Jewamongyou

Obama snubs Boy Scouts

Posted on July 28, 2010 by jewamongyou

A while back I wrote about the Boy Scouts of America and how they have caved in to the cult of “diversity”. I documented how this once proudly American organization now pathetically seeks to recruit more black boys by using rap “music” in their presentations.
This is why I have no sympathy for them when Barry Soetoro – I mean Barack Obama – snubbed their invitation to speak for their 100th anniversary celebration. I do love it when leftists get bitten by their favorite pets. As for the many conservatives, who are part of Boy Scouts of America, one would hope that they are not too disappointed by this news. On the contrary, many of them are probably delighted that they have been spared the rantings of our socialist in chief.

Posted in shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 1 Comment

Afrocentrists doctor images

Posted on July 25, 2010 by jewamongyou

Those of you who have not yet discovered Mathilda’s anthropology blog, should certainly check it out. Though many of her posts are too scholarly for the average layman, there is plenty of material that even the average joe can appreciate. One such post concerns her discovery that afrocentric webmasters had been doctoring up images of ancient Egyptian artifacts in order to support their absurd claim that ancient Egyptians were black like themselves. Of course there were black Egyptians – but there were also red headed Egyptians with fair skin and everything in between. The majority of Egyptians were dark-skinned Caucasians of the Mediterranean type (just as they are today). Here is an excerpt from that post:

I’m not kidding. Someone sent me a hysterical comment claiming this was what they ‘really looked like’. After a bit of a laugh, I dug out the image I have of Meritaten (currently in the Louvre) to compare it.

This is Nefertiti’s daughter, Meritaten, wearing a Nubian wig. If you take a close look, you can see both statues have the same scars on the left cheek. It appears someone has stuck a dark coloured filter over the second image. If you take a look at the undoctored image you can see the patch of flesh coloured paint by her right eye, complete with eyeliner. I expanded this to cover part of her face with an art program and it’s in the same kind of skin tone range as most of the coffin and statue portraits I have, not black.

She goes on to describe other instances of this. Some afrocentrists posted comments to her blog and actually tried to justify this practice. Clearly shame and embarrassment do not figure prominently among them. I sympathize with her exasperation.
What kind of desperation would motivate people to hijack somebody else’s heritage and claim it as their own? There are even some blacks who claim that the ancient Jews (my own ancestors!) were black. Yes, we had black hair (as evidenced by the common Hebrew term for “young man”: “tishhoreth”) but certainly not black skin.
Any people, who cannot claim a civilization of their own, should seize the opportunity to create a brand new one according to their tastes. Starting from scratch is not always such a bad thing!

Let smokers be their own "race"

Posted on July 21, 2010 by jewamongyou

On my way to the beach recently, I noted how cigarette smokers flick their used butts out of their car windows onto the street. Any one of us has seen this behavior thousands of times by now. It is likely that not more than a handful of drivers even use their ash trays any more. It would not surprise me if many didn’t even know what purpose it is supposed to serve.
Upon my arrival at the beach, I noted the countless thousands of cigarette butts mixed in with the sand. So plentiful were they that one could not even find any two foot square area devoid of them. Clearly, many cigarette smokers consider the beach to be their own private ash tray.
It has not escaped my notice that criminals overwhelmingly tend to be cigarette smokers, nor do I think it is mere coincidence that impulsiveness and a general lack of concern for the rights of others seem to go hand in hand with this habit. Those who are considered “white trash” almost always smoke. Typically they can be found with a beer bottle/can in one hand and a cigarette in the other as they rattle off four-letter words.
As common as this habit seems to be in the U.S., it is far worse in other parts of the world. While in Beijing, I offended locals by calling their city “Phlegm City” to their face. In Beijing, one must always keep an eye on the ground before him to avoid stepping into this ubiquitous bodily fluid. In Egypt, they smoke a nasty cigarette called “Cleopatra”. They should have called it “Asp”. I’m pretty sure that American cigarette manufacturers send their nastiest (too-dangerous-for-American-consumption) products overseas. While in Israel, I was told that the most popular cigarette there, called “Time”, is none other than lower grade Marlboro that cannot be sold in the U.S. Many male Israelis have a ritual they follow when lighting up their cigarettes. They stand with one foot in front of the other and squint their eyes a certain way. After the cigarette is lit, they look up at the world as if they now have special powers. Everything about them says “I am macho”. In Europe, as I remember, almost everybody smokes. When I pointed out, to some locals in the Netherlands, that this is a nasty habit, one of them thoughtfully responded, “I guess it might be considered rather anti-social”. Yes, in my travels, I was ever the American anti-smoking missionary. Intent on teaching the world to be more like good Americans and refrain from smoking.
I have come to realize that my endeavors have been futile. It makes no more sense trying to transform a smoking society into a non-smoking one, as it does trying to transform a Negro society into a Caucasian one. The existence of cultured, conscientious smokers notwithstanding, overall I believe that smokers are an inferior race. Of course, unlike biological race (which one cannot choose for himself), a person does choose to become a smoker. At some point in his life, a person decides that he would be more “cool” if he were a smoker. At this point in history, he is certainly aware of the health risks and the annoyance to other people – but he doesn’t care. He is willing to increase his chances of disease, the risks of fire, to impose his litter on the rest of society, to inconvenience others with his stench, to yellow his teeth and alter his voice all in order to be more “cool”.
I now realize that there are actual benefits to cigarette smoking. A person can maintain his weight through smoking and I’m sure it is a great stress reliever. Perhaps it actually does aid in digestion. Certainly some smokers begin their habit after careful consideration and weighing of the costs versus the benefits. But those people are the exception. Most start because of a weakness that made them more vulnerable to peer pressure. This weakness is part of their personality and smoking is only a symptom of it. I am fairly certain that this weakness is linked to a high time preference. I am not simply guessing here; I have discussed this topic with many smokers – some of them quite close to me.
It hurts me to see those who are close to me taking up such an unhealthy habit because I do not enjoy seeing them putting themselves at higher risk for disease. It hurts me more to see them engage in an activity that ends up costing other people their hard earned money to pay for their medical costs and to clean up their mess or put out their fires. In essence, I am bothered more by the the moral downsides of smoking than by the its health risks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments

Fun with H.B.D.

Posted on July 20, 2010 by jewamongyou

A while ago I made some t-shirts that look like this:
I regretting not having made the message more explicit (and that the text sounds rather silly). They never provoked any meaningful response. Today, I wore one to the dentist. The following was my exchange with the receptionist:
The receptionist: “what’s H.B.D.?”
Me: “human biodiversity. Just like there are different kinds of horses, fish and so on, so too there are different kinds of human.”
The receptionist: “So which one of those is human?”
Me: “All of them are modern humans. We’re all different and, though some people would like us all to be the same, I think these differences are wonderful.”
The receptionist: “One of them looks like a monkey.”
Me (laughing): “Do you mean this one? That’s an Australian Aborigine. That’s alright; I won’t tell him you said that.”
My next stop was the grocery store. At checkout, the older woman in front of me was tarrying. She turned and said to the young female clerk, “Jesus loves you.” As the older woman left, I smiled and told the clerk, “H.B.D. loves you” and I pointed to my t-shirt. I asked her, “can you guess which one is a modern human?” When she said she didn’t know, I told her, “all of them are”. She replied, “but they all look so different.” So I explained to her that each is a different race of humans. Now she knows that we are not all the same under the skin.

Posted in activism | 11 Comments

Homosexuality in Uganda

Posted on July 20, 2010 by jewamongyou

I highly recommend this video (no vulgarity in this one). Here we see the leftist media attempting to claim that anti-homosexual sentiment in Uganda is the result of cultural contamination by… you guessed it – the evil white man. It turns out that a small group of American activists visited Uganda to stir up opposition to the gay agenda. While ABC news claims that the draconian laws, proposed by the Ugandan government, were a direct result of such meddling, the spokesman for the church group, Scott Lively, defends himself very well against these accusations. Within the short interview, we can see that forces on the right are catching on to the tricks of the leftist media and not falling for their traps.
As for the Ugandan pastor, Martin Ssempa (featured in this YouTube (vulgarity warning) clip which I’d previously linked to), I have a new admiration for the man. Not that I agree with everything he says, but if you listen carefully to how he responds to Dan Harris (the reporter), you’ll see that he makes a lot of sense within the framework of his creed. He firmly defends his beliefs and goes on the offensive time after time. In defense of his showing homosexual pornography to a large audience, he replies that, “The problem is the absence of shock”. This response resonates on so many levels. If whites were to regain their sense of shock, many of the evils we now contend with would substantially diminish. When Mr. Harris brings up the “theory” that those who oppose homosexuality are likely homosexuals themselves, Mr. Ssempa retorts that this is like saying all who are opposed to terrorism must then be terrorists themselves and then laughs at the reporter. When Harris asks Ssempa if he worries about “whipping up hatred”, his answer is that he doesn’t worry about that at all. Instead, he worries about people like the reporter who lack understanding. In the end, both Mr. Lively and Mr. Ssempa accuse the reporter of being condescending and racist for believing that Ugandan sentiments against homosexuality could only have been brought about through white intervention.
The fact that so many of the commentators on YouTube actually believe the claim that white men brought homophobia to Africa shows how hopelessly brainwashed the masses really are. It also makes me wonder how they can believe that black Africans are our intellectual and moral equals and, at the same time, believe that a handful of white Americans could so easily sway an entire African country in this manner.

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

"Waking up" and Liberal blacks

Posted on July 19, 2010 by jewamongyou

Waking up

Race realists often wonder when the slumbering masses will “wake up”. Every time whites are subject to an atrocity (every day) or gross injustice (every day) we hear murmuring to the effect that “maybe this will wake them up”.
Race realists make up only a tiny percentage of the white population in America, and are almost non-existent among the young. As matters grow worse, and more obviously dangerous for whites, we might experience a modest increase in our numbers. However we should remember that the ruling elites equate race realism with “racism”. Therefore, if there is such an increase, those elites (government and the media) will attribute the bad tidings on that same increase in our numbers. They will say things like, “with the increase in racism among whites, some people of color have vented their anger and frustration by…” They will never acknowledge that blatant racism against whites might fuel white consciousness. Instead, they will claim the opposite. Unfortunately the masses, having been trained from childhood to be closed minded in racial matters, will buy into these blatant lies.

Liberal blacks

Being “liberal” is a bad thing, overall, for whites and Asians; it represents a step down from what they should be. Though I admit that hippies can sometimes be fun to be around and they are generally not dangerous in a direct physical way, nevertheless, they are not well. The way they vote, their bumper stickers and their protests often work to the detriment of society. Their lack of tolerance is legendary. But the sincerely “liberal” NAM is a rarity. For him, being a tree-hugging, peace activist member of PETA is a step up. NAM’s in general, and blacks in particular, will vote for leftist political parties only because they believe that this will serve their best interests – not because they actually buy into the leftist message as a whole.
I found this interesting video on OneSTDV (crude language warning!).
While there are pro-homosexual organizations in Africa, the vast majority of their members are certainly homosexuals simply looking out for their own self interests. I doubt that a majority of straight Africans will ever have great sympathy for them. Why should they, if they are not homosexual themselves? Even in California, a majority of blacks voted in favor of proposition 8 (against gay marriage).
While it is acceptable to point out that blacks generally do not support the “gay agenda”, we do not find many honest answers as to why this is so. Some claim that the mobilization of black churches is what drove black support for proposition 8 in California. If this were the case, then why are black churches so unsuccessful in curbing black crime and promiscuity? I think the reason is that most blacks are not homosexual. Since casting a ballot takes little effort, and since the measure would not adversely effect them directly, this was an easy way to strike a blow against a group of people they hold in contempt.
Fully 70% of California blacks voted in favor of proposition 8. I think it is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of the 30% that opposed it are, themselves, homosexual. After all, the measure directly pertains to homosexuals, so naturally they would be more motivated to take the time to vote against it. Let us modestly estimate that a third of the blacks who voted against proposition 8 were homosexual. This leaves 20% of straight voting blacks who voted against it. Are one in five California blacks true “liberals” or were they only fired up by this one issue?
A narrow majority of Californian whites voted against proposition 8. Suffice it to say their reasoning was probably a bit more sophisticated. Like blacks, most whites are also not homosexual, but more of them are able to look beyond what is good for their own group. On the whole, it is likely that California whites are more religious than California blacks. Their religion is, of course, “liberalism”. “Liberalism” preaches that homosexuality is morally equal to heterosexuality and, therefore, deserving of the same rights. What we have here is an unholy marriage between the religion of “liberalism” and natural white altruism. Together, they were able to cause most California whites to vote against proposition 8. Both “liberalism” and altruism are weak among blacks – and hence the numbers we see.

Posted in racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 3 Comments

Alien adoptions

Posted on July 13, 2010 by jewamongyou

Over the years, I’ve been in the habit of reading articles, and even whole books, without having a clue who the author is. I’ll pick up books from the library and read them cover to cover. When I’m done, I might then ask myself, “I wonder who the author is.” I never gave much thought to this habit; it just seemed natural. Now that I think about it, it seems like a good habit because the words carry their own value regardless of who wrote them. We so often decide that we dislike this or that person and so we reject him. In so doing, we might be missing out on valuable information, even if we believe that person to be a liar.
I should be sleeping right now. Alas, sleep eludes me. So I got up to read a random article and it happened to be about international adoptions. The article claims that the enthusiasm American white women have for adopting alien children is an offshoot of the missionary spirit. It says that, while such behavior is rooted in noble intentions, in reality it is detrimental to our nation. I couldn’t agree more and you can read the article here. The author is non other than the controversial David Yeagley.
Yeagley covers many aspects of this phenomenon, but one question he does not ask is this: sub-Saharan Africa has the highest fertility rates in the world. Women typically have five or six children. This being the case, why is it that African women are not lining up to adopt those orphans? Certainly there are enough barren African women who should be willing to adopt African children and raise them as their own. In most cases, had she not been barren, she would be raising several of her own children. I wonder if anybody has ever asked those African women why they do not simply adopt. I’m sure some of them do (mainly from their own tribe), but my guess is that most of them would answer, “why should I raise somebody else’s child?” In other words, it would not benefit the genetic interests of their own tribe to adopt a child of a different tribe. Therefore, such an act would be unthinkable. Those African women, being closer to nature, are in touch with their genetic selves. White women, in contrast, are divorced from their own nature. This is the flip side of the “noble intent” Yeagley describes.

Posted in miscegenation, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 8 Comments

Which is worse?

Posted on July 13, 2010 by jewamongyou

From the standard leftist point of view, which is worse?
a) Promoting a homeland specifically for whites, where whites would be left alone and not have to associate with other races.
b) Assuming that, as non-whites (NAM’s) evolve, they will become “white” in their attitudes and behavior.
If you chose “b”, then you are in agreement with about 70% of American whites – if we take their poll opinions at face value. A recent Yahoo article states:

The most compelling figure from the poll is that 51 percent of Americans support Arizona’s law as it stands, compared with 35 percent who support the US case against Arizona.
The level of support is highest in the South and the West, at 55 and 56 percent, respectively. By contrast, respondents in the Northeast were equally divided in their support for Arizona versus the US, 41 percent to 41 percent…
“This tells me that states in regions that have to deal with immigration tend to support the Arizona law because they have a better understanding of the challenges. The states in the Northeast don’t have a border problem.”
Mr. Kerbel is struck by the findings that Hispanics and blacks are 61 percent in favor of the US lawsuit against Arizona’s law. Just 30 percent of white respondents support the government’s suit.

“The differences between whites and nonwhites on this are very stark,” says Kerbel. “The numbers seem to reflect that among white American voters there is something that needs to be done about illegal immigration, and that the Arizona law addresses that. But among blacks and Hispanics, the law is viewed as a strong form of profiling and so there is strong sentiment against it.

In other words, those who must deal with Hispanic immigrants on a regular basis would prefer dealing with them less. Clearly, they notice behaviors, among those immigrants, that they do not approve of. When they make comments like:

I think everyone misses the point…..I don’t care if 12 million Latinos immigrate to the U.S. as long as they do it LEGALLY. Most of us are not anti-Latino, we’re anti- illegal immigration.

… they are clearly deceiving themselves. Do they really believe that a government-issued piece of paper is going to magically make the crime and anti-social behavior go away? If so, then perhaps we should do away with all criminal rehabilitation programs; they cost too much money. Instead, just have the government issue each criminal a piece of paper stating that they are now law-abiding citizens. This would be much cheaper and, according to their infantile logic, more effective.
Though the above article does not tell us what percentage of whites support Arizona’s law, an msnbc article does:

But there’s a divide among white and Latino respondents: 70 percent of whites support the law, versus just 31 percent of Latinos. In fact, 58 percent of Latinos say they strongly oppose it.
That’s not the only chasm between White and Latino America. While 68 percent of Latinos believe that immigration strengthens the United States, just 43 percent of whites think that.

If those 70% of whites are aware of the above statistic, then there are only three possible conclusions we can make about their true attitude. Either they are not sincere about their opinions in the poll (and they don’t really mind if the U.S. becomes just like Mexico), or they actually believe that Hispanics will gradually become just like whites in their attitudes and behaviors (contrary to current trends), or they are white nationalists.
Regarding the second possibility, that they believe Hispanics will become more “white”, I wonder how most Hispanics would react if asked, “when are your children and grandchildren going to become more white?” My guess would be that they would be offended and possibly even violent. The question would be perceived as blatantly racist – and yet most American whites would hold this to be a legitimate (if not a polite or diplomatic) question. I think it would be far less offensive to ask the Hispanic, “when are whites going to be allowed to have their own nation?”
It has long been my belief that two thirds of any society are mindless followers. 50% have a good excuse: they are of below average intelligence and this is not their fault. The other 16%, though they are not stupid, are weak-minded and follow the path of least resistance. The remaining 33% can think for themselves but this does not necessarily mean they will reach the correct conclusions, nor does it mean they have the ability (or courage) to be vocal about it. Despite constant media propaganda to the contrary, 70% of white Americans are rebelling against the media mind-control (at least on this one issue). This is encouraging. It means that a substantial number of people are finally beginning to believe their own eyes rather than what they are told. But the main hurdle lies ahead. Simply answering a poll does not mean much. How many can appreciate the reality of the three choices I presented above? How many will be able to mobilize and truly act in their own self-interest?

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics | 4 Comments

Shades of modesty

Posted on July 12, 2010 by jewamongyou

Iran is implementing new guidelines for male haircuts. Not surprisingly, many Westerners love to ridicule such policies. One comment reads, “Defending archaism to the last. Islam’s finest achievement.” I wonder how those same people, who ridicule Iran, would feel if a family of proud nudists marched past their family picnic thus exposing their children to the basics of human anatomy.
While many in the West are keen to condemn more conservative societies for their strict rules, how many of them condemn African tribes for allowing women to go topless in public? If a woman can be arrested for doing so in America, we would think that there must be something morally wrong with it. If so, where are the protests against upper nudity elsewhere in the world? Not only do we not hear any protests but many Western men clearly enjoy seeing those women either in their natural habitat or within the pages of National Geographic.
Perhaps one reason Westerners feel so free to mock the Iranian haircut police is that, in the West, we have absolutely no restrictions on how one wears his hair. Here all haircuts are legal even if not considered appropriate for a job interview. Therefore, we can feel superior to the Iranians for their guidelines. We do not, however, condemn them for prohibiting women from going topless on the beach. I’m pretty sure that many Europeans condemn Americans for not allowing our women to go topless on our beaches.
It seems that every society believes it has the perfect balance between modesty and individual liberty. If individual liberty is what we are most concerned about, then people should be allowed to go about naked as they please. If modesty is our main priority, then each person would have the right to not be offended by what he sees and others would have to dress accordingly. Within this continuum there are many shades of modesty. Which one is the perfect balance?
In the past, before the age of easy travel, super highways, television and web conferencing, each community could set its own norms. Now that a “global community” is being forced upon us (and technology supports it) what are the rights of a community? When I lived in Jerusalem, I fully supported the inhabitants of the Mea She’arim neighborhood in their quest to keep immodestly dressed women off their streets. I still do. If a woman is insensitive enough to violate the dress codes of the locals, then she deserves whatever abuse is heaped upon her. But I do not support the Iranian government in any attempt to force every man, within their borders, to cut his hair a certain way.
Mea She’arim is very small. It takes only a few minutes to walk from one end to the other. Anybody who does not find the local restrictions to his taste is free to live elsewhere. Also, the Mea She’arim community has been there for a long time and they never forced others off their land to create it. Iran, on the other hand, is quite large. It is home to many ethnicities and many traditions. Islam was imposed by force and there are still religious minorities that suffer persecution. I do not believe there is any specific maximum size that a community must be in order to have its own enforceable culture. I also do not believe there is any specific number of dissidents who must live within it in order to disqualify it from having a unified enforceable culture. In terms of history, I do not believe there is any specific amount of time that must elapse from when the society was transformed (by whatever means) so that the current culture is legitimate. How many old people, who remember the old ways, must remain in order to prevent the new ways from being legitimate? There can be no set number. Like so many other things in life, sometimes a certain amount of arbitrariness is necessary.
Unlike morality, there is no “right” or “wrong” when it comes to modesty. Every answer is correct if it is right for the community and the individual. If the individual is in tune with his community, then there should be no conflict. If he is not in tune with his community, then he should move somewhere he would fit in better. Of course, if people raised their children to respect their own traditions, then there would be less need for individuals to move far away and families could stay together. So, in the end, a certain uniformity of convention (tradition) is important to the well being of family. Who could argue that family should be among our top priorities?

Posted in pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 3 Comments

Of ducks and men

Posted on July 8, 2010 by jewamongyou

There is much concern over the fate of the Florida Mottled duck:

Historically, wild mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) normally winter in Florida in widely scattered, small flocks and are seldom seen in large concentrations except in some of the northern counties. These wild birds migrate out of our state to northern breeding areas in the spring and are not present in Florida during the mottled duck breeding season.

However, captive-reared mallards are being unlawfully released by humans in large numbers in Florida. It is estimated that more than 12,000 mallards are purchased statewide from feed-and-seed stores and potentially are released each year. These domesticated mallards are being purchased by well-intentioned individuals and are being released on local ponds, lakes and canals for aesthetic reasons…

…They are not part of Florida’s native wildlife and like other exotic species, are causing problems.
State biologists are observing more and more mixed flocks and mixed pairs in the wild and these feral mallards are mating with mottled ducks, producing a hybrid offspring (see details). These hybrid offspring are fertile, which further compounds the problem. Every mallard released in Florida can potentially contribute to the hybridization problem and the result is that fewer and fewer pure-bred Florida mottled ducks are left each year. An estimated 7 to 12 percent of mottled ducks are already exhibiting genetic evidence of hybridization and biologists list this hybridization as the biggest immediate threat to the conservation of Florida’s mottled duck.

Because of the relatively small size of the mottled duck breeding population (estimated at 30,000 to 40,000), the complete hybridization could result in the extinction of the Florida mottled duck.

History has proved that the concern over the loss of the Florida mottled duck to hybridization is a real one and should not be taken lightly.

Of course, in the eyes of the leftist elite, diversity is to be treasured in the animal kingdom but scorned among humans. They do not believe in human biodiversity (HBD). Or do they?

Recent headlines (in “mainstream” newspapers) have recently proclaimed:

The Tibet plateau is a land of yaks and sherpas — and rapid evolution.

Over a mere 3,000 years, a blink of an evolutionary eye, Tibetan highlanders have developed a unique version of a gene that apparently helps them cope with life at extremely high altitudes, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science.

Reading the same story in the Oregonian (which somebody had left laying around) while taking my break today at work, I wondered out loud, “can a social construct protect people from altitude sickness? I suppose this lays to rest any doubts about the reality of race.” It is worthy of mention that while the Tibetans diverged from the Han Chinese a mere 3,000 years ago, Europeans diverged from black Africans at least tens of thousands of years ago. Who in their right mind would doubt that there are meaningful genetic differences between the major races after reading such an article?

At this point, it should be fairly obvious that race is more than skin deep and that human groups possess genetic uniqueness in relation to other human groups. We should demand to know why preserving the genetic purity of a race of ducks is paramount but to do so for humans is “evil”. This point was strongly made by Richard D. Fuerle in his book Erectus Walks Amongst Us.

A leftist might possibly answer that unlike ducks, humans possess free choice and tend to marry out of love. Since choice only exists at the individual level, it should exclusively be up to the individuals who they should marry. Once we accept this as the ideal scenario for dating and marriage, then all other concerns become secondary at best. The assumption, at least in the modern West, is that love (between individuals) is the most important thing in life. Marriage is the culmination of such love and procreation merely a possible byproduct of it.

I do not claim to be an expert on love but my understanding is that it is chemicals floating around in the brain. Over time they wear off, their entire raison d’etre being to promote procreation. Love is just a trick our genes use to replicate themselves. Ever since we were slimy mold on a rock, we’ve been slaves to our genes. But now millions of leftists are finally getting back at those genes by refusing to have children, raising dogs instead. That’ll show them!

Traditional Jews often say that among the gentiles and secular Jews love precedes marriage – and most of their marriages end in divorce. In contrast, among traditional Jews (and others), marriage comes first and love follows. Since there is no love at the time of marriage, more rational criteria can be weighed in deciding if there is a good match. Each parent examines the other family and tries to determine if they will get along. They know that, in a real community, a marriage is much more than simply the union of two individuals. Each parent makes sure that finances will not be too much of a problem. Each parent verifies that there is a good match in regards to traditions, ethnicity, language and values. Even through all this, there is still divorce in traditional communities – but not at the levels we see elsewhere. Furthermore, it is a fact that the outside world cannot be completely kept out of such communities and this influence takes its toll.

I think it odd that one of the most notorious leftists of our time, Hillary Clinton, stated that “it takes a village to raise a child“. Certainly she has no objections to intermarriage in all its forms. So I wonder if she even appreciates the contradiction in her views. In a village composed of many nationalities, mores, languages and races – our hypothetical child would be confused indeed! One could imagine what would happen when he did something wrong. On villager would spank him while another would tell him a story. Yet another would banish him from the village and another might ignore the misdeed. At meal time, one villager might insist on feeding him only kosher or hallal while another might feed him pork. Within a few days riots would tear the village apart.

But it does take a village to raise a child. This is why we must protect the integrity of our village. This is why it is important that intermarriage remain the exception and not the rule. We can only preserve our village if we behave like men. If we behave like ducks, then extinction will be our lot as we are swallowed up by the Mallards.

Posted in miscegenation, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 10 Comments