Jewamongyou

"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

Affirmative action's silver lining

Posted on July 7, 2010 by jewamongyou

The negative consequences of affirmative action are well-known (to anybody who wants to know) but sometimes we can benefit from it as well. We assume that, when a person is hired for a specific task, it would be good if he performs his task well – but there is an exception to this rule: cogs of government apparatus, whose jobs are designed to make the rest of us miserable and otherwise persecute us. It is sometimes better if they do their jobs poorly.
On my return from one of my vacations, I realized I had a couple of large water bottles in my carry-on luggage. Waiting in line in security, I noticed that the person in charge of the x-ray machine my luggage was about to pass through was an overweight black woman. I thought to myself, “if she is well-trained and cares about her job, those two water bottles will be obvious to her and she’ll pull them out, at which point I’ll say I’d forgotten about them”. I reasoned that since this person is likely an affirmative action employee, her skills are probably inferior and she’ll miss the bottles – and so it was. Others might think: “she allowed a dangerous substance onto the airplane; he could have drowned somebody with that water if he’d poured it into a large bowl and then held the victim’s face under it. Of course he is not a terrorist but I shudder to think what carnage a terrorist might have wraught with that water!” My attitude was a bit different: “I drank that water to assuage my thirst and it was good.”
On another occassion, I had to help a relative acquire a state I.D. card from the D.M.V. There were irregularities, in the spelling of her name, that might have raised a red flag. Furthermore, there was another technicality that might easily have thwarted our efforts and then things would have gotten hairy. As we waited in line, I noticed that all the clerks were white except for one tall young black man, whose cranial capacity seemed deficient in relation to his body size. He appeared clueless and I hoped we would end up with him – and so it was. He did notice the spelling irregularity and asked about the extra “apostrophe” in one of the documents. I answered him matter-of-factly “oh, that’s only a diacritical mark; it’s nothing”. Indeed, it was nothing of importance but there is no doubt that he had no clue what a diacritical mark was. As for the other documents, he didn’t even look at them. Within five minutes, we had our document. Yes, we had probably benefited from affirmative action/diversity in this case. A more knowledgeable or conscientious employee might have caused us serious grief.
Of course, even in government positions, we sometimes prefer that employees actually do perform their jobs well. We generally want good cops, firemen and park rangers. It really depends on the case in question. We want what works out best for us each time. An overabundance of laws, regulations and government agencies already guarantee a certain degree of chaos. Add in affirmative action and we’ve got even more chaos. As a result, it is anybody’s guess how a visit to a government agency will turn out. Even though, in both of the above situations, things turned out well for me, I would have preferred that the outcome was positive for different reasons. I would have preferred that there was no rule against bringing water on to an airplane to begin with and I would have preferred that all the D.M.V. employees were good and competent people and that the one who gave us our document did so because he trusted me and allowed me to explain the situation. It should not be necessary for me to pull an “idiocracy” on a borderline retard.

Posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites | 3 Comments

Lawrence Auster attacks immigration

Posted on July 5, 2010 by jewamongyou

I’ve learned that Lawrence Auster is a Jew who converted to the Episcopal Church. Is one religion really more believable than the others? Practically all of them require us to believe absurdities – and so the concept of “faith” was invented. So, for a Jew to go out of his way to convert to another religion is rather disturbing – unless he did so for some practical end.
But he did write a very good essay about immigration, which my friend Gaurav Ahuja sent me and I just finished reading. It is called “Huddled Cliche’s” and it contains good rebuttals of every argument made in favor of mass immigration. I like his style; he does away with niceties and goes for the jugular each time, demolishing each pro-immigration claim, generally by reductio ad absurdum.
Unfortunately, though logic and reason are on our side, I fear that things will become a lot worse before they become better. If Auster’s essay on immigration were required reading in every school (as long as we have public schools) then we might be able to thwart disaster. As it stands, we suffer from a dearth of readers, not a dearth of good reading material.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, immigration/ Hispanics | 7 Comments

Just an interesting pamphlet

Posted on July 4, 2010 by jewamongyou

I have several pamphlets from Palestine around the time of the founding of the State of Israel. This one is unusual because it was printed in English along with the customary Hebrew. There is nothing Earth-shattering about this pamphlet but some may find it interesting from a historical perspective and, since it is rather short, here it is:

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 1 Comment

What we can learn from Johnny Gaskins

Posted on July 4, 2010 by jewamongyou

From the blog Pro Libertate by William Grigg:

Gaskins had earned his money legitimately. As a dutiful tax victim, he reported his income to the criminal predators running the IRS. His purported offense was to make numerous deposits in amounts just under the $10,000 threshold at which banks are required to report to the IRS under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.

Displaying the proprietary blend of depraved creativity and utter dishonesty that typify their caste, federal prosecutors insisted that these innocuous acts constituted the alleged crime of “money structuring.”

Aside from the obvious lesson that the “Federal” government is evil, what else can we take home from this sad tale? Firstly, if you happen to possess a large amount of cash, do not deposit it in a bank if you have any choice in the matter. Instead, trade it in for a precious metal such as gold and then place that metal in a secure location such as a safe deposit box or a strong vault in a secret hiding place. Any interest you might stand to gain through the bank is easily offset by inflation so why risk it?
Secondly, the victim here appears to be in his sixties. Though it is an admirable trait of white people that they plan for the future, we cannot deny that the older we get, the less future there is to plan for. Not only that, but as we grow older our health tends to deteriorate and so the quality of that future is not as good either. I think there is a fine line between saving up enough for your retirement in order to avoid being a burden to the younger generations and saving too much and essentially wasting that money by not using it when you can. In other words, a certain amount of hedonism is a good thing. Gaskins would have been better off taking that money to a travel agent and purchasing a nice long vacation in a tropical paradise. Of course I do not know all the details of his case but it is a fact that many people his age (especially whites and Asians) have a tendency to save too much and to deprive themselves of the pleasures of this world while they can still enjoy them.
Thirdly – did I mention that the “Federal” government is evil?

Posted in libertarian thought | 2 Comments

Oxkutzcab – diversity and the Mayans

Posted on July 2, 2010 by jewamongyou

I have a friend who is a (proud) Mayan Indian. He hails from the city of Oxkutzcab (pronounced “Oshkushkab”) in the Yucatan region of Mexico. Recently he was relating to me how, when he was a youngster, it used to be safe to wander anywhere in Oxkutzcab and parents had little reason to worry if their children would return home in one piece. People were friendly and trusting to each other. Back then, there were only around 1,500 people in Oxkutzcab. Now there are tens of thousands. He told me, with great sadness in his voice, that things are not as they used to be. These days, murder and mayhem are rampant. Gangs wander the streets and parents fear for their children.
I asked him, “is this because there are more people or because residents no longer share the common bonds of the Mayan language, blood ties and culture?” He replied that the lack of a common heritage and culture seems to be the culprit; a majority of the people in Oxkutzcab share no common bonds and so they are hostile to each other. I continued, “so what you are saying is that ‘diversity’ has not been good for Oxkutzcab?” He agreed that this is the case.
When we speak of the victims of “diversity”, many of us automatically think of whites, but the fact is that many indigenous peoples are in grave danger, culturally/genetically because of the influx of foreigners. Naturally, many on the left sympathize with those indigenous peoples – as long as they are not of European stock.

Posted in pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 7 Comments