of history, the kosher way of slaughter was considered humane; it involved less pain than striking the animal repeatedly with a hammer, eating it while it was still alive or inflicting many small wounds all over its body.  With the advance of technology, more humane methods of slaughter were devised.  At the same time, more people developed a new-found conscientiousness regarding the welfare of animals (but not usually insects or microbes).
While advancements in our standards of mercy are generally a good thing, I think it is important to maintain perspective.  Even as the uproar plays out in the U.K. over the sneaking of halal meats into the mouths of non-Muslims, we should take media claims with a grain of salt.  I do not believe that most meat-eaters care about the suffering of animals during their slaughter.  They just want their meat.  The real issue here is not so much cruelty to animals but cultural imperialism.  Those who oppose the mass implementation of halal in the U.K. are probably more concerned with their own suffering – at the loss of their civilization – than with the suffering of animals.  Here we have yet another case of people protesting what is permissible to protest (“inhumane” slaughter of animals) rather than what is forbidden to protest (their own genocide through mass immigration).
I do not see anything wrong with halal (kosher) slaughter.  In nature, animals kill each other in the most cruel and unspeakable ways.  Humans are the only animal that deliberately minimizes the suffering of its prey.  Even then, not all humans share this sensibility.  In Korea, dogs and cats are tortured and cooked alive.  That most of us find this reprehensible puts us on a higher level than those Koreans.  I do not think the solution is for Americans to pass laws against eating dogs or cats.
While it may feel good to adopt a holier than thou attitude about methods of slaughter, in the end such attitudes may force us all to be vegetarians.  After all, if our goal is to minimize animal suffering, vegetarians are the Brahmans of this caste system.  Koreans would be untouchables and the rest of us somewhere in between.  If a plant-rights movement ever gains momentum, then we would all starve.  It seems to me that, when it comes to humane slaughter of animals, there are very few clear-cut cases of “acceptable” and “not acceptable”.  Instead, we have a continuum.  Since there does not seem to be any less painful way to slaughter an animal (in the absence of modern technology) than the kosher/halal way, I think this would qualify it as reasonably humane.
What about those who shudder at the thought of blood, and who cannot accept any pain for the animal?  Those people might consider becoming vegetarians.  Here is a test for those who object to kosher/halal slaughter on humanitarian grounds: visit a modern slaughtering facility and watch the entire process – while eating a hamburger.  If this does not bother you, then we can discuss kosher/halal slaughter on a more meaningful level.
As for halal slaughter taking over Europe, the problem is not excessive pain for the animals but rather excessive numbers of Muslims in Europe.  The sooner Europeans learn to recognize the real issue, and debate it honestly, the more hope for their long-term survival as Europeans.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 9 Comments

The Jewish kingdom of Adiabene

Posted on September 18, 2010 by jewamongyou

Some of you may have noticed a new addition in the links section of this blog.  It is called “State of Exile” and it includes many articles and links of Jewish interest.  One of the links is to a website called kulanu.org, which has a fascinating article about the kingdom of Adiabene.  You can read it here.  Unfortunately, it seems the author was lax in proofreading it (or not a native English speaker) but it is still a great read.
I think it is interesting that all three of the Jewish kingdoms I am aware of, which existed outside the Land of Israel, were founded by converts: The Khazarian empire, the Himyarite kingdom of Yemen and the Adiabene kingdom.  This is probably because the rigors of exile had robbed the Jewish people of both its political self-confidence and its military capabilities.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 6 Comments

The confusion between SES and race

Posted on September 15, 2010 by jewamongyou

One of the most common tricks leftists use, in order to blind the public to the realities of race, is to imply that by controlling for SES (socioeconomic status), they can reveal that race is of little importance.  Examples of this tactic are far too numerous to list exhaustively.  We find it used to explain away racial disparities in health, crime, education and social pathologies.
In some cases, looking at SES rather than race might be justified.  It would depend on the circumstances and goals of the study.  What irks me is when the focus should be on race but SES is used to confuse the issue.
If controlling for SES does succeed in eliminating many racial disparities, then we might ask: why not simply use SES (or I.Q. if you prefer) to categorize people as we must and ignore race altogether?  Here are three  answers to this question:
1) Ubiquitous institutional racism against whites (“affirmative action”) favors blacks, especially in government jobs.  Therefore many blacks are artificially elevated to higher socioeconomic statuses.  Their incomes are high, they live in nice neighborhoods and they drive new cars – but their inner nature has not changed.  Their lower class habits linger on.  They, and their children, are just as dangerous to be around as their brethren in the ghettos.
2) Nature created biological races over the course of tens of thousands of years.  Though we have known the basics about racial differences for several decades, much remains to be learned.  Progress, in studying racial differences, has been stunted because (with the exception of medicine) it is all but illegal to perform such studies.  Therefore, much about race remains unknown to us.  Faced with a reality of nature and burdened by our own ignorance, the best course of action would be to respect what nature has put in place.  The imposition of mass miscegenation upon the younger generation is akin to burning large areas of virgin rain forest without even knowing which species inhabit it or even studying them.
3) Because so much value is placed on “African-American culture” in America today, most blacks who have rightfully achieved  higher socioeconomic stations will continue to behave like other blacks in some ways.  Even if they choose to “act white”, the odds are that their children will revert to black behavior.  This is what is encouraged in schools, the media and by the government.  Unfortunately, along with the less destructive aspects of black culture, the criminal aspects will often tag along.  Caution is necessary.
The simple truth, which escapes leftist “scholars”, is that SES is a natural outgrowth of race.  To “control” for SES (when trying to determine the importance of race) makes no sense.  Let us turn things around.  Suppose a university wished to show that race has nothing to do with SES – and, in order to accomplish this, their study controlled for I.Q.  Hence, only the brightest blacks would be considered in the study.  Not surprisingly, we would find most of those blacks in the same SES as their white/Asian counterparts.  Such a study would prove nothing.
The underlying fallacy is that low SES, among blacks and Hispanics, is a result of racial discrimination and not lower average I.Q. and higher levels of impulsiveness.  I want to see the studies that support this presumption.  It is amazing to see the level of scholarship that goes into countless papers – and they are all castles built on sand.  No matter how many fancy mathematical formulae, acronyms and specialist jargon their authors pack into them, in the end they have no value because they are built on a false premise.
It is sad to think how much time, talent and brain power has been wasted on “studies” such as these.  For hundreds of years, some of the brightest minds of Europe were wasted on alchemy.  Is this much different?  In the past, they thought they could convert lead to gold.  Now they think they can convert one race to another with jargon and flawed studies.

Posted in nurture vs. nature and I.Q., racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 6 Comments

John Stossel's "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity"

Posted on September 14, 2010 by jewamongyou

I just finished reading John Stossel’s Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.  He deals with many issues in this book; more than can be covered in a review such as this.  It is definitely worth-while reading and very entertaining.  The fact that each chapter (most of them short) stands on its own, without any vital connection to the chapters before it, make it ideal reading for waiting rooms or breaks at work.
There are two chapters I want to mention here, since they are relevant to this blog.  Both topics have been covered, at length, by race realists and serious scholars but it is refreshing to see a respected media personality like John Stossel write words of truth that are usually stifled.
The first topic, “Myth: Some people are just born happy.  Truth: Apparently so” (pg. 271-273) has to do with the heritability of personality traits.  Stossel writes:

Barbara Herbert and Daphne Goodship are absurdly happy…
Barbara and Daphne are identical twins.  You might explain their happiness as the result of a good childhood or their influence on each other – except that as kids, they never knew each other.  They were born twelve minutes apart and were immediately given up for adoption…
Dr. Thomas Bouchard, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota, thought Barbara and Daphne would be good candidates for his ground-breaking study of twins raised apart.  “When they got here, they really shook us up in terms of a remarkable similarity…”
For Barbara, there was no doubt as to whether the cause of their good mood was nature or nurture.  “It’s definitely nature,” she said.  “I don’t think the environment or anything else has affected us, it’s just what we are like.”  Science bears her out:  The outlooks of twins-sunny or not- tend to be remarkably similar, the Minnesota study found, whether they are raised together or apart.  “If only environment shaped our personality, identical twins reared apart would have no similarity,” said Dr. Bouchard, “and yet they’re every bit as similar as identical twins reared together.”

If we accept that there is a genetic component to personality, then it follows that there might also be a racial component to personality – since the only thing that distinguishes one (true) race from another is genes/alleles.  In other words, when we speak of “race”, what we mean is varying sets of (average) genes between populations.
The second topic, “John Stossel is a conservative.  Truth: I’m a libertarian” (pg. 281-284) deals, partly, with the contrast between the conservative establishment (or what passes for “conservative” these days) and the liberal one.  Stossel writes:

Yet conservatives are at least willing to talk about them.  I am continually amazed at how generous conservatives are in debate.  Even those who disagree with my ideas welcome me warmly at their conferences.  The supposedly “narrow-minded” social conservatives politely hear me out.  The liberals, by contrast, don’t want to talk at all.
When I wrote my last book, Give Me a Break, I assumed the high poobahs of the leftist media would be eager to debate my ideas, if only to demonstrate how foolish my arguments were, or to discredit the reporting of their misguided colleague who had gone “over to the dark side”, as one TV writer put it.
I was wrong.
The conservatives were eager to have me… But the liberal media – CNN, NPR, and the New York Times – basically held their noses and ignored me.  Where was the “open debate” the liberals always praise?  Mostly on the conservative broadcasts.

This attitude is painfully familiar to those of us who recognize the biological reality of race.  The main difference, between us and Stossel, is that there is no conservative media when it comes to race.  In racial matters, they are all “liberal”.  I have no idea if John Stossel is a race realist.  I seriously doubt it – and what good is the recognition of truth if it cannot be uttered?
What is the leftist policy regarding race?  Hide it, Bury it, Deny it =  It is the dark side of H.B.D.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links | 8 Comments

On burning the Quran

Posted on September 12, 2010 by jewamongyou

A Florida pastor has called off his plans to burn some 200 Qurans and the world breaths a sigh of relief.  According to CNN, the burning would…

…have sparked international controversy and protests in the Muslim world. U.S. military leaders said the event would imperil the lives of troops abroad.

Earlier, when it seemed that Rev. Jones was going to follow through with his plans, his hosting company had pulled his church’s web site.  The reason?

Dan Goodgame, a spokesman for the San Antonio, Texas-based web hosting firm Rackspace, told AFP the evangelical Dove World Outreach Center church had, “violated the Offensive Content section of its Acceptable Use policy.”
The policy forbids content or links to material that is “excessively violent, incites violence, threatens violence, or contains harassing content or hate speech; and creates a risk to a person’s safety or health, creates a risk to public safety or health, compromises national security, or interferes with a investigation by law enforcement.”

In actuality,  both the U.S. government, and the hosting company, are admitting that Islam is a religion of violence.  After all, it was only the expectation of violent reactions that motivated both to use whatever power they had to dissuade the reverend from burning those books.  If Islam were truly a “religion of peace”, as has been famously claimed, then there would have been no cause for concern.
One is reminded of the Danish cartoon fiasco, when a series of cartoons caused an international uproar and attempts on the cartoonist’s life.  At that time,  it became clear that the Muslim hordes were a force to be contended with and that they can shape the policies of Western nations through rioting and threats.  Although Christianity will sometimes produce individual lunatics or small congregations of oddballs, our generation has not seen violent Christian activism on a scale large enough to affect government/societal policies to any meaningful degree.
When Roland Emmerich produced his blockbuster movie, 2012, he specifically refrained from depicted the Ka’aba being destroyed even though he showed no mercy toward Christian landmarks.  His rational?

“Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit … but my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. … We have to all … in the Western world … think about this. You can actually … let … Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element anyway in the film, so I kind of left it out.”

What we have here is a very disturbing pattern.  We are allowing ourselves to lose our freedom of expression because we are intimidated by Islam.  It is understandable that Muslims would be offended by the burning of a book they consider holy.  I would be offended by the burning of the Torah and, most likely, a Hindu would be offended by the burning of the Vedas.  The difference is that Islam, or at least many who practice it, is not mature enough to collectively shake its head and then move on with life.  As a result of this immaturity, the rest of the world is held in thrall by it.
Where will it end?  It is a fact that Muslims are not only offended by direct affronts to their religion but they are also offended by perceived immodesty.  Many Muslims view such “immodesty” as a license to rape non-Muslim women.  The ongoing Muslim rape epidemic in Europe will surely get worse over time – since those in power have no interest in curbing it.  In the not-so-distant future, women in Europe will experience intimidation to cover their hair or risk being assaulted.
I do not know if there is a word for “rule by the most violent group”.  If there is no such word, then there surely should be one because this trend is likely to become more pronounced over time.  The behavior we are witnessing rewards Islam for its violence.  The Florida pastor, Roland Emmerich and so many others are (unwittingly) increasing violence in the world.
Islam needs to either grow up or remain only in designated areas.  If every one of us would burn a Quran, then Muslims might be forced to grow up.  It is highly unlikely that they could decapitate all of us.  As long as only one or two people at a time dare to insult Islam, then Muslims can continue to intimidate those people into silence.  Perhaps it is true that Reverend Jones is immature and hateful.  Nevertheless, I think he was on to something.  Through the internet, which now contains hundreds of Mohammad cartoons, we were able to silence the Muslim hordes; they finally gave up on that battle.  By refraining from insulting Islam, we would reinforce the worldview of Muslims that such disrespect is unacceptable.  As a matter of fact, it is unacceptable to demand that the rest of the world refrain from insulting any particular religion.  Therefore, it can be argued that it is our duty to disrespect Islam.  This is a right that is in danger of disappearing and the only way to preserve it is to exercise it.  If, some day, Muslims learn to shrug off such insults and carry on with their daily lives, at that point there will no longer be any reason to insult Islam.

Posted in freedom of speech issues, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism, Uncategorized | 16 Comments

non-whites and environmentalism

Posted on September 7, 2010 by jewamongyou

I’ve been reading a leftist race blog (which, for various reasons, I shall not link to).  One particular post deals with the environmentalist movement and claims that non-white environmentalists are not taken seriously by the movement at large.
The post lists several non-white “green activists”:
Van Jones, Majora Carter, Sanjayan, Waagari Matthai, Bryant Terry, Vandana Shiva and Oscar Olivera.
In terms that a leftist might find acceptable, I’ll present my theory on why non-white environmentalists might not be accepted as mainstream.
With the possible exception of Sanjayan, most of the environmentalists listed seem to focus mainly on their own people, their own culture and their own lands.  In contrast, white environmentalists transcend their own race; their own heritage means little or nothing to them and they have given themselves to the world at large.

While it is important for people to focus on their own heritage and to take care of their own kinsmen first, if the face of the environmentalist movement is to cease being so white, then non-white environmentalists need to stop seeing themselves primarily as “African”, “African-American”, “Native American” etc. and act and behave as citizens of the world.  Their books and articles need to appeal to the Human Race and not just to their own race.
The reality of the matter is, of course, that Caucasians have a propensity for altruistic behavior and attitudes.  Therefore it is Caucasians who travel half way around the world to defend total strangers from injustice and environmental degradation.  White as they are, they get “brownie points” for this.  A Guatemalan Indian, protesting the deforestation of his local mountains so that his people will not die in mudslides, may be considered an “environmentalist” on some level but his main interest is in protecting his tribe.  While we should surely applaud, and support, his efforts, we would not be justified in considering him a leader in the global environmentalist movement.
Posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 10 Comments

Selling racial equalitarianism

Posted on September 6, 2010 by jewamongyou

I was in sales for much of my adult life.  I used to sell computers and, in the eyes of our bosses, it was as important to sell our extended warranties as it was to sell the actual hardware.  Generally, we offered two versions of our hardware warranty: the two year option and the four year option.  One of the techniques we were trained to use was the “either/or” technique.  We would give our presentation and then ask our customer, “so, would you like the two year protection plan or the four year protection plan?”  We were not to give him the option of “no protection plan”.  As long as all the listed options were profitable for our company, we could succeed in making money.
The mass media works in much the same way when selling its diversity agenda.  The New York Daily News recently ran an article about the lack of ethnic and gender diversity in the FDNY (Fire Department City of New York).  In essence, they were upset that too few minorities and women are in the Fire Department.  To the side of the main article is a survey:
As you can see, “minorities have, on average, lower I.Q.’s than whites” is not an option.  In the comments section, I politely pointed this out and also mentioned that women do not have, on average, as much upper body strength as men.  It is highly likely that my comment will be flagged and removed by the end of the day.

Posted in examples of propaganda | 4 Comments