Guns, Germs and Steel

Posted on August 28, 2010 by jewamongyou

It transpired that my left-leaning brother, sensing my race-realism, thought he could cure it by having me read the book “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond.  He was under the impression that this book would lay to rest any doubts I might have that all the races of Humanity are equal in every way that matters.   I don’t know who told him that “Guns, Germs and Steel” is a refutation of race-realism.  It turned out he had not even read it himself.  Perhaps another individual, who had not read it, had told him this.

After having read the book from cover to cover, I reported back to him that a) it hardly speaks of race at all b) when it does speak of race, it’s to claim that the natives of New Guinea are intellectually superior to other peoples due to natural selection and c) Diamond’s claims can be understood to go hand in hand with race-realism.  He had nothing to say about “a” or “c”.  Regarding “b”, he claimed that Professor Diamond must surely have been joking.  I explained that the claim was made twice and he clearly was not joking.

Although Diamond’s theories don’t contradict race-realism, it seems to me that at least some of them are false – perhaps even lies.  “Guns, Germs and Steel” was published in 1997 and one of its claims is that there were few animals suitable for domestication in black Africa.  Since black Africans had little opportunity to utilize such animals, civilization wasn’t in the cards for them.  Diamond goes to great lengths in order to illustrate exactly why various indigenous African animals and plants could not be domesticated.  To the uncritical reader, it might appear that Diamond is being truthful.

Professor Diamond is clearly a member of the leftist orthodoxy.  Therefore, it’s likely that he had never read “Race” by John Baker.  Baker lists several indigenous African species that are not only suitable for domestication but actually have been domesticated by other races.  Among them are the bush-pig, the hunting dog (possibly domesticated in the Kalahari), the guinea-fowl, the eland, and the African elephant (such as those used by Hannibal).  While it’s true that more such species existed in Eurasia than in Africa, the fact that Africans never took advantage of the ones they had leads us to ask: What use would the additional species have been to them anyway?  “Race” was published in 1974.

The main theory of “Guns, Germs and Steel” is that the alignment of the continents had much to do with the development of mankind in various areas.  Diamond claims that since Eurasia is aligned East to West, along the same climate zone, peoples, plants and animals could more easily travel over wide areas to bring cultural enrichment.  Africa, on the other hand, is aligned North to South.  Therefore East-West commerce was much more limited while the Sahara desert served as a barrier to the North.  As people migrated North/South, they were also forced to adapt to new ecosystems.  While there might be some truth in this, the fact is that Africa is home to far more biodiversity than most of Eurasia.  In fact, generally speaking, the higher the biodiversity in an area, the less advanced the people living there are likely to be (HDI = human development index).

When theorizing about any link between the exchange of species/cultures, it seems to me that the presence of many species and cultures in a smaller area would be a greater advantage than a similar number of species/cultures in a larger area.  From a cultural perspective, there was tremendous diversity in sub-Saharan Africa.  Nothing was stopping them from exchanging ideas and enriching each other.  The advantage was there – but Africans were not capable of taking advantage of it, at least not to the extent that they could create advanced civilizations on their own.

The advantage that people enjoy from an abundance of life in their area also works to their disadvantage.  Because food and water is so abundant, and because the weather is so balmy, there is less need for innovation.  There is less need for advanced forms of transportation, clothing or sophisticated tools.  In short, there is less need for intelligence.  When we recognize this, the above map makes a lot of sense.

Even if we accept, at face value, all the theories set forth in “Guns, Germs and Steel”, this does not diminish the reality of racial differences one iota.  It appears that many people simplistically believe that no more than one explanation of a phenomenon (such as racial inequality) can coexist.  I will take this one step further: Let us say, for argument’s sake, that Diamond is correct.  I would argue, as others have, that once civilization took root, it was the major catalyst for mental development among the peoples that sustained it.  Peoples that lived in areas less conducive to civilization (because of continent alignment or any other reason) would have been deprived of this catalyst.  Diamond can theorize until he’s blue in the face about why things started out the way they did – but the end result is no less real.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links | 25 Comments

Obesity and miscengenation

Posted on August 24, 2010 by jewamongyou

Today I saw a disturbing interracial couple that epitomizes the well-known stereotype: the black man was dumb-looking, primitive and brutish while the white woman was painfully ugly and obese.  As they walked down the street, the woman’s expression seemed to say, “look what all you white men have done to me!  Because so many of you rejected me, I am forced to date a negro.”  Though I have no way of knowing for sure, they did not appear to be a happy couple.
Some of us, having always been skinny, might be harsh toward the woman and blame her for not having lost weight.  After all, the vast majority of thin women are considered attractive by enough men that finding a decent match would not be too difficult for her.  Having been more or less svelte my entire life, it is difficult for me to imagine the great effort that must be expended in order to win the war against obesity.  I do, however, know at least one woman whose mating prospects are extremely dim due to her plus size.  Because of this (and some other things) she is a miserable person.  If it were easy to become thin, then surely people like her would have already done it.
I wonder if there would be any change in miscegenation rates if somebody invented a safe and cheap “skinny pill”.  Perhaps then obese white women would have more prospects among their own race and perhaps then black women would be more attractive to black men.
While I do not claim to have the answers to the above, I hope that the subject will be discussed and debated. It would be interesting to read some opinions on this.

Posted in miscegenation | 12 Comments

Jewamongyou is a grandfather!

Posted on August 21, 2010 by jewamongyou

As of yesterday, I am a grandfather.  The birth of my first grandchild was not under the best of circumstances but, by golly, he is my grandson so… so now I feel really old.  Not “sad old” but “happy old”.
Born with Spina Bifida, my infant grandson is starting life with a head start in the “challenges” department.  Some of the things most of us take for granted will be fraught with struggle for him.  He might not be able to walk without braces.  He will suffer from severe allergies.  His sexual functions will almost certainly be limited.  Yet he will certainly find things in life that will bring him joy and laughter.  At the very least, he will serve as a reminder for the rest of us that we should not take our many blessings for granted and that we should cherish the simple pleasures in life.
For all our flaws, my grandson was born into a close-knit family where we care about each other and help each other.  I hope that his disability will serve to bring us even closer and strengthen the love that binds us together.   When I think of all the people who do not enjoy strong family ties, I feel worse for them than I do for my grandson.
I wonder what kind of world he will grow up in and I hope that somehow, in its own little way, this blog will do its part in making it a better world.
For some bizarre reason, my daughter chose to name him Aiden.  I hope I spelled it right.
Not to worry; I have no plans to post baby pictures on this blog!

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments

Tennessee: Dusk or Dawn? by Hunter Wallace

Posted on August 18, 2010 by jewamongyou

Hunter Wallace has recently posted a synopsis on the fortune of conservative/white causes in the state of Tennessee.  While I agree with him that there is cause for hope, there are a few critiques I would like to offer.
First and foremost, I object to the term “progressive” being used for leftists or their ideas.  They are not “progressive”.  In truth, our ideas are progressive and those of leftists are old, rusty and impractical.  Leftist ideology has held sway for at least two generations.  Leftists are “the establishment” and they are the “old ways” that we now struggle to break away from.
Secondly, while it is true that mainstream “conservative” Americans (red Americans, if you will) share some of our concerns, I am not convinced that Mr. Wallace is justified in his optimism.  He sees such conservatism as a useful watered-down version of us.  As for me, I think that it can be a dangerous inoculation against us.  As a “weaker form” of our movement, it can have the same effect as administering an inert form of small-pox to a child;  it fools the body into creating anti-bodies against the real small-pox.  As long as Americans can feel good about themselves for supporting “conservative” ideas, they will feel no need to embrace the real thing.
Lastly, I do not understand why Mr. Wallace refers to the War between the States as “the Civil War”.  The latter term is not only inaccurate, but it does not show support for Southerners.  I think that, within a post dealing with Tennessee (a Southern state), we should have more deference to Southern sensibilities and show our support through the terms we use.
I hope, of course, that Mr. Wallace turns out to be justified in his optimism.  Aside from the above points, I say: keep up the good work Hunter!

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 2 Comments

Skulls and the negative "science" of the Left

Posted on August 16, 2010 by jewamongyou

I picked up a book today called “The Skull Measurer’s Mistake” by Sven Lindqvist.  Reading through it for a few moments, I noticed that Lindqvist did not seem to cite any racial research, done by leftists, that supports his position: that there are no substantial racial differences in cranial capacity.  This is probably because leftists deny the validity of race as a biological concept.  Since they claim race does not exist, they see no more reason to research it than to research the Easter Bunny.  So any “research” done by them is strictly comprised of trying to find flaws in the research of “racist” scientists who preceded them.  The circular nature of their beliefs never dawns on them.  Since they deny the existence of race, they will not research it.  Since they do not research it, they deny its existence.
Lindqvist tries to pick apart the research done by “racist” scientists.  He accuses them of inconsistencies, of fudging the data, of bias and of sloppy methodology.  Let us assume that all this is true – then those who wish to get to the bottom of the matter will conduct their own research and make sure they adhere to higher standards.  Those who condemn the research of others, but refuse to do their own, are engaging in a sort of “negative science”.  If they were actually interested in reaching the truth, then at least some of the multitude of leftist academic institutions would fund such research.
In a 1993 Discover Magazine article, Anne Fausto-Sterling mocks Rushton’s theories on the correlation of brain size and I.Q. scores.  Though I am certain that her objections have already been answered by others, here I shall expose some of the fallacies behind her reasoning myself.  It does not say much for Discover Magazine that they would allow such biased drivel to pass as “science” on their website.
She writes:

Franz Boas, the pioneering Columbia University anthropologist, also studied skull sizes. His results present Rushton with a different problem. From 1910 to 1916 Boas published a series of studies showing that racial characteristics such as average height and the shape of the face and skull, which everyone had assumed to be unalterably inherited, change with the environment. He reported that the size and shape of heads (and hence cranial capacity) of American-born children differed markedly from those of their European-born immigrant parents. For example, U.S.-born Bohemians had shorter, narrower heads than their parents. U.S.-born Sicilians, on the other hand, had shorter, wider heads than their parents, while U.S.-born Jews had longer, narrower heads than their parents. Not only did skull shape change with different environments (presumably with different diets, among other factors), but the changes varied among people from different places in the world. Boas’s landmark study threw the entire concept of a fixed racial type into disarray. Yet it is precisely this idea that Rushton clings to in his Intelligence article.

One wonders how Boaz determined who was a “U.S.-born Bohemian” or a “U.S.-born Sicilian”.  Did he present documentation proving that these people were the offspring of actual Bohemians and Sicilians?  Inquiring minds would like to know – because, if he based his research on self descriptions, then how do we reconcile this with Sterling’s own words as follows:

To determine which race recruits belonged to, Rushton used the recruits’ self-descriptions. But that raises another problem, not just for Rushton but for any work involving race. First, enormous differences exist among the peoples designated as Asian, Caucasian, or black. Compare the tall, fair Nordic to the short, dark Italian. Or the tiny Pygmy to the giant Watusi. The variability of outward appearances is mirrored at the level of the gene, where there is almost as much variation within racial groups as between them. Furthermore, there has been a lot of mixing between peoples who were once geographically isolated from one another…

She goes on to write:

One need only look at a cross section of U.S. citizens whom we call black to see the problem. My black friends range from people who are dark brown to people nearly as white as me (a Jew whose ancestors come from Central Europe). They all identify themselves as black for historical and political reasons, but a quick glance shows that the name cannot denote biological unity. In fact, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin concludes that broad racial classifications have no real biological meaning. If he is right, then Rushton’s interpretation of the Army data becomes mere illusion.

Is Sterling implying that those who call themselves “black” are, on average, no more likely to have a preponderance of negro genes than those who call themselves “Jewish”?  From the above, one gets the impression that she never even bothered to read Rushton’s work – because he was obviously very much aware of the fact that American blacks are not usually pure negroes.  This is why, according to him, they tend to be more intelligent than their African cousins.
Sterling spills much ink showing us how complex brain-size calculations have become and claims that they are pretty much worthless.  She even questions the very concept of larger brain=higher intelligence:

But no matter which measure you choose, the fundamental question remains: Does size really count? Brain size can differ for lots of reasons. For example, children born with a medical condition called hydrocephalus (water on the brain) have huge, fluid-filled brains in which large amounts of nerve tissue have been irrevocably damaged. Some of these children suffer from mental deficiencies. Clearly in this case bigger is not better.

I have never heard of anybody seriously claiming that a larger brain always equates to higher intelligence – or that a smaller brain always equates to lesser intelligence.  What we have here is a typical straw-man.  I found myself wondering, as I read her words, if she also objects to brain size research of proto-humans.  Does she deny that the human brain has gotten larger over the eons and that this increase in size has corresponded with higher intelligence?  Perhaps she believes that Australopithecus and Homo Habilis could have been just as intelligent as modern humans.  Maybe their rudimentary tools and short life-spans were the results of racism by the white man.  If brain size does not matter, she should inform those racist paleontologists that they’ve had it wrong all these years.  Oh but there is a big difference here: there are no Australopithecines or Homo Habilis alive today to get offended – so we may estimate their brain sizes and judge them accordingly.  We cannot do this with blacks because they might get offended.  Worse yet, they might riot (presumably to show us how intelligent they are).
In conclusion, yes it is true that there are serious challenges when it comes to measuring brain size.   It is difficult to account for body mass, height, health and gender.  Yes, it is possible that some brains pack more neurons into a smaller area.  But, if it is possible to study the (now completely decomposed) brains of Australopithecines, then surely there is a way to study brains of living human populations in regard to size.  Where there’s a will, there’s a way.  The problem seems to be that there is no will.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 8 Comments

Dr. Eugene Valberg on African languages

Posted on August 15, 2010 by jewamongyou

At the 2008 American Renaissance conference, Dr. Eugene Valberg spoke about African languages.  Having spent many years in Africa, and being a particularly bright individual, Dr. Valberg is certainly more qualified than most to speak on this subject.
The main points Dr. Valberg made were as follows:
a)  Native African languages have very limited vocabularies.   He recounted how native Africans expressed wonder that a speaker of English would ever need an English dictionary.   He seemed to be saying that this is, at least in part, a reflection of the simplicity of the African mind.  As I remember, this was strongly implied, if not stated explicitly.
b)  Native African languages lack words for abstract concepts.  Instead, they borrow words for concrete ideas and clumsily use them to approximate abstract concepts that more advanced peoples had introduced into Africa.  One example is the word “obligation”, which one African language attempts to convey through the words “to tie together one’s feet”.
c)  African languages do not include terms of precision.  For example, there is typically no way to say “the fruit is half way up the tree”; either it is up the tree or it is not.  This is a product of the African mind seeing things in absolutes.
While I do not claim to be as knowledgeable about African languages, and African mentality, as Dr. Valberg, I have had my doubts as to the accuracy of his claims.  Firstly, I find it hard to believe that all of the hundreds (if not thousands) of tribal African languages suffer from every one the above deficiencies.  Certainly some of them are more sophisticated.  Lurking in the back of my mind was the suspicion that Dr. Valberg was seeing things in absolute terms, ironic as this would be.
I recently met a gentleman who is from Southern Sudan, near Uganda.  He is a speaker of Kuku so I availed myself of the opportunity to get his perspective on the above questions.  First I asked him how many words, excluding recent foreign loan words, are in Kuku.  He guessed that Kuku has around 1,000 words and that there is no need for a Kuku dictionary for native speakers.  On this count, he was in agreement with Dr. Valberg – though he would probably disagree with his explanation.  As for me,  I do not doubt that traditional African’s are of simple mind compared to more technologically advanced peoples.  However, I think a limited vocabulary necessarily goes hand in hand with non-literal languages.  I would wager that pre-literate European languages were also limited in their vocabulary.  Therefore, I do not see a paucity of vocabulary as clear evidence of racial disparities.  Of course, the fact that they were, until recently, non-literate, does bolster the other evidence we have concerning their mental abilities.
I asked the man about words for abstract concepts such as “responsibility”.  At first, he was not sure how to answer.  In all fairness, he is rather rusty since he has few opportunities to speak his native language these days.  He did tell me that there certainly is a word for “trustworthy” and he gave me an example of a man who has promised to marry somebody.  If he keeps his word, then he is trustworthy.  In other words, he has honored his responsibility.  Every society on Earth has laws against aggression and theft – even in Africa.  What is a criminal if not one who has shirked his social responsibility?  Yes, there is a difference between a good citizen whose motivation is altruistic and linked to a higher goal versus a good citizen who’s motivation is simply fear of punishment.  This distinction merits further study and it is very possible that language differences would throw light on such distinctions – but Dr. Valberg’s presentation is, at best, skeletal in this regard.  So, while I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying that he needs to elaborate much more and flesh out his theories.
I have pointed out to Dr. Valberg that even advanced languages had to borrow mundane terms, early on, to convey abstract concepts.  For example, the word for “forbidden” in Hebrew literally means “tied”.  The word for “obligation” is closely related (and probably derived) from the word for affection/love.  As for “responsibility”, I do not believe there is even a word for it in ancient Hebrew.  Modern Hebrew uses a term that is derived from the word for “end” as in “the buck stops here”.
What about English?  A good place to start would be the word “responsibility”.  It is derived from the word “response”, which simply means “an answer”.  Apparently, its current connotations are very recent.

The word “responsibility” is surprisingly modern. It is also, as Paul Ricoeur has observed, “not really well-established within the philosophical tradition” (2000: 11). This is reflected in the fact that we can locate two rather different philosophical approaches to responsibility.
The original philosophical usage of “responsibility” was political (see McKeon, 1957). This reflected the origin of the word. In all modern European languages, “responsibility” only finds a home toward the end of the eighteenth century. This is within debates about representative government…

What about the word “obligation“?

c.1300, “to bind by oath,” from O.Fr. obligier, from L. obligare, from ob “to” + ligare “to bind,” from PIE base *leig- “to bind” (see ligament). Main modern meaning “to make (someone) indebted by conferring a benefit or kindness” is from 1560s.

So it turns out that it comes from the Latin word “ligare” – to bind.  Indeed, it would appear that Dr. Valberg should have been obligated to look up the etymology of European words before making generalities about African ones.
I asked the man about expressing the concept of a fruit being only three quarters up a tree.  This question took him off guard and his response led me to concede this point to Dr. Valberg.  He explained to me that, in Kuku, one cannot state that a glass is only partly full.  Either it has contents or it does not.  Kuku speakers have no concept of fractions.
In conclusion I’d like to say that arriving at the conclusion that H.B.D. is real and that humans are not all the same is a great milestone in anyone’s life.  That being said, we should not get carried away and assume that every racial difference that could exist actually does exist.  When we find ourselves amongst our own, as in an American Renaissance conference, it is easy to get caught up in the cheerleading mentality.  Once this state is reached, we sometimes find ourselves shouting “Amen” and “Hallelujah”!  Our cause would be better served by stubbornly clinging to our skeptical natures even when in the company of friends.

Posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 16 Comments

Racist serial killers – by an anonymous guest contributer

Posted on August 14, 2010 by jewamongyou

I emailed JAY a question about Abuelazam and it sounded like he was open to me writing a post on it. So here goes.
This has been a busy couple of weeks as far as mass murderers go. First, we have Omar Thornton in Connecticut and then there were the serial murders allegedly committed by Elias Abuelazam. I say “allegedly” only because he hasn’t been convicted yet. Unless you just fell off a turnip truck you know both stories had a bit of a racial angle to them.
The facts in the Omar Thornton case are simple. Omar was a black delivery driver for a Connecticut beer distributor.  On August 3 he was given a choice of resignation or termination for systematically stealing and reselling beer. There is video of the thefts.  While being escorted from the building he pulled out two handguns, murdered 8 white coworkers, and injured 2 more.  While waiting for the police to arrive he made a 911 call and said his motive was retribution for “racism”.  And then he killed himself.
In the aftermath of the shootings, interviews with his white live-in girlfriend quote her as saying he was a “gentle man” and “would never hurt another creature”.  Thornton’s best friend said he “snapped after years of being subjected to racist taunts by co-workers” and that “No one should have had to endure what that company put him through. Stuff on walls. Racist comments. I saw it with my own eyes.” Which is to say Omar told him so and showed him pictures of the “stuff on walls”.  In response, mainstream newspapers wrote stories that “vengeance” for “racism” had been the motive.
The only problem is that it wasn’t true. There were no racist comments or pictures on the bathroom walls and his co-workers hadn’t taunted him.  He had never even filed a complaint with the company or his union.  If he had then he would have won a lot of money with a discrimination lawsuit.  It was all the creation of a paranoid and mentally disturbed mind.  The only reason his friends and family thought otherwise is because of what he had told them.  But I’m not inclined to take the allegations of a mass murderer at face value.
Now, contrast this with the way the Elias Abuelazam case unfolded.  When police were looking for the suspect, the reports said he was a “white man” who was apparently “targeting blacks”.  Because we all know only “white men” can be serial killers.  And yet when they actually found the guy he was an Israeli.  How do we know this?  The newspapers all said it repeatedly.  So he was an Israeli and Israeli means JEWS!  And no doubt about it, the guy had an Israeli passport.  What’s worse, the media tried to gloss it over by sneaking vague references to him being from the “mixed” Jewish / Arab city of Ramle. They even quoted “unnamed” neighbors from Ramle that he was Christian.  Indeed, numerous comments on blogs crowed about how the “nazis must be disappointed”.  And sounded almost gleeful that it was a “Christian Arab”. That’s two birds with one stone eh?
But I’ve never considered “unnamed” neighbors a reliable source.  So I researched it extensively and still couldn’t come up with a concrete source for these claims.  In fact, the only thing I could come up with was that his mother had given an interview to an Israeli radio station in Arabic.  A smoking gun?  Not when half the Jews in Israel are Mizrahi immigrants from Arabic countries.  I suspect there are plenty of Jewish Israelis who grew up in Iraq or Lebanon and speak Arabic as their first language.  I’m guessing that could account for a last name of Abuelazam as well.  What’s more, I uncovered an interview with his former mother in law.  Apparently, she and her daughter are named HIRTH.  Now, we’re getting to the nitty gritty.  So a Christian Arab immigrates to the United States to marry a Jewish girl, eh?  Not bloody likely.
Oh shades of Columbine!  Does anyone remember the news coverage of the Columbine murders?  For the first couple of days news reports said Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were members of a “skinhead gang” called the Trench Coat Mafia.  And then after the skinhead rumours were firmly planted the newscasters dropped all references to skinheads.  As it turned out, the two teens were actually Jewish.  I haven’t trusted the mainstream media to report honestly on racial issues since.  But who am I kidding?  I never trusted them to start with.
And so I emailed JAY to see if he knew.  I figured he’d know and he’s one of the few people I’d trust to tell the truth.  He answered that he wasn’t exactly sure and didn’t trust the media to get it right, either.  He suggested Elias might actually be mixed.  Maybe.  Who knows? But a couple of more days have passed and I’ve run across another interview with his ex mother law in which she says unequivocally that he was Catholic.  I’ve known several Catholic Arabs so I’m going with Elias being a Christian Arab after all.  Though I suppose it’s possible he could still be mixed.  Like I said, who knows?
But as far as I’m concerned Elias isn’t really the story any more.  The MEDIA is the story now. First they said he was a white racist targeting blacks.  And it turns out the guy wasn’t all that white and he actually stabbed some whites and Hispanics, too.  Then they said the guy was an Israeli which everyone automatically assumes to be Jewish – I know I did!  And it turns out the guy was actually a Catholic Arab.  And this is right after the media tried to portray a black mass murderer as a victim of “racism”.  So can anyone blame me for being skeptical when the newspapers use unnamed sources and vague claims?  They can make their argument that it’s “racist” to want to know and that it shouldn’t matter.  But the truth is that it’s the first thing everyone wanted to know.  And all they did is cause confusion by pussy-footing around with it.  The Lesson is to never take the media at face value on anything even remotely controversial.  They’ve long since proven that they’re just not up to it.

Posted in examples of propaganda, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 11 Comments

The American Pit Bull Terrier Pt 1

Posted on August 12, 2010 by jewamongyou

The United Kennel Club was founded in 1898 by Chauncy Z. Bennett.  The main reason was to have an official registry for his favorite breed: the American Pit Bull Terrier.  The American Kennel Club had refused to recognize the breed; officials there referred to them as “pit fighting mongrels.” By forming his own registry,  Bennett and the APBT represented the sort of rebellion against uptight aristocratic a-holes that made America great.  So it is sad to visit the UKC website and witness the glossing over of the ABPT as the seminal breed in the forming of the UKC.

The United Kennel Club was the first registry to recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier. UKC founder C. Z. Bennett assigned UKC registration number 1 to his own APBT, Bennett’s Ring, in 1898.



This entry is only found by searching for the history of the APBT, and is not even included in the general history of the UKC section.  The reason behind this must be an attempt at legitimizing the UKC in the eyes of the general public and, oh the horror, in the eyes of uptight aristocratic a-holes.
So then there is the AKC Registered American Staffordshire Terrier, whose owners will swear up and down this is a separate breed entirely – certainly not to be confused with that “pit fighting mongrel.”  The only problem:  Every Amstaff registered in the AKC is a direct descendant of a UKC registered APBT.  You see, in 1935, the AKC opened up their registry to a small number of APBTs and named them the much friendlier sounding name “The American Staffordshire Terrier”.  So although the Amstaff has been bred strictly for conformation in the AKC for 75 years, while the UKC APBT has been bred for both conformation and working ability, they are quite closely related.  It becomes even more interesting considering the fact that the AKC opened up their books again in the 1970’s to increase the gene pool of their Amstaff.  There are even some dual registered dogs, such as the APBT in the UKC and the Amstaff in the AKC – which are actually the same breed.
People not wanting their dog to be the wrong breed is understandable however, considering what is commonly referred to as “Breed specific legislation.”  According to the Animal Legal And Historical Center:

In 1984, a New Mexico town completely banned pit bulls and allowed county officers to confiscate and euthanize the dogs.

Also that year, Cincinnati, Ohio enacted a regulation that “defined vicious dogs to include all pit bull terriers,” and put special restrictions on the confinement, sale, and control of those dogs which were not applicable to other breeds. In each of these situations, one breed of dog has been singled out as “inherently dangerous to society,” regardless of the individual dogs’ present or past behavior.


Much can be said about these draconian measures enacted in the name of public safety.  Just imagine little Timmy playing in the front yard with his beloved family dog, when up comes the police officer to take him away and euthanize him.
I would like to take into consideration all the political, genetic/scientific, legal, racial and libertarian points of view.  Therefore, this topic will require another posting.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The precious heritage of Yemeni Jews

Posted on August 9, 2010 by jewamongyou


Without divulging too much about my personal history, suffice it to say that Yemeni Jewry holds a very special place in my heart.  Their traditions, when kept faithfully, have always provided me with great pleasure.  The sound of Yemeni children chanting as their forefathers have taught them is the most wonderful music to my ears.  Even their appearance, at least as it is most commonly found among them, represents the ultimate harmony of features.  Because of their beauty and character, Yemeni women have often been sought as wives by Ashkenazi men.  More recently, even Yemeni men have been sought as husbands by Ashkenazic women.  As far as I could tell, Yemeni men make good husbands and rarely abuse their wives (obviously I am speaking of Jews here).
Aside from the aesthetic aspects of Yemeni Jewry, it is a fact that their set of traditions is the most faithful to our ancient roots.  During the period of massive Jewish exodus from Spain, prior to and during the inquisition, Spanish Jews culturally dominated Oriental Jews wherever they settled.  These Sephardic Jews were white, educated, haughty and very literate.  They typically became the elite in Middle Eastern nations where they settled.  This did not happen in Yemen.  In Yemen, those Sephardic Jews who arrived assimilated to Yemeni culture and their children, aside from having European racial features, became Yemeni in every sense.  Literary traditions were so strong in Yemen that even the Sephardic juggernaut was stopped in its tracks there.  In later centuries, however, many Yemeni Jews did adopt Sephardic liturgy for their prayers.  Spanish cultural pressure was not the only obstacle however.  Yemeni Jewry was subject to various famines, persecutions and exiles as well.  These sometimes entailed wholesale destruction of holy books and widespread death.  Through it all, the ancient traditions held fast.
I will spare my readers the details of religious practice that set Yemeni Jews apart.  To do so would only alienate most readers as an intimate familiarity with Jewish traditions would be necessary to understand them.  Still, I shall gladly elaborate if anybody wishes me to do so.  In general terms, however, some of the highlights are as follows:
1)  Yemeni Hebrew is, along with some Iraqi dialects, the most conservative of all forms of Hebrew.  The finest grammatical distinctions, long forgotten in other communities, are zealously guarded in Yemeni congregations.  In modern Israel, unfortunately, there is degradation among the youth.
2) The parchment, upon which the Torah scrolls (and other holy scripts) are written, is tanned according to authentic ancient tradition.  This in not the case with most other communities.  Unfortunately, this tradition is only kept by a handful of congregations currently – as will be later elaborated upon.
3) Generally speaking, Yemeni Judaism places less emphasis on rabbinical authority insofar as qualifications for certain duties and functions.  Any man was considered fit to bake his own unleavened bread for Passover.  Each man would read the Torah scroll for himself in synagogue and (if memory serves me correctly) many people would slaughter their own animals for their meat.
4) Certain dubious traditions, which spread throughout the rest of Jewry, never caught on in Yemen.  One example is the superstitious ritual of “kapparoth”, where a live chicken is waved over a person’s head before Yom Kippur in the voodoo-like belief that the chicken would absorb the person’s sins (or something to that effect).
5) There are actually textual differences between the Yemeni Torah and the Torah of other communities.  To be sure, these differences are minor but we should bear in mind that, according to Jewish law, even a difference of one letter is enough to disqualify a Torah scroll.  My guess would be that the Yemeni version is more accurate.
6) Until fairly recently, Yemeni Jewry used the “Babylonian” system of vocalization, where the vowels were placed above the letters (“niqud ‘elyon”) as opposed the the “Tiberian” system, used by all other Jews, where the vowels were placed (usually) beneath the letters.  Note: there are no vowel letters in Semitic languages but special signs (“vocalizations”) were sometimes added to aid children and for religious liturgy.  Even though it is unclear which system is older (in ancient times it is likely neither one was used), I wanted to list this distinction here to emphasis the uniqueness of Yemeni tradition.

A page from tiklal (prayer book) “Mashta” (a famous manuscript, here in facsimile) illustrating this alternative vowel system

Yemeni Jewry, as found in Yemen, could be divided into three major sects: Shami, Baladi and Darda’i.
“Shami” literally means “of the vicinity of Syria, including the land of Israel.”  Syria is, in Arabic, called “Sham”.  This sect had adopted the Sephardic liturgy in prayer and many of their customs but, to a large extent, still remained Yemeni in character.  They retained many Yemeni customs and did not follow the Sephardic liturgy 100%.  They tended to follow the “Code of Jewish Law” (Shulhan ‘Arukh), which was written by R. Yosef Karo (a Sephardic Jew) – but according to Yemeni interpretation.
Baladi means, in Arabic, “local” or “regional” to be more exact.  This sect was more traditional and, though they adopted certain outside practices, remained by and large untainted.  They did, however, accept the “Kabbalah” and they did have deference to outside rabbinical authorities.  The most notable outside authority, and the most influential among them, was the Rambam (Maimonedes).
Darda’i is reportedly derived from a scriptural reference and started out as a derogatory term.  Another interpretation is that it is a compound word: “Dor” + “Dea'” = generation of knowledge.  Either way, this sect began in the early part of the 20th century under the leadership of a certain fearless man by the name of Mori Yihyeh al-Gafih .  “Mori” is the Yemeni term, roughly speaking, for “rabbi”.  Mori Yihyeh wrote a book exposing the Kabbalah, and its primary source, the Zohar, as both fraudulent and contrary to traditional Judaism.  It is difficult for modern Westerners to appreciate the courage necessary to do such a thing but let it suffice to say that his audacity was on par with that of Galileo or Copernicus.  His followers more or less follow the teachings of Maimonedes and they are, by far, the strictest adherents to the ancient traditions.  In Israel today, they are forced to congregate secretly and to remain an underground movement.  They number only a handful.  Of this handful, only very few conscientiously keep the finer aspects of their tradition – including the ancient formula for tanning the leather to be used for Torah scrolls.

Mori Yihyeh al-Gafih

In Yemen, Arabic was considered a quasi-holy language and Yemeni Jews continued to write in Arabic (in Hebrew characters) until fairly recently.

A writ of mourning dated 1942.  The last part is mostly in Arabic

There was a Yemeni Jewish presence in India and, from the 1880’s in the Land of Israel as well.  Remnants of their presence bear their distinctive signature.

The hand-crafted binding of a book, printed by the ‘Iraqi family (actually of Yemeni origin) in Calcutta, India dated 1851


The same book showing the seal of the ‘Iraqi family, which is of the priestly caste.  On the right, we can see that the book was bound using old Yemeni manuscripts (most of which have been removed)

In the early days of the State of Israel, the vast majority of Yemeni Jews were airlifted to Israel, where they were forcibly stripped of their outward traditions.  For all practical purposes, they were no longer allowed to dress traditionally and their children were educated in European “Hebrew”.  Their traditional ear locks were shaven off – ostensibly to rid them of lice and their valuables were often stolen from them.  Through all this, of all Oriental Jewish groups in Israel, the Yemenis have made the greatest effort to preserve their identity and to educate their children in the ways of their forefathers.  Sentiments vary among Yemenis in Israel.  Many became completely estranged from their roots as a result of military service (where overwhelming peer pressure was exerted to turn religious young people into hedonistic slaves of the Zionist state).  Others, while retaining some vestiges of their heritage, loath the concept of Yemeni Jews trying to maintain a “people within a people”. They buy into the idea that Israel is a place where all Jews must shed the identities of exile and unify themselves into one people with one culture.  Some value their continuity but take a fatalistic attitude.  They seem to be at peace with the idea that they are the last guardians of their traditions, their children marrying outsiders and forgetting the old ways.

The long term prospects of Yemeni Jews in Israel are not promising.  Too many forces are aligned against them.  It will be a sad day when the only remnants of their rich traditions are to be found in museums.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 27 Comments

A visitor's questions answered

Posted on August 8, 2010 by jewamongyou

Somebody contacted me with some questions about this blog and, even though I’ve dealt with some of these issues before, I’ve decided to clarify them again and here I’ll quote some of his words.

I frankly find it impossible that you would feel a true wellspring of sympathy for the cause of white racial preservation given the fact that a significant number of white nationalists have expressed sympathy for the nazi movement. Frankly I find the way you respond to people expressing such sympathies to be mind boggling because you seem so calm and jewish people are never calm when it comes to people saying nazi-ish things. And so I am a bit confused by you.

In other words, if many/most supporters of a particular cause also affiliate themselves with another cause that has a sordid history, this should be a reason for me to reject that particular cause altogether.  From a logical point of view, this makes no sense.  If most people, who are careful to turn off their lights before leaving their homes, are obsessive compulsive, does this mean the rest of us should not worry about turning off the lights?  The preservation of the white race stands on its own merit regardless of how many crazies choose to attach themselves to it.
As for my soft stance regarding neo-Nazis, I think some distinctions need to be made.
Firstly,  the government/media/education complex has been persecuting whites for at least 50 years – longer than most of us have been alive.  Most whites have been second-class citizens their entire lives.  Most whites, due to constant propaganda, are oblivious to this fact but a few have their eyes opened and then they become very angry.  The government/media/education complex goes to great pains in order to present only two choices to whites: a) normal or b) racist.  Out of anger and frustration, some of those angry whites pick option “b” in its purist form (according to what they’d been taught) and this would be “Nazism”.  Their young and undeveloped minds fail to recognize more reasonable paths.  These angry skin-heads and neo-Nazis are victims of the anti-white establishment just as much as the young white women who are pressured into dating black men.  Both mentalities are perversions that would rarely occur in a healthy society.  As has been pointed out many times, all too often we find Jewish names behind anti-white activity and so the young skin-heads and neo-Nazis find it easy to believe that “the Jews” are the enemy.  Hence I have a soft spot for these unfortunate misled youth.  Yes, they hate me for being a Jew – but I blame the leftists for this and I hope that those youth will grow out of it at some point.
Secondly, not all neo-Nazis are the same.  A person might call himself a “Nazi” and have no violent inclinations at all.  Most likely, he denies that the Nazi holocaust ever happened.  Within the context of labeling himself a “Nazi”, this would be a good thing because he might never call himself that if he believed that Nazis were responsible for the murder of several million innocent people.  Such a person might be mistaken about historical facts and he might differ from me politically but this does not necessarily mean he advocates murder, torture or concentration camps.  I am willing to look past the label and debate the issues on their own merits.
There are some neo-Nazis who are dangerous, deranged individuals.  Given the chance, they would kill me and my loved ones.  I have no soft spot for them.  I consider them to be not only dangerous to Jews but they are dangerous to everybody around them.  If they cannot be fixed then they should be removed from society.
The visitor asks how I can be calm when people say Nazi-ish things.  Would he prefer that I react by becoming hysterical?  We already have Jews whose job it is to become hysterical: they call themselves the A.D.L.  Let them be hysterical.  As for me, I prefer a calm and reasoned debate.

I am a white non-jewish person who is not a white nationalist. I do believe that if I were to breed with someone I would prefer someone of my own race but I am comfortable living in a multiracial nation. I have lots of experience with the different races and do believe their is differences but as far as I am concerned all humans suck to some degree and so I am not gonna say blacks are worse than whites. I have some friends who are black. Most of my friends are white, some are jewish, a few are black, and one is hispanic. I have no asian friends at the moment. I do not mind that these people are of different races.

In other words, “all humans suck”, there are racial differences but there is nothing wrong with a multi-racial society.  Of course, entire books have been written on these subjects and I highly recommend that the visitor read Amren every day for a while.  But, in a nutshell, my response is that those racial differences manifest themselves, on a societal level, in such ways that make multi-racial societies untenable in the long term.  When government refuses to acknowledge those racial differences, it ends up wasting untold billions of dollars in misguided projects.  Racial average I.Q. disparities mean that blacks (as a group) will never perform as well as other groups in schools and many professions.  A government that is blind to racial differences will assume that this inferior performance is due to white “racism” and act accordingly.  Blacks’ propensity for violence means that other groups will always be in danger from them unless, and until, separation is implemented.

Why is my view not represented? Why is it that it’s an either or scenario… either antiracist or white nationalist? What about the in between people who are mildly racist but not to the point of wanting to politically exclude people of certain races? The way I see it is if I ever have kids I would like the mother of my children to be white… and as far as grandkids go I would recognize that would be up to my kids(if I had them and they decide to breed) to decide….
What about us moderates? Where is our voice? Why is it that when someone realizes that on average blacks arent that bright they have to go and idolize hitler… its so freaken insane… OF COURSE BLACKS ARENT THAT BRIGHT but that doesnt mean we have to do all sorts of crazy hitler stuff about that.
Visitor, your view is not represented in this blog because it is not well thought out.  To state that racial differences are real but that we should sit back and do nothing about it is like saying somebody has been diagnosed with cancer – but it has not yet spread to his lungs so there is no need to worry about it.  Western society has cancer and, instead of seeking treatment, government is actively making it worse.
Surely you can see the consequences of the course we are on.  Massive non-white immigration and differential birth rates will obviously lead to the eventual extinction of whites.  If you disagree, then please explain the flaw in our reasoning.  If the eventual extinction of the white race does not disturb you, then how can you describe yourself as pro-white?  As for “crazy Hitler stuff”, I’m not sure what you mean by that.  Nowhere, in this blog, have I suggested a “final solution”.    What you describe as “moderate” seems to be a sit-back-and-let-the-forces-of -evil-destroy-us attitude.  Are you familiar with the plight of whites in South Africa?  What do you propose be done about it?  Have you been reading the news from U.K. and France?  If so, do you not see a problem?  I am curious how a “moderate” would tackle these issues effectively.
Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments