Product placement

Posted on May 30, 2010 by jewamongyou

Leftists have a product to sell – and that product is “people of color”, especially blacks.  This is why, when a leftist photographer (or a photographer who works for leftists) wishes to photograph people doing positive things, one of his topmost priorities is to make sure that a “person of color” (a black if possible) is prominently displayed.  This type of product placement is one of the reasons that “news” is typically as much propaganda as actual news.
When Hockinson Heights Intermediate School and Hockinson Heights Primary school held a drive to collect cans and bottles to help Haitians procure clean water, the Columbian (a local Washington newspaper) featured the story on its front page.  A large color photograph accompanied the story – almost 5″ by 7″ and it featured a dark-skinned girl and a white boy (only the girl’s face is clearly visible).

We can only assume that no black boys were available and they felt forced to use a girl.  Given the demographics of Hockinson, it is possible that this girl was the only black (or dark enough to pass as black) student in the entire school:

A while ago, we had a project at my job that required some volunteers.  The only ones who volunteered were white males (including myself).  The man in charge of the project, who is a petty diversocrat, actually left the room and personally fetched a white woman (who had just started work that same day) and a black man (from a totally different department) so that he could include them in the photographs he was taking of the event.  On another occasion, we had the media visit our company.  They had a camera crew and were photographing various scenes for their story.  At one point, the cameraman pointed to a particular employee and excitedly said, “let’s take his picture; he looks Asian.”  You see, there were no blacks on the premises at the time so the Asian would have to do.  As it turned out, the Asian did not want his picture taken.  Another example I’ve personally seen was a special museum exhibit in Denver.  Hundreds of people were present and only a handful of them were black.  Yet the news media chose to interview a black woman  – as if she represented the typical visitor to the exhibit.
As for the can and bottle program, the Columbian continued its story on page A4 and there we are treated to a second photograph.  This one is much smaller – only 2.5″ by 4″ and monochrome:

In this photo (I apologize for its lack of clarity) we see only white and Asian children.  I wonder if anybody explained to those white kids why it could not be one of them who was featured on the front page with his full face being visible.  It would not surprise me at all if news crews actually brought their own black child with them to such events – just in case one was not available on site.  I also wonder if anybody has done a study to find out how many white children have been photographed with the president.  It seems to me that it’s always a black one.
It should be clear to anybody with half a brain cell that blacks do not visit museums at the same rate that whites and Asians do and that blacks do not volunteer at the same rate as other races.  Yet the MSM invests a lot of effort trying to fool whites into thinking that the opposite is true.  The most logical conclusion I can come up with is that even those leftists know that presenting a true depiction of reality would imply that blacks are inferior to other races in those regards.  Their efforts are a tacit admission of this.
Posted in examples of propaganda | 6 Comments

The Boy Scouts, gays and pedophiles

Posted on May 27, 2010 by jewamongyou

A Portland jury recently awarded Kerry Lewis $18.5 for sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a Boy Scout leader.  The Boy Scouts, as an organization, was apparently negligent in protecting its vulnerable members.
It was not very long ago when the Boy Scouts was under fire for refusing to allow gay scout leaders.  Back then, the ACLU fought for “gay rights” by spearheading the push to force the Boy Scouts to make this concession.    Unfortunately, many powerful organizations joined the ACLU in its evil, but politically correct, cause.
Forgive me for stating the obvious but even though not all homosexuals are pedophiles – and not all pedophiles are gay – it is probably accurate to say that virtually all men who molest boys are homosexual.  It should be no surprise that the moral and upright leaders of the Boy Scouts would seek to prevent homosexuals from being in close contact with their boys.  Within the Girl Scouts, males can be leaders – but with limitations and safeguards.  I have never heard of anybody criticizing the Girl Scouts for such restrictions.  Why should the Boy Scouts be any different regarding homosexuals?
Taking the story at face value, the Boy Scouts of Corvallis (where the crimes took place) acted disgracefully.  They could have protected their boys and they didn’t.  But theirs is a large organization and it is inevitable that horror stories such as the one in question will sometimes occur.  Let us recognize that, at least historically, the Boy Scouts represent good old fashioned white values.  Is there any difference between what is expected of a scout and what is expected of white society in general?  Both are expected to be…
Trustworthy – A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.
Loyal – A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation.
Helpful – A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward.
Friendly – A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.
Courteous – A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.
Kind – A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated.
Obedient – A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.
Cheerful – A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.
Thrifty – A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.
Brave – A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.
Clean – A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.
Reverent – A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.
Unfortunately, like the rest of America, the Boy Scouts has fallen prey to the plague of “diversity” and, according to their “diversity presentation“, one of their goals is to recruit more non-whites.  Instead of focusing on their roots and encouraging the creation of more white boys to carry on their traditions, they naively believe that black, Hispanic and Asian boys are just as capable of doing so.  And yet they do recognize that there are differences:

All parents also look for activities that will help their child be successful in life; however, how they define success is slightly different.  African American parents define success as their child being an upstanding citizen and a contributing member of the community.  Hispanic/Latino parents define success as their child being respectful, responsible and having strong family bonds.  Asian parents define success in terms of academic and future career success…
Going along with their definition of success, African American parents also look for activities that develop character, improve academic success, build discipline, teach leadership skills, teamwork, and physical fitness, and provide service in the community.
Hispanic/Latino parents look for activities that preserve their cultural heritage, teach responsibility, and include the entire family.
Asian Americans look for activities that improve academic success, build independence, improve physical fitness, build leadership skills, provide service to the community, and preserve their cultural heritage.

They include some spreadsheets, such as the following, to illustrate various traits attributed to those three races:


They do not seem to recognize “whites” as a distinct ethnic group.  Therefore they feel free to pander to other ethnic groups in an attempt to gain them as members.  Here is an example of their strategy for attracting black members:


•Use rappers to promote Scouting
•Make the uniform optional or have   T-shirts that are cool that include a Scouting emblem
I recommend reading the entire Powerpoint  presentation; it is quite funny – in a sad sort of way.  It doesn’t seem to occur to them that, in making such concessions, they are destroying what they are.  The Boy Scouts is rather like a microcosm of America.  Suddenly, after reading their “diversity” page, I don’t feel sorry for them any more.
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Home invasion in Troutdale, OR

Posted on May 26, 2010 by jewamongyou

I don’t watch T.V. but I happened to be passing by when somebody else was – and I heard the news anchor describe how a 12 year old Troutdale girl had called 911 while three home invaders/burglars were rummaging through her home.  They called her a hero and played some of the 911 tape.  I asked my friend, who was watching the program, if they showed photos of the suspects (who had been apprehended).  He told me they had not.  I responded that, if this was a home invasion, they must be black.  As it turned out, it was actually a burglary; the burglars didn’t know anybody was home.  Though they did not show the perpetrators on T.V., it was easy to find their images online:

So now we have three more unwilling advocates for the reduction of Hispanic immigration.  I don’t care if the perpetrators were illegal or “legal”.  They are aliens who bring crime and filth to our communities and they need to be disposed of.
Regarding home invasions, have any of y’all ever heard of a home invasion being committed by whites?  I’m fairly certain that this particular crime is done exclusively by blacks and Hispanics, at least in the U.S.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

The Hassidic underclass

Posted on May 24, 2010 by jewamongyou

My daughter works at a medical office in a heavily Hassidic area.  Her daily experiences reveal disturbing trends within a community that most Americans associate with solid values.  By and large, we Jews are known for our emphasis on education.  This reputation is fairly accurate but, amongst many Hassidim, “education” is only important in the religious realm.  When it comes to secular knowledge, and practical skills, ignorance often rules.

I was sitting at the front desk of the doctor’s office when Hassidic gentleman of about 30 walked in.  I recognized him and I’m acquainted with his family; he was born in the U.S. and has lived here his entire life.  I gave him a form to fill out that would provide us with vital demographic information.  He had no idea how to fill it out because he could not read it, nor could he write even a simple sentence in English.  He was fluent only in Yiddish.  I was forced to call his wife and have her dictate to me whatever information was needed.  When I finished speaking with her, I asked him to sign his name at the bottom and he painstakingly copied each letter from his printed name.  This was his “signature”.

Many Hassidic couples appear to have litters of kids.  Some as many as many as 18, all with the same woman.  These families invariably depend on welfare to survive.  Like so many NAM’s, they breed like there is no tomorrow.  I’ve heard from both my daughter and my son that it is very common for Hassidic children to be ignorant of basic safety rules of the road; they walk out into traffic without even looking.  Perhaps this is to offset their high birthrate – a “late-term abortion” if you will.  This may provide entertainment for many anti-Semitic drivers – a kind of real-life “Carmageddon” – but I seriously shudder to think of the implications.
I think it is a good thing that at least some whites are reproducing and I’m happy that Jews are reproducing.  But it would be nice if they did so in a more responsible manner.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 3 Comments

Diversity and the decline of formality

Posted on May 23, 2010 by jewamongyou

I am old enough to remember when one was expected to dress in a suit and tie in order to fly on an airplane.  I was told, by those older than me, “you are not required to do so – but you will surely be treated better if you do”.  It went without saying that dressing appropriately would be meaningless if the person did not match his attire with a corresponding civilized attitude, courteous demeaner, refined etiquette and meticulous hygeine.  In other words, one was expected to look, and act, like a gentleman in order to be treated like one.
Needless to say, times have changed.  Now it doesn’t matter how you dress, how you smell, or even whether you have good manners – those who work in the service industry are expected to treat everyone with equal respect.  After all, to treat somebody differently because of his appearance would be “prejudiced” and would constitute “bias”.  I’m not saying that people now pay less attention to how they look.  On the contrary.  People are as superficial as ever.  But the emphasis on external appearance today is just that: superficiality.  The emphasis on looks, as practised in the past, was because of the value people placed on the more refined aspects of their culture.  In other words, it was based on formality.
What has become of formality?  The last bastions of formality are codified in the hoary rituals of older institutions such as the military, political entities, some educational institutions, formal religion and some companies.  Among rank and file citizens, and in people’s everyday lives, formality is largely absent.  In the old days, we were expected to be more formal – but certainly not less friendly.  It seems that many people mistakenly equate formality with being less friendly.  In my opinion,  formality is essentially an embodiment of the finer aspects of our culture.  As our culture has been eaten away by multiculturalism, the act of being formal has taken on a new meaning.  It now represents a more forceful affirmation of Western civilization.  By being formal, we are saying “I am occidental and proud”  In a multicultural society, any such statement can be construed as exclusive.  By wearing a tie instead of a Kinte cloth, we are excluding African culture.  By invoking “God”, we are excluding “Allah”.  By using the title “sir” or “ma’am”, we are implying that we are not all equal (though these last titles have now been corrupted to mean almost nothing).
In a multicultural society, any decision to be more formal must be followed up by asking whose “formal” shall we use?”  The lazy way out is to discard formality altogether and replace it with universal informality.  That way nobody is excluded and many people feel warm and fuzzy inside.  I get the impression that, given the choice, leftist politicians (that is, almost all of them) would take the lazy way out.

Any adherence to formality, on their part, is a shallow attempt to fool the rest of us into believing that they still represent some sort of “American culture”.  Shame on American citizens for believing them.
Now excuse me while I board my flight – without a suit and tie but still nicely dressed!

Posted in pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 5 Comments

Libertarians and immigration

Posted on May 20, 2010 by jewamongyou

It has long been a source of consternation that the main position of the Libertarian Party is a pro-immigration one.  Typically we find open-border libertarians defending their position using arguments of principle.  For example, a libertarian blogger by the name of Jon Smith lists five reasons why he is in favor of open borders.  Without going into too much detail, his arguments are basically these:
1)  All people are born equal and we have no right to prevent any individual from moving to a place which offers more liberty than where he came from.   Furthermore, those who value security over freedom deserve neither.  Restricting the movement of individuals curtails their liberty and this is in the name of security.  This being the case, we have sacrificed liberty for security and so we deserve neither.
2) Our nation was founded by immigrants and immigration has brought us our greatness – so it makes no sense to restrict the thing that has made us great.
3) Immigrants, if not for the perverse effects of government welfare, bring economic benefit.
4) If I wished to move to a better country (because it is more free), I would do so whether it was legal or not.  So the Golden Rule dictates that I offer the same benefit to others.
5) Government has too much power as it is.  To grant them the power to choose who their citizens are, by way of enforcing a border, is giving them too much power.
Then there’s the case of Ross Penyon, who showed up at an anti SB1070 rally to support the invasion of the U.S. and to preach libertarianism to the swarthy primitives – who were polite and receptive (so he says) much as their ancestors were receptive to white missionaries preaching Christianity.  But I do not hold out much hope that Hispanics will embrace libertarianism as enthusiastically as they did Christianity; libertarianism lacks the persuasive powers of superior arms and bribes.
Penyon writes:

We outlined the nonaggression principle for those we spoke to and summarized the idea that as long as one is being peaceful one should be left alone. We stated that it doesn’t matter what color, ethnicity, region of origin, or any other secondary characteristic one possesses, but that purely by being nonaggressive, individuals should be free to make choices for themselves on where to live and who to voluntarily associate with. We handed out thousands of fliers on this message and generally received a very pleasant welcome.

It seems to me that the common thread, between Smith and Penyon is that they champion the rights of individuals only selectively.  In fact, they don’t seem to grasp that just as an individual is part of his nation, so too is the nation a part of the individual.  By destroying the nation, you are harming the individual.  Smith seems to have an inkling of the dangers of mass immigration:

I certainly understand that a large and sudden change in the number and culture of voters could be a risk to our republic, I submit that we have made it through that before, during the rapid immigration of the 1800s, and we can survive it again.

That Smith does not recognize the differences between the immigration of the 1800’s and what we have today I can only attribute to ignorance or perhaps the naivety of youth.
When convenient to his argument, Smith does recognize the concept of “nation”.  He writes:

times of greatest growth and prosperity in this country were tied to policies of the past where freedom was far greater. They recognize that mistakes were made, but that overall, wherever the principles of freedom were applied, we were propelled towards greatness. Most, however, fail to acknowledge the effect of our open borders during that time. Obviously that was one of the keys to our greatness, we are a nation proudly comprised almost entirely of immigrants.

Of course, he neglects to explain what he means by “our” and “this country”.  Perhaps there is some sort of magical quality to the soil or special spores that waft through the air.  Or maybe the water is blessed.  We are left to guess – but my guess is that he has not given it much thought.
With libertarians like Smith and Penyon, so eager to destroy individuals in the name of individuality, who needs statists?  A society without a specific culture (i.e. a “multicultural” one) is to a nation what a feral child is to a normal adult.

Feral children ought to be an excellent source of evidence in the continuing nature-nurture debate. Feral children cannot walk, talk, or socialise: they cannot show empathy with others. Indeed, these poor creatures are so apparently sub-human that Linnaeus classified them as distinct from home sapiens.

A case can be made that any society that lacks a specific tradition, culture, language etc. is not a truly human society but rather a dysfunctional assortment of individuals.  To call it a “nation” is a wild inaccuracy.  Any consensual arrangements they may have, and any peace they may enjoy, is only a temporary lull in hostilities or some sort of mass hypnosis brought on by an overabundance of material wealth.
It is no wonder that non-white nations are overwhelming us; whites had given up their cultures, having imbibed the poison cup of hedonism and decadence.  Arabs, Mexicans, Chinese and Pakistanis still possess their cultures.  Now they feed on the rotting carcass of the West.  The masses of the West believe that their latest fashions, celebrities, pop music and T.V. shows can replace a genuine culture so they invite the brown masses to join them in their revelry.  Many are attracted to this superficial proxy-culture.  After all, a rotting corpse smells sweet – in a certain way.  A rotting corpse can last 40 or 50 years before it becomes dry bones.  So too will it be with the acculturated West.  When the flesh is depleted, the various insects will consume each other for sustenance.  Those who are not acculturated must distance themselves from the decaying body or they too will rot.
The writhing mass of stinking leftists tries to prevent us from leaving.  It clutches us with its bony hands and smears its slimy juices on our skins.  Its jaw hanging by sparse sinew, it gargles in its zombie voice…
Don’t leave us!  You cannot go.
It’s illegal you see, come celebrate with me.
Celebrate the maggots and the larvae,
They’re so sweet – and smart, just like you and me.
What’s the matter?  Don’t you like diversity?

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, libertarian thought | 5 Comments

Eric Holder's hypocrisy

Posted on May 17, 2010 by jewamongyou

Over the last few weeks, we’ve heard attorney general Eric Holder rush to judgment about Arizona’s new immigration law, SB1070.  He’s voiced concerns about its constitutionality.  Now we learn that Holder has not even read the law, which is only a few pages long, and he has admitted as much in an interview.
It’s old news that those in government rarely actually read the laws they either oppose or support.  But I’ve always thought it odd that one as bigoted as Holder would have the audacity to say:

“I don’t think it’s racist in its motivation.  But I think the concern I have is how it will be perceived and how it perhaps could be enacted, how it could be carried out.  I think we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done, and that is I think something that we have to try to avoid at all costs.”

… but, at the same time, defend “affirmative action” – which he, himself, is a beneficiary of.  Leave it to a Washington insider to be so flagrantly blind to his own contradictions.
It makes a lot of sense to take race into consideration when trying to apprehend illegal immigrants; after all, most of them are mestizos.  What did not make sense was choosing Holder for attorney general because of his race.  Perhaps Obama felt that because Holder has a healthy dose of white blood, he would be smart enough to stay out of trouble and avoid embarrassing the administration.  Maybe, when God sees a mulatto check off the “African American” box on his census form, He takes 15 I.Q. points away from that person.  This would explain a lot.

Posted in government/corporate discrimination against whites, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 8 Comments

Dual loyalties

Posted on May 16, 2010 by jewamongyou

One of the built-in problems with any multi-ethnic society is that of dual loyalties.  People have a natural loyalty to their own ethnicity and yet they are expected to put the nation, under whose flag they live, first.
As a Jew, I belong to two nations (three, if you count Oregon).  Therefore I would never accept a position that might force me to choose between my Jewish nation and my American nation.  It would be a conflict of interest and should be avoided.  Ethnically conscious Jews should never be put in  positions of power where their Jewish identity might compromise their loyalty to the U.S. and its constitution.  We should not have a Jewish president (assuming he has any sense of attachment to the Jewish people).  I am not ashamed of this position and I’ll gladly repeat it to anybody who inquires.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence that Hispanics, in the U.S., feel a great amount of loyalty to their own ethnic groups.  Leftists claim this is a result of white racism.  Educated people know this is because of leftists.  In either case the loyalty is there for all to see.  It’s gotten to the point where many, if not most, Hispanics openly proclaim that their primary loyalty is to Mexico (or whichever country they hail from).  “Mexican-Americans” root for the Mexican team when they play sports against a U.S. team.  Here is an excellent article about Hispanic ethnic loyalty and nepotism.  This is why there should be no Hispanics in government positions where their ethnic loyalty might compromise their loyalty to the Constitution, U.S. or to their state.
For several generations, the leftist establishment has nurtured black ethnic consciousness.  It has done so by various means and the end result is that blacks are expected to identify first as blacks and only secondly as Americans.  Here is an excellent article about black racial consciousness.  This is why blacks should not hold positions of governmental power; they will almost always be biased in favor of their own.  Whites, of course, are forbidden to harbor any trace of racial consciousness.
As we well know, the hostile elites are not merely apathetic and clueless about the perils of conscious ethnics in positions of power, they actually go out of their way to insure that as many of them as possible attain those positions.  Each of their “successes” represents a thorn in our sides and a poison to whatever remains of our society.
What about juries?  The entire jury system is based upon the assumption that 12 peers will render objective judgments.  The O.J. Simpson trial was a wake-up call for many oblivious Americans.  Those Americans realized that, for a black defendant, other blacks are not “peers” but allies.  There can be no doubt that black jurors acquit guilty black defendants every day in this country.  Who can be so naive to think that the “don’t snitch” culture stops at the doors to the courtroom?  Thanks to relentless leftist propaganda, black and Hispanic jurors cannot be trusted; their ethnic loyalties are too strong.  I do not know what the solution is.  At least I do not know of one that has any chance of being put to practice.  The jury system is just one of the many casualties of “diversity”.  It is just one of many reasons why whites need their own nation now more than ever.  Justice cannot survive as the norm in a “diverse” society.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 13 Comments

Rhetoric and poetry

Posted on May 15, 2010 by jewamongyou

Here is a brief history of rhetoric:

The sophists

Since Homer in the 8th century BC, wisdom (‘sophos’) and skill were prized. The Sophists were originally itinerant poets and teachers who spread learning and culture wherever they found those ready to pay.
Being (or at least appearing) wise, the sophists were the effective lawyers and advised on governance and the new Athenian democracy. A rhetorical question is one which requires no answer, implying the wisdom contained within it.
Over time, the Sophists focused more on eloquent speech and rhetoric, making grand claims about their ability to answer all questions. This brought them up against ‘modern’ thinkers such as Socrates, who did not charge fees and Plato, who portrayed them as greedy instructors who used fallacious reasoning concealed in decorated language to deceive and to gain power. Aristotle also helped separate out philosophy as a separate school, leaving sophism as being largely about the techniques of rhetoric.
Popular opinion thus turned against the sophists and today ‘sophism’ means the use of deceptive argument, pulling on emotional strings rather than using rational logic, appearing smart rather than being smart…

The liberal art

Eloquent persuasion became a mainstay of the civilized intellectual as well as the courtier’s preferred mode of speech. From the Romans to the Middle Ages, rhetoric was taught as a liberal art alongside logic and grammar.
In the post-Roman period, rhetoric was limited to the writing of letters and sermons, though the verbal form picked up again through proselytizing. It only regained its former popularity in the Renaissance period.
Rhetoric thus became a mainstay of priests, lawyers, politicians, writers and all who would persuade, in particular those who addressed a wide audience. Today, there is hardly a persuasive field which is untouched by its methods.
From the Greek ‘rhetor’ who addressed juries to modern leaders who address global audiences, rhetoric is a indeed a powerful tool.

In our own time, few are as notorious for using flowery language (often devoid of coherent meaning) as leftists.  Compensating for a dearth of substance or honesty in their arguments, leftists employ their superior mastery of the English language in order to impress the uneducated masses.  They are not above hijacking words and phrases and giving them new, perverse, meanings.  I am speaking, here, of leftist leaders, teachers and writers.  Among the followers, the general rule is “if it sounds catchy, it must be true”.  It must be annoying to them when conservatives, slow learners as they are, copy this tactic and come up with catchy sound-bites of their own.
Unfortunately, this diseased leftist jargon has become the default language of government and many large corporations.   The blight is evident especially in the field of education.  Blogger KDeRosa says it well:

The more “edu-jargon” a profession uses the less it has to say and the less usful it is to society. Compare the writings in a serious field like computer engineering which continues to pump out useful ideas and inventions and generally has made life better for all of us to the writings in any of the liberal arts which has failed to generate anything useful to society in the past 50 years at least.

While leftists use fancy language in order to fool us into thinking they have special insights, Muslims have used it to dazzle prospective converts:

Therefore, it was at that time, when eloquence and style of language were well developed that the Qur’an was revealed.  As the prophet recited the Qur’an to the unbelievers of Makkah even these literary individuals could not fail to be impressed by it.  Some people converted to Islam simply on hearing the beautiful verses – most famously Umar ibn al Khattab, who was one of the fiercest opponents of Islam converted to Islam upon reading the first verses of Surah Ta-Ha.

Leftist jargon is graceless and grotesque while Arabic poetry, at its finest, is harmonious and pleasing.  Yet both can serve the same function.
It is odd that a warlike, misogynist people like the pre-Islamic Arabs could be heirs to a magnificent language like Arabic.  But it was Arabic that served as a vehicle for a new religion that was destined to unify (at least for a while) that entire region.  Of course all religions are spread through the clever use of language – but I’m curious if any other religions claim to have won converts merely through the beauty of its language, without even considering the content.  Also it seems to me that some of those who convert to Islam do so partly because of its exotic allure – to which the Arabic language no doubt contributes.
Many have asked how it is that the left could be so fond of a religion which, on the surface, seems to embody the antithesis of everything it stands for.  Perhaps, if we dig deeper, we would discover that they are not so different after all but two sides of the same coin.  After all, they both demand subjugation and a one world government.

Posted in shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 7 Comments

Polygamy and the two-headed girls

Posted on May 14, 2010 by jewamongyou

Though Western culture is often called “Judeo-Christian” culture, Judaism’s traditional tolerance toward polygamy seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the way.  In the U.S. it is legal to cheat on your wife, to have as many girlfriends as you want at the same time, to practice “serial polygamy” by having one wife after another – but it is strictly illegal to have more than one wife at the same time.
Recently, a judge has issued an order against a polygamous Utah farmer that:

…bars him from sharing his Fundamentalist Mormon views with his children — or even taking them to this small town he now calls home, where most residents hold a religious belief in polygamy that a judge deemed “harmful.”

It would appear that America’s disdain for polygamy is quite strong.  Though many reasons are given for banning polygamy, some of us get the impression that the ban is basically a manifestation of deeply seated religious attitudes stemming from Christianity.  The fact that none of the reasons given for the ban hold up in all (or even most) polygamy cases seems suspicious.
Would opponents of polygamy claim that it is illegal to marry these girls?
Obviously, it is impossible to marry one without marrying the other – and yet they are two separate personalities.  One would hope an exception would be made in this case but I’m still curious how many of y’all would consider such a union polygamous?

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments