The Greyhound station gulag

One of the privileges of being a race realist is that we are able to see the story within the story.  We notice not only what is said, but also what is not said.  We notice how things are said - and this gives us much deeper perspectives.

In his shocking post "The Greyhound Station Gulag", William Grigg succeeds in arousing our anger at government "authorities" for their gross misconduct during the hurricane Katrina crisis.  In this case, the victim is Abdulrahman Zeitoun and we are told how this Syrian immigrant "rendered what aid he could to people trapped in their ruined homes", how he was "part of a financially successful and well-regarded family", that he is "Blessed with a strong work ethic and uncanny entrepreneurial instinct" and how he was "rendering aid to stranded neighbors".  The subliminal message:  That immigrants are good people and, by extension, that immigration is a good thing.

As a visual to help us appreciate how corrupt government agents in New Orleans can be, Grigg treats us to a famous video clip depicting N.O. police officers in the act of looting a Wal-mart.  All the officers shown are black - but this is not pointed out. The subliminal message:  It is merely coincidence that those officers were black; they just as easily could have been white and their race is not worthy of mention.

Grigg goes on to recount how corrupt government goons victimized Zeitun:

Lima and Gonzalez were two of the six uniformed heroes who eagerly stormed into Zeitoun's property on September 6, arresting the businessman and three friends on suspicion of looting (that is, stealing without official permission) and dealing drugs.

Though we are not privy to the ethnicities of the other arresting officers, it would appear that Lima and Gonzalez are both Hispanic.  Though apparent, this is not pointed out. The subliminal message:  Non-white ethnicity, among criminals,  is not important enough to point out.

We are told how Zeitun and other victims were held at a Greyhound station, which served as a miniature Guantanamo.  There they were subject to torture and humiliation.  Our compassion is aroused for these unfortunate men - and we are shown a photo:

All but one of the victims is black.  That one of them is white, and seems out of place, is obvious.  Directly under the photo, we are told:

After the first sleepless night, another prisoner was introduced into the mix, an oddly jovial guy called Jerry. Curiously, Jerry focused most of his attention on Zeitoun and Nasser, and seemed strangely eager to solicit negative opinions about the Bush administration, U.S. foreign policy, and the military.

One didn't have to look for potting soil caked between his toes in order to recognize that Jerry was a plant.

There is no claim that the included photo actually depicts men who were held at the Greyhound station, nor is it stated that the odd white man is none other than "Jerry" - but this is the implication.  We are not told the ethnicity of the guards.   The subliminal message:  "People of color" are victims and whites are perpetrators.

Meanwhile, Zeitun's family had not heard from him:

While Zeitoun was suffering in Louisiana, his wife and children in Texas were convinced he was dead. He had never been permitted to contact his wife following his arrest, and Kathy wasn't able to find any trace of him. Before Katrina hit, the two of them would occasionally speak about the potentially dire consequences for an Arab-American who found himself in police custody.

For added emphasis, we are reminded that Zeitun is an "Arab-American" - even though this should be obvious by now.  The subliminal message:  Crimes against hyphenated (non-white) people are more egregious than crimes against whites.

Finally, we are told, Zeitun's wife receives a phone call from a stranger.  The man tells her that her husband is in prison but safe:

Deprived of any source of hope except for prayer, Zeitoun had pleaded with God to send a messenger. Shortly thereafter a middle-aged black man visited his cell -- a missionary who was distributing Bibles and praying with the inmates. At no small risk to himself -- remember, we live in an era when defense attorneys who pass along notes from terrorist suspects can be sent to prison themselves -- this man of God honored Zeitoun's request to contact his wife and family.

It just so happens that this "man of God" was not just an ordinary man.  No, he was far more than ordinary.  We are told how courageous he is and how selfless he his.  Most importantly, we are told that he is black.  In this case, race is worthy of mention.  The subliminal message:  When a person of color does a good deed, it is important to mention his race.

The Greyhound station gulag story is noteworthy in that, taken at face value, every point that Grigg makes is a valid one.  There is not a single statement, in the entire post, that I would take issue with.  Government is indeed corrupt and out of control, torture is wrong, injustices were committed and this story needs to be told.  Nevertheless, this is an example of truth being used as a vehicle to further leftist orthodoxy on race.  It is akin to using a mixed-race couple to advertise a great product or using pigs to deliver the publishers clearing house sweepstakes to a Muslim.

Looking over his blog and profile, it would appear that William Grigg is an intelligent man and a good writer.  Still, I would not be surprised if he is unaware of his own subliminal messages. The guidelines of leftist journalism, which are based upon its racial orthodoxy, are so ingrained that people probably write that way out of habit - even if they are far from being leftists themselves.

Our Asian pet

Our Asian pet is a hard worker indeed,

a diminutive  granny of the Buddhist creed.

Friendly to all and a really good cook,

her ethics are pure and she works by the book.

But for lifting and high places she's not worth a dime,

these things are a challenge at four foot nine.

What for other employees is a ten minute task,

for her half an hour is considered fast.

But she's charming and fills an important station,

for she's female and most importantly Asian.

Her lack of  ability and muscle formation,

are made up for by race and gender consideration.

J.T.F.

Any organization that helps white, or Jewish, identity serves a valuable function.  In this sense, even Bnai Brith is valuable - at least for me;  I would not be alive if not for Bnai Brith since my own parents met through this organization.  No doubt, many white couples have met, and had children, through various neo-Nazi groups as well and this helps our demographics.

Then there is J.T.F. (Jewish Task Force).  Among its ranks are many Jewish bigots for whom hating Arabs (Muslim Arabs) is as important to their identity as promoting Judaism.  Judaism teaches Jews to love their brethren but, for many at J.T.F., this only applies if the subject hates Arabs - a love based on hate.  What a concept!  If all Arabs would suddenly disappear, one wonders if J.T.F. would also disappear.  At least they promote Jewish consciousness.  Or do they?  Sometimes it is difficult to gauge the benefit of raising Jewish awareness versus the damage of driving away good Jews and giving ammunition to those who hate us.  "Useful idiots" might be a good way to describe many of them.  "Neocons", with all its negative baggage, is another good description.  When a bomb goes off somewhere in the Muslim world, and kills dozens of women and children, people at J.T.F. consider it good news.  In their eyes, the more killed and maimed the better.  This is not the Judaism I know.  Their "Judaism" comes across as some sort of mutated evil brother, grotesquely deformed and mentally deranged.

The body of Jewish religious literature is vast enough that it can support a great diversity of outlooks and opinions.  All one needs to do is pick and choose, just as many Christian denominations pick and choose from the Bible, ignoring what is inconvenient for them.  I'm pretty sure all organized religions do this.  Good people pick and choose based on their healthy conscience.  Not-so-good people pick and choose based on their need to feel superior or their greed or lust.

When I lived in Israel, I happened to be at the funeral of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane (purely by chance).  At one point, people began to chant "Death to the Arabs".  As everybody around me was chanting, I shouted at them to stop.  I told them this is wrong.  Several people near me actually stopped chanting and admitted I was right.  I had broken the spell of the mob mentality.  On another occasion, I had done the unthinkable by giving my seat, on a bus, to an elderly Arab.   Some of the Jews on that bus glared at me as if I'd some something wrong.  I just smiled inwardly because I'd proven to myself that even strong mores could not hold me back from doing the right thing even in public.  Why am I telling you all this?  Because at the time, I was just a yeshiva student.  I was not a racialist nor was I libertarian - and yet the things I had learned were enough to bring about this sort of attitude.  I knew it was likely that the old Arab I gave my seat to hated me for being a Jew - but that would be his problem, not mine.  If that were the case, then my kindness toward him might have been an assault on his mind.  It might have caused doubts and confusion, damaging his clear-cut world view where Jews = evil and Arabs = good.  In either case, I had nothing to lose; I was just as comfortable standing.  Most J.T.F. people would have chanted "death to the Arabs" along with the others.  They would have let the old Arab stand in the bus.  Would either action be something they could brag about years later?  I must end this with the disclaimer that not all J.T.F. people fit the mold I described above.  Enough do that I felt it was important to write what I did.  As for the rest, I am not referring to you.

Protecting children. A moral dilemma

Government agencies that are charged with protecting children have earned a bad reputation.  If power corrupts, then power over the fate of children must be the most terrible kind of power.  When it comes to a government agency such as Child Protective Services, strong feelings seems to be the norm; a multitude of horror stories have sullied their reputation even among many leftists:

CPS continues to destroy families and children precisely because well-meaning "get tough" people give them a nod of approval, tax-money and their confidence. Then they turn away with a feeling of achievement and of relief at handing over a messy problem to "the authorities." They don't have to confront the nightmare bureaucracy they've facilitated. If the nightmare is glimpsed through newspaper accounts of abused children, dead children or kids who are lost in the system, then the messenger is criticized as alarmist or the account is dismissed as an aberration.

One of the characteristics of government is that it demands a monopoly on the use of force.  It also frequently eliminates any competition from services it chooses to provide, either through specific laws or by making competition unviable.  Competition leads to improved services while a monopoly leads to inferior services.  Therefore,  if ever there was a service where competition should be encouraged, it's the protection of children.  To leave the welfare of our children in the hands of a government monopoly is criminal.

I recently became involved in a situation where a mother was found to be endangering her children through abuse and neglect.  My opinion was sought regarding what course of action to take.  To do nothing would clearly be wrong.  To seek counseling was not a viable option, since this had already been tried and had failed.  To immediately get CPS involved also seemed like a bad idea.  Our conclusion was that the best thing to do would be to get a private organization involved and let them find a solution. It would still be necessary to involve CPS because only their actions would have teeth.  We would then hope that CPS accepts the solution of the private organization.  It is indeed sad when we must seek the aid of government agencies, thus encouraging their reign of terror.

Explorations and adventures...

... in Equatorial Africa.  I've come upon a travel book, published in 1861 by Paul B. Du Chaillu.  This delightfully illustrated volume describes his travels in the interior of Africa, its fauna and native peoples.  I believe there is much to glean from this old book just from a historical perspective - so let this be the beginning of a series based upon it.  Each post will include an interesting quote from the book (one that might enlighten us in some way) and an illustration.

This first excerpt introduces us to the author and to the natives of the West coast of Africa.  It also explains why we might treat tales of the horrors of the interior parts of Africa with a certain amount of skepticism (pg. 3):

When I returned now, after an absence of some years, my arrival was hailed with joy by my former acquaintances among the blacks, who thought that I had come back to trade.  The negroes of the West Coast are the most eager and the shrewdest traders I have ever met; and they were overjoyed at the prospect of dealing with, and perhaps cheating, an old friend like myself.  Their disappointment was great, therefore, when I was obliged to inform them that I had come with no goods to sell, but with the purpose to explore the country, of which I had heard so many wonderful stories from them, and to hunt wild birds and beasts.

At first they believed I was joking.  When they saw landed from the vessel which brought me no "trade", but only an outfit of all things necessary for a hunter's life in the African wilds, they began perforce to believe in my stated purpose.  Then their amazement and perplexity knew no bounds.

Some thought I was out of my senses, and pitied my father, whom they all knew, for being troubled with such a good-for-nothing son.

Some thought I had ulterior objects, and were alarmed lest I should secretly try to wrest the trade of the interior out of their hands.

Those Mpongwes, or Coast tribes, hold in their hands, as will be explained farther on, the trade with the back country of the Gaboon River; and the slightest suspicion that I was about to interfere with this profitable monopoly sufficed to create great terror in their trade-loving souls.  They surrounded me, each with his tale of the horrors and dangers of a voyage "up the country," asserting that I should be eaten up by cannibals, drowned in rivers, devoured by tigers and crocodiles, crushed by elephants, upset by hippopatami, or waylaid and torn to pieces by the gorilla.

But when I convinced them that I had no designs upon their trade, and that my purposed travels and hunts would not affect their interests, all but a few stedfast old friends left me to my fate.

This is not to say there were no dangers or that the natives were all of the "noble" sort.  Though he heaps praise upon the native children within the mission where he stayed on the coast, the adults are "dull, lazy, and distrustful.  They adhere to their vile superstitions, and are with difficulty influenced..."  Of course, when he says "influenced", what he probably means is "influenced to convert to Christianity".

The reserrection of the American "White People"

Has the national identity of American

The reinvention of white people

Have American whites lost their nationhood and then had it resurrected - by leftists?  It would not be the first time a nation unknowingly transformed from a natural, organic nation into one whose existence is somewhat artificial and, therefore, whose very nature has changed.  Rather like a science fiction tale of a human falling asleep as flesh and blood and waking up as an android.

No doubt some native American tribes, for whom membership used to require no paperwork and whose self-identity was as natural and flowing as the rivers around them now find themselves struggling to maintain a meaningful existence in a different world.  They must keep computer files for members and follow practices previously unheard of just to maintain some semblance of continuity for their nation.

At a time when the United States was over 90% white, one could still accurately say that, by and large, America was a nation founded by whites and composed of whites.  Back then, a white American's nationality could be defined by his U.S. citizenship.  He could convincingly equate the two in most cases.  Of course this is not so anymore.  These days, "American" can mean anything and (as I've stated before) therefore it means nothing.

Thanks to leftist policies, which are specifically designed to marginalize and displace whites, America no longer exists as a nation.  It has been reduced to nothing more than  a specific territory ruled by an elite political class.  Former white "Americans" have either lost any true sense of nationhood (their former patriotism having become a hollow fantasy) or else they have embraced their white heritage as their nation.  The former have no nation.  The latter now belong to a new nation - created indirectly by leftists.

Proud white Americans, being members of a new nation, may  find themselves confused.  On the one hand, they feel deeply rooted in their historical past.  On the other hand, that past - though lived by their genetic forebears - was the past of different nations.  In the meantime, the rules have changed.  Things that used to be assumed must now be argued.  Things that used to be safe must now be defended.  Things that used to be sacred are now openly questioned.  Things that used to be profane are now considered sacred.  When faced with disruptions such as these, a people will typically take measures to preserve the culture they have inherited from their former nations.  Unfortunately, those measures sometimes prove themselves to be as disruptive as the challenges that provoked them.

These are dangerous times for white peoples wherever they are.  They are, of course, dangerous because of the widespread violence, hate propaganda and genocidal government policies directed against us - but they are also dangerous because of the ways we sometimes find ourselves reacting to such persecution.  Unable to maintain the innocence of yesteryear, some of us may slide into mentalities that are not helpful.  During his speech, at the most recent Amren conference, Sam Dickson urged caution lest we become like the caricatures our enemies use to portray us.  Let us take his advice to heart.  With one hand, let us defend our cultures, genetic legacies, language etc. but let the other hand steady us so that we remain normal, natural people.  We cannot control the events that brought about our status as new nations - but we can control the ways we adapt to it.  We can nurture our new nations in such a way that the artificiality of it takes on the qualities of a seamless transition still rooted in our past but well suited to forge ahead on our own terms.

Obamacare sticking it to us

We got an email from our H.R. department today at work.  In part, it read:

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), making health reform certain and expanding coverage to all Americans over the next several years...

We anticipate that health care reform will have some impact on our health care offerings and their cost (emphasis mine), and we will keep you updated as we have more information.

Here are some changes in the law that will affect our plans; beginning with our next plan year that starts January 1, 2011:

• An eligible employee’s children will be eligible for health care coverage until their 26th birthday, as long as they do not have access to other coverage through their employers. This provision applies even if your child is married, whether or not your child attends school full-time or lives with you, and applies even if your child is not your tax dependent.


• The plan will remove caps on lifetime limits on most benefits, and some changes may be made to annual dollar maximums on certain benefits.

• Pre-existing condition exclusions for children under age 19 will be eliminated; these exclusions will be eliminated completely beginning in 2014.

One of my coworkers, who is Hispanic and left-leaning politically, has a couple of children who are not beyond their teens.  I walked up to him and said, "soon I'll be able to put all five of my children on my medical plan even though they are no longer minors and no longer live with me.  This will not cost me any more than the regular family plan.  Your coverage options, on the other hand, will not change - but your premiums will go up just the same.  Thanks for paying the health insurance for my kids!"  He remained silent and somewhat subdued.  In day to day life, this person is quite intelligent and a very likable fellow.  So I wonder about the thought process of such people.  Do they really believe that government can create goods and services ex nihilo?  Does their belief system include some sort of giant Easter Bunny or Santa Claus that magically produces bags of goodies out of thin air?  Does their naivete allow them to suppose that large corporations will simply absorb the cost of such measures without having to charge us more for them?

As for me, if I'm already forced to pay higher premiums, would it be morally wrong to include my grown kids within my health plan knowing that my coworkers are paying for it?  I'm not even sure I'll have a choice in the matter except, maybe, to be a martyr and go to jail.

When I contemplate not just my own grown kids, but the millions upon millions of other kids who employers and insurance companies will be forced to accommodate, I find it hard to wrap my mind around the magnitude of the troubles that await us.  I do take small comfort in the fact that many of those fools who supported Obamacare will end up being bitten by it.  They will wake up one morning and wonder how a bill that is called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" could, in fact, end up costing them so much more.

Hard times await us, and not just monetarily.  As has already been said countless times, health care rationing will soon be our lot.  Long waits, mountains of paperwork, inferior care and unnecessary death will be the rule.  This is what happens when the government forces health insurance upon millions of people who had, under normal circumstances, already decided they don't need it.   Now most of those who had already known they need it, will suffer much more.

Christianity or Paganism?

There was a time when, in the Western world, Christendom closely paralleled white European collective identity.  More recently, it seems that almost every Christian denomination clamors for yet more non-white immigration in to white lands.

What passes for "faith" can be tricky business but many of us find it hard to believe that mere coincidence is at work when the geographical boundaries of major faiths just happen to coincide with ethnic boundaries - at least historically.  Even though many a Catholic Mexican will claim, with a straight face, that his faith in the Trinity is strictly his own conviction and irrelevant to the fact that Catholic Spaniards conquered his forebears hundreds of years ago.  The fact of the matter is that religion often goes hand in hand with ethnic identity.   In this context I find it rather pathetic that most Filipinos claim Catholicism as their own.  Ditto for so many Vietnamese.

From a strictly utilitarian perspective, would it be better for white nationalists to continue to consider themselves (even nominally) Christian or would it be better to reclaim pre-Christian European paganism as their own?  At least European paganism is 100% indigenous European - not partially imported from the Middle East like Christianity - and not prone to sabotaging white interests like Christianity.

Not by a long shot am I an expert on the topic of European paganism or Christianity so this post is really an invitation for others, more knowledgeable than I, to put their two cents in.

Expert race hustler has change of heart

In a shocking move that some have criticized as a publicity stunt, long time race hustler Rev. Jesse Jackson has embraced white nationalism and made peace with white advocate Jared Taylor.

Mr. Taylor, at first skeptical, graciously accepted the Rev. Jackson's heartfelt apologies for decades of political lynchings and monetary pogroms directed against white businesses and influential individuals.  "His sincerity seems genuine and he even purchased a copy of 'paved with good intentions' from us."

Asked about his plans for the future, Rev. Jackson mused that he'll probably put his talents to good use by extorting black businesses and then donating the proceeds to the white cause.  "It's the right thing to do" he said.  "It will give me the chance to make amends and give back to the white community."

Privately, Mr. Taylor seemed hesitant to accept donations of that nature.  However, he admitted that this would be better than having the reverend actually become white - which, it turned out, almost happened in the past.

In a separate interview, Rev. Jackson revealed a bizarre event from his past.  It seems that in 1986, both he and entertainer Michael Jackson (no relation) had checked into the same hospital.  Michael Jackson was simply trying to acquire pain pills and the Rev. Jackson was there for an experimental skin-lightening treatment.  A nurse accidentally switched their charts and the entertainer ended up with lighter skin while the reverend got the pain killers.  After taking the pain pills, the reverend became disoriented and forgot about his skin plans.  The entertainer never even noticed anything was amiss.  "You see", explained Rev. Jackson, "back in 1986 I wanted to be a white man.  I've always wanted to be a white man.  By the time I realized my skin wasn't getting any lighter, I'd also noticed there's a lot of money to be made as a black race hustler.  Plus...  those pain killers were pretty good."  He went on to explain that "after several decades of brisk business, all my friends and family are living comfortably; they've all got nice houses, fancy cars and mistresses.  My work in the black community is therefore done - oh, and I've also decided to change my ways."

Thanks to Gaurav for the photo.

On Armand Leroi

Once upon a time I was poking through my local library seeking something interesting to read.  A thick tome caught my attention - more, I admit,  out of morbid curiosity than any thirst to broaden my intellectual horizons.  The book was titled "Mutants" by an author I had never heard of: Armand Leroi.  So I checked it out and soon discovered I had stumbled upon both a treasure among books and a treasure among authors.

It didn't take long for me to recognize that Prof. Leroi is probably far more intelligent than anybody else whose books I had previously read.  He described, in meticulous detail, how dozens of mutations might arise during the early phases of human development.  Though, admittedly, I did not understand every last thing that he wrote, still I found myself miniaturized to the size of single cells and even proteins where I could witness the most intimate accidents of nature as they unfolded before me.

Seeing things through Prof. Leroi's eyes is like peering through a giant and powerful microscope.  Few secrets can withstand his gaze and they reveal themselves each in their turn.  Though he is a molecular biologist, I found myself comparing the depth of Prof. Leroi's understanding to that of other authors (mostly anthropologists) and their stature was diminished to that of dust mites.

In case you haven't figured it out yet,  I admire Prof. Leroi and so I was doubly pleased when he broached the subject of race:

I would like to know about variety.  Most of this book has been about the rare mutations that damage the body.  If I have mentioned variety, I have done so only in passing.  By variety I mean the normal variation in human appearance and attributes that we see in healthy people around us.  I mean the variety that can be found within the smallest Scottish hamlet, with its brown-, green- and blue-eyed inhabitants.  But I also mean the differences in form between populations of oeople who live near to each other, but are somehow distinct; short pygmies versus taller Bantu farmers, for example.  And I also mean the differences in skin colour, hair curliness and eye shape that distinguish - more or less - people who originate from different continents.  one of the things, then, that I want to know about is race.

Race has long been under siege.  Among scientists, geneticists have led the assault.  Their attack has been predicated on two empirical results that have emerged from the study of patterns of genetic variation across the globe.  The first was the discovery that most of the variety so abundantly visible in our genomes does not divide humanity along lines that correspond to the races of traditional and folk anthropology.  All genes come in different variants, even if most of those variants are 'silent' and do not affect the structure of the proteins they encode.  Inevitably, some variants are more common in some parts of the world than others.  But the ubiquity and rarity of most variant genes across the globe do not correspond to traditional racial boundaries.  Racial boundaries are usually held to be sharp; gene variant frequency changes are generally smooth.  Changes in variant frequencies are also inconsistent between one gene and another.  If there are lines to be drawn through humanity, most genes simply don't show where they go.

The second discovery that caused, and causes, geneticists to doubt the existence of races is the ubiquity of genetic variation within even the smallest populations.  About 85 per cent of the global stock of genetic variation can be found within any country or population - Cambodians or Nigerians, say.  About another 8 per cent distinguish nations from each other - the Dutch from the Spanish - which leaves only a parltry 7 per cent or so to account for differences between continents or,  in the most generous interpretation of the term, 'races'.  To be sure there are genetic differences between a Dutchman and a Dinka, but not many more than between any two natives of Delft.

... Generations of scientists have expounded these results much as I have here - and asserted that, as far as genetics is concerned, races do not exist.  They are reifications, social constructs, or else they are the remnants of discredited ideologies.

Most people have remained unconvinced.  They have absorbed the message that races are, somehow, not quite what they used to be.  Far better, then, to avoid the word and substitute 'ethnicity' or some similar term that comfortably conflates cultural and physical variety... I suspect that the reason the lesson of genetics has been so widely ignored is that it seems to contradict the evidence of our eyes.  If races don't exist, then why does a moment's glance at a stranger's face serve to identify the continent, perhaps even the country, from which he or his family came?

The answer to this question must lie in that 7 per cent - paltry though it is - of global genetic variation that distinguishes people in different parts of the world.  Seven per cent is a small part of global genetic variation, but it is large enough to imply the existence of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of genetic polymorphisms that are common, even ubiquitous, on one continent but rare, or even absent, on another.

... Forensic anthropologists in the United States and Britain are quite adept at telling whether a given skull, perhaps evidence of some foul deed, once belonged to someone of African or European ancestry.  That they can do so after decades, even centuries, of co-existence, not to mention generous amounts of admixture, suggests that our differences are not, as is often said, merely skin deep, but extend to our skulls - if not to what they contain.

Leroi then goes on to explain why the study of human genetic variation (which some of us call "H.B.D.") is important.  What I did notice - and this may not be obvious from what I quoted above - is that Leroi makes enough statements that seem to deny the validity of race to keep him out of trouble.  If leftists come after him with torches and pitchforks, he can always defend himself by quoting one of those statements and the angry, ignorant mob might leave him alone to pursue some other hapless intellectual.  I, for one, was not fooled; it was obvious to me that Leroi is too brilliant to be a race-denier.   After reading his book, I never once doubted that this was the case.  Only later did I bother to look up online sources and found copious material supporting this impression.  here,  here and here for example.  So it seems that, since writing his book, Prof. Leroi has taken a more outspoken and courageous stance.  While I don't imagine he is a white nationalist (though we can never really know for sure), his writings should be studied and his contributions recognized.

Bono's take on Africa

According to guest columnist Bono in the New York Times, Africa is on the cusp of a new era.   His recent travels there brought him face to face with men and women who inspired him with awe:

John Githongo, Kenya’s famous whistleblower, has had to leave his country in a hurry a couple of times; he was hired by his government to clean things up and then did his job too well...

DJ Rowbow, a Mike Tyson doppelgänger. His station, Ghetto Radio, was a voice of reason when the volcano of ethnic tension was exploding in Kenya in 2008...

Youssou N’Dour — maybe the greatest singer on earth — owns a newspaper and is in the middle of a complicated deal to buy a TV station...

Luisa Diogo, the country’s (Mozambique) former prime minister, who is now the matriarch in this mesmerizing stretch of eastern Africa...

Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese entrepreneur who made a fortune in mobile phones.

He refers to Nelson Mandela as "Madiba, the great Nelson Mandela — the person who, along with Desmond Tutu and the Edge, I consider to be my boss."

All this leaves me wondering, if Africa so overflows with exceptional people such as these, does this mean it will soon cease hemorrhaging excess males to the rest of the world?  Does it mean Western governments will soon cease looting their working populations in order to send enormous sums of foreign aid to that continent?  Does it mean that "African" will soon cease being a synonym for "disadvantaged" or "victimized"?  As a matter of fact, the author does address foreign aid; he calls for a new kind of foreign aid - which he calls "smart aid that aims to put itself out of business in a generation or two."  Oh joy!  We can look forward to a self-sufficient Africa in merely forty or fifty years.  Let's see, I'll be...  very old by then.  Even my kids will be old by then.  How convenient that Bono's new era for Africa won't actually arrive until most of us are already dead from old age.  One wonders if, fifty years hence, leftists will still be singing the same tune.

This much is for sure, Africa is not going away.  Furthermore, those courageous Africans who risk their lives to battle corruption, fight disease, further education and reduce poverty have my utmost respect.  It is difficult enough to do these things in modern Western nations.  How much more so in darkest Africa.  If worthy and capable African leaders and activists need guidance and resources in order to improve their homelands and make them more habitable, then this is the sort of foreign aid we should be promoting - but only by free choice.  Not at the barrel of a gun in the form of taxes.

Let us stop supporting our enemies

It should be no secret, amongst white nationalists and race realists, that all major newspapers and magazines subscribe to a radical anti-white agenda.  The only reason this is not common knowledge is that the bias is extremely pervasive.  It is as common as the air we breath.  Nearly two generations of Americans have grown up so accustomed to anti-white bias that, on the rare occassions that it is missing, they sense something is wrong.  They will often instinctively describe the lack of anti-white bias as "racism".

I don't feel it necessary to cite specific examples; www.amren.com has hundreds, if not thousands, of such examples.  Once you learn to recognize the bias, it becomes difficult to read any newspaper or magazine without encountering it.  They speak of the "black community" and the "Hispanic community" but never the "white community" - even in areas where whites are a minority.  They speak of "people of color" but never "people of light".  They speak of "minority (i.e. non-white) rights but never "white rights".  They hide the racial identity of non-white criminals whenever possible but go out of their way to publicize white criminals - and to make false claims that whites are more likely to be serial killers or sexual predators.  They sugar-coat statistics that reveal the ugly truth about black on white crime and use misleading wording to caste the blame on whites.

One would think that at least those elite few who attending our last American Renaissance conference would appreciate the perversity of giving money to those who work toward our demise.  Alas, even there I beheld one man in possession of a brand new "Washington Post" (sometimes called the "Washington Compost").  I did not actually see the man in question purchase the abomination - so I'll judge him favorably and assume he stole it from a sleeping homeless person on a bench.  Nevertheless, to show up at our august conference with such a publication should be no more acceptable than to show up at church (or synagogue) with Hustler magazine.

Purchase those publications if you must - if your job depends on it, for example - but we should bear in mind that all the blogging and posting in the world will not make any difference if we don't put our money where our mouths are.  Most of us can get our news and entertainment for free online.  In fact, there are enough white-friendly or neutral online publications to keep us occupied and entertained all day long.  We should not feed those who persecute us any more than we have to.  So let us please refrain from giving our money to those scoundrels!  If you already have subscriptions to newspapers or magazines, cancel them and tell them why!  But let us not stop there.  Let us explain this to our friends and family as well.  Every revolution must start with some sort of action.  Why not start this one with a boycott of newspapers and magazines?

Jews in turbans

I've always had a fondness for turbans in general. It turns out that they had been worn by Jews for a very long time.  Just from my years of Talmud study, I got the impression that ancient Babylonian Jews crowned their heads with this noble garment; it just seemed to me it would be a natural part of their culture.  Or perhaps I had come across specific mentions of the practice.  I can't remember for sure.  But somebody else has done the research for me:

Newcomers to Hebrew have to learn that the Hebrew word for "to wear" (labash) can be used for most garments, but a different verb must be used to indicate the wearing of a hat: habash. The verb actually means "to wrap" (and is the root of the word for "bandage" for example). Its origin dates back to a time when the only thing a well-dressed Jew would be likely to be wearing on his head was a turban, a long piece of cloth that would have to be wrapped around the head.

It appears that among the Jews of Babylonia the turban was felt to have special spiritual efficacy. It is told of one rabbi for whom the astrologers had foretold a life of crime, that as a counter-measure his mother insisted on his wearing a turban at all times. Once during his childhood, when it accidentally unravelled, he found himself unable to resist the temptation to take a bite at someone else's dates.

In general it seems that the turban was viewed as the distinctive mark of Torah scholars, who saw their wearing such a head-covering as a sign of special piety.

I happen to have some old photos/sketches of Iraqi "hakhamim" (the Sephardic/Oriental equivalent of "rabbis") and I've scanned them in.  If anybody wants to see more, just let me know:

It seems that the tradition, amongst Babylonian Jews, of wearing turbans started in distant antiquity and continued uninterrupted until the early, or mid 20th century.  The final death blow to this tradition was the relocation of almost all Iraqi Jews to Israel, where their ancient and priceless culture was mindlessly thrown into the blender.  It is doubtful if there are any living Iraqi Jews today who remember the particulars of the preparation and wearing of turbans.  It could be that the particulars were recorded in a book at some point but I'm not familiar with any such book.  If not, turban historians will have little to go on.  What a pity.

Racial awareness for those invested in diversity

My own path to racial awareness, though somewhat smooth, had its challenges.  For one, the vast majority of race realists are white and most of the intellectual infrastructure of the race realist movement is built upon the assumption that its adherents are white.  Though marginally "white" myself, my children (their mother being an Indian Jew) are certainly not white.  Of course I see no contradiction in being a race realist/white nationalist and, at the same time being very close to non-whites in my personal life - even, some might say, as close as my own swarthy skin (more so in my younger years).  This is because I hold no animosity toward non-whites.  I have never been victimized by violent racist Indians and most of my experiences with Indians have been positive (even with tech support).  Maybe a sojourn in India would give me a different perspective.

As for my experiences with blacks, I am mature enough to refrain from harboring ill feelings toward individual blacks until they give me reason to do so.  I see plenty of reason to be cautious of them as a group but no reason to poison my heart with hatred and violent thoughts.  This would hurt me more than them.

As it stands, blacks hold a special place vis-a'-vis race realists due to their high levels of crime against whites and Asians and their overall high time-preference.  So I sometimes wonder, in a parallel universe where I'd married a black woman instead of an Indian Jewish one, would I still have been capable of reaching the racial insights I now have?  In general, is it possible for the human psyche to allow one to hold race realist convictions on the one hand and still love his black children on the other?  If so, would such a person be an outcast amongst other race realists and, especially, amongst white nationalists?  Would attitudes toward such a person be different if she were a woman as opposed to a man?

A couple of Amren conferences ago, Fred Reed was invited to talk about Mexico, where he resides.  During the question and answer session, one attendee verbally attacked Reed for being married to a Mexican woman who is not even clearly non-white.  Many of us booed the "questioner" for his rudeness.  Here is Reed's account:

If the latter means people who want to exterminate this or that group, I encountered none. The closest anyone came was an overwrought dingaling who, in question and answer, denounced me as a race traitor for having married Violeta, my Mexican wife. I considered an appropriate but anatomically unorthodox repositioning of my microphone. However, the audience told him to sit down and shut up. Later a dozen people apologized for his behavior, and I met a fair number of men who had Chinese, Mexican, and Colombian wives. Race traitors all, I suppose.

Reed's "Mexican" wife might actually be of Mediterranean ancestry or perhaps she's a bit of a Mestizo.  Either way, it is doubtful if Reed would have even attended the conference had his wife been black.   If he had, there might have been more than just one "dingaling" to raise objections.

People make mistakes in their younger years.  Some have been known to make mistakes in their later years too.  Given the chance to live my life over again, I certainly would not have married that Indian Jewess; we have been happily divorced for many years now.  But marry her I did and I do love my children.  It would not be fair for me to expect another person, who had committed indiscretions with a black, to disown his children.   Each of us has done what we've done in the past and now we must make the most of it.

I have a good relationship with my children and I teach them what I know about race though I get mixed results.  To any enlightened readers out there who have begotten children through miscegenation, I urge you to teach your non-white children the truth about race.  There is nothing hateful about the truth and teaching them the virtues of white civilization will not hurt their self-esteem.  This would apply to any non-white readers as well.  In a perfect world, non-whites would teach their children to refrain from dating whites so that whites would date exclusively amongst themselves.  Alas, these days it probably would make no difference to the white race; the white in question would probably just move on to another non-white to date.  However there is still the principle of the matter: teach your children to refrain from miscegenation!

The hidden hatchet

This post is merely an account of an interesting thing that took place recently.  I happened to notice that some people across the street (who I do not know) had put out some outdoor furniture including a recliner and some chairs.  There was a sign on them stating they were free for the taking.  I figured it would be nice to have them with summer on the way, so I dragged them back home.

The recliner had a thin mattress over it and, not wanting it to get ruined in the rain, I removed it to keep it indoors until the weather improved.  Lo and behold... this is what was hidden inside the recliner:

Yes that's right.  There was a hatchet hidden inside the recliner!  Which of you can come up with an explanation for that?  No, there was no blood on the hatchet that I could see.

Vigilante justice at the hands of police

Eve Carson was just one of the many beautiful young white women murdered by young black men.  Leftists like to cheapen the lives of victims like Eve by reminding us that the victims of young black male criminals are chiefly other young black males, that the growing roster of dead white women only represent people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and that we should read nothing into it.  Those leftists have little to say about black women murdered by white men - because such crimes are a great rarity; interracial violence is overwhelmingly black against white and has been so for as long as most Americans have been alive (if not much longer).

Of course, the above facts are common knowledge amongst white nationalists and race realists.  I suspect that there is another class of Americans that is aware of this phenomenon: urban police officers.  It wouldn't surprise me if a great many police officers, while not actually race-conscious, are acutely aware of the lopsided nature of interracial crime.

I would be surprised if this knowledge did not cause anger and resentment among police officers.  Then we read something like this:

Lawyers for one of two suspects accused in the 2008 killing of University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student body president Eve Carson said their client was beaten by police when he was arrested. Suspect Demario Atwater was assaulted by Durham police while he was laying on the sidewalk and while handcuffed in a police car, according to court documents filed Monday by his attorneys.

This is one of those cases where, at first glance, the libertarian in me disagrees with the white nationalist in me.  On the one hand, the police are agents of the State and so they should be kept on a tight leash.  On the other hand, given the opportunity I would probably beat the "suspect" himself if I was reasonably certain he was the perpetrator.  Of course he might not be the perpetrator; this is what trials, lawyers, judges and juries are for.  But look what has become of our "justice" system and consider the frustration of many cops:

I think that a lot of that "final retribution" talk is our way of expressing our frustration with a criminal justice system that leaves murderers and child abusers on the streets. It's a way to cleanse our spirit and voice our feelings in a context and atmosphere that other cops will understand. Cops, especially guy cops, are often accused of not sharing their feelings. We're told that we don't like to talk about being depressed or frustrated. But that's not my experience. I've heard many cops open up and say "I'm going to kill every single one of those motherf****** before I go out," and other cops will support them, me included. How much more open than that can you be about your feelings. We just can't share those feelings with the public because most of the public, victims of violent crime excluded, would never understand our level of frustration.

The frustration expressed above is at criminals in general.  Can there be any doubt that this frustration is increased when a white officer is confronted with interracial crime against his own race?  I suspect that years of police work would serve to dull the effects of anti-white propaganda even to the point where a white officer might feel more kinship with a white who was victimized by somebody of another race than the victim of an intraracial crime.

I think an underlying issue here is that even though a police officer is acting as an agent of the State, at the same time can he not also act as an individual?  Is he expected to cast aside his human baggage and become a by-the-book automaton?  Do we not, as moral humans, have duties and rights of our own and what becomes of those duties and rights when we put on a badge?  It seems to me that any decent person, when confronted with a dangerous criminal - who he knows just committed a heinous crime - has a duty to mete out punishment to the best of his ability when can be reasonably certain that otherwise the criminal will continue to pose a danger to others and not be adequately punished.  Many millions of people all over the world would agree with me.  Most Americans used to agree with me on this as well - but something has changed.  Americans have become too "civilized" for vigilante justice.  As a result, sociopaths and savages run loose in our society.  Because of massive third world immigration and differential birth rates, things are only going to get worse.  At some point, Americans will have to revert to their earlier mentality regarding vigilantism or face grave consequences.  The question is should police officers participate in this aspect of crime-fighting?

The flat Earth of the ancients

Evidence that the ancient Jewish sages held the Earth to be flat

Seder Rabbah of Bereshith page 17:

The length of the Earth is a journey of 500 years, the width of the Earth is 500 years and its thickness is 500 years.  But some say it is round.

Shemoth Rabbah page 15 (also found in chapter six of Pirqe R. Eli’ezer):

The Holy One blessed be He created 365 windows in the heavens, 183 in the East and 183 (sic) in the West, some He created for the Sun and some He created for the Moon.

Baraitha of Mazaloth chapter 8 (also found in chapter six of Pirqe R. Eli’ezer):

How so was this?  Sometimes she (the Sun) takes a Northerly route – which is the longer one – and sometimes she takes the Southerly route – which is the shorter one.

In other words the Sun, in any event, is embedded in its own “heaven”.  This “heaven” is like a dome that covers the Earth.  If so, at the ends of the Earth, the “heaven” is much lower.  Therefore, when the Sun circles close to the ends (which is only in the South for they knew nothing of the Southern hemisphere, where it appears in the North) it has a shorter distance to go.  The closer it gets to the center of its “heaven”, the higher it gets.

Wayiqra Rabba chapter 31, paragraph 9:

Said R. Levi, every day, the Holy One blessed be He sits in judgment over the sphere of the Sun and the Moon, for they do not wish to go out to illuminate the Earth.

We should ask from where do they need to “go out”?  Does not the Sun continuously shine upon the Earth without interruption?  But this makes sense to those who believe the Earth is flat.

Pirqe R. Eli’ezer chapter three:

The lower rods of the heavens are anchored to the waters of the ocean, for the waters of the ocean are between the ends of the Earth and the ends of the ocean, and the ends of the heavens are spread over the waters of the ocean… the insides of the heavens rise upward, their sphere is like a spread tent, its ends downward and its insides upward.  All humans dwell underneath it.  This is what the heavens are like, their ends downward and their insides upward like a tent.

Pirqe R. Eli’ezer chapter 51:

When the Sun is about to set in the West and it washes in the waters of the ocean… so do the waters of the ocean extinguish the flames of the Sun and it has no luster and no flames all night until it comes to the East and it bathes in a river of fire.

Midrash Shemuel chapter 31:

The rabbis say "from when the Sun rises until the entire sphere is full of it."

From here it is implied that there is a sphere only on one side of the Earth for if not so, the sphere would never be full of the light of the Sun – because there would always be a dark side.

Babba Bathra page 25:b:

R. Eli’ezer says, "the Earth is similar to an achsadrah.  The North side is not enclosed and when the Sun reaches the Northwest corner, it is forced (?) and rises above the heavens".  R. Yehoshua’ says, "the Earth is similar to 'quba' (completely enclosed) and the North side is enclosed.  When the Sun reaches the Northwest corner, it circles around behind the dome…”

Baraitha of Shemuel haQatan (at the beginning):

The heavens are made like a dome, wide like a tent, its length… from the North it is not enclosed, and it is square like an achsadrah… and from the South it is round like an oven… East and West like a building on the Earth.

Pesahim 94:b:

The wise men of Israel say, "during the day the Sun is beneath the heavens and at night it is above the heavens.”

In other words the heavens are opaque and therefore, when the Sun is above them, we are in the dark.  When it is beneath them, we have light.  But according to this there would never be light on the other side of the Earth, as you can see from the diagram above.

Ibid.:

…and the wise men of the nations of the world say, "during the day the Sun advances beneath the heavens while at night (it advances) beneath the Earth."  Said Ribbi, "their opinion makes more sense than ours, for during the day the spring waters are cold and during the night they are hot."

Let us consider well the words of Ribbi.  He believes that since spring water is hotter during the night, this is a sign that the path of the Sun passes underground and heats those waters – which is not the case during the day, when its path takes it above the heavens so that it is far from the spring waters.  Therefore, during the day, those waters are cold.  It is not difficult to understand the point I’m making here.  We need only compare the globe of the Earth with the globe of the planet Mercury:

1)      Earth is about 150,000 Km from the Sun.  Mercury is only about 58,000 Km from the Sun.

2)      The diameter of Earth, at the equator, is about 12,755 Km. Mercury’s diameter is only about 4,880 Km.

3)      Earth constantly revolves so that no side receives direct heat from the Sun more than one day at a time.  Mercury revolves so slowly that each side receives direct sunlight for about three years at a time.

In spite of all this, the night side of Mercury endures temperatures as low as –150 degrees Celsius while the day side is hot enough to melt lead – over 400 degrees Celsius.



It is not difficult to understand from this that in order for there to be a situation that allowed the heat of the Sun to influence spring water to any measurable degree, the Earth would have to be extremely thin and near enough to the Sun that even rocks, on the day side, would melt.  This kind of thinness is only possible to consider in an Earth that is flat.

If so, how could Ribbi perceive such temperature fluctuations in spring water?  We must remember that in his days they did not have thermometers and that when the air is cold outside, those waters might feel warmer in comparison.  When the air is hot outside, those waters might feel cooler in comparison.  In fact, a contemporary of ours has already done this experiment and checked the temperature of spring water both by day and by night and found no difference.



Ibid.:

…R. Nathan says, "during the summer, the Sun travels through the higher part of the heavens and this is why the entire world is hot and the springs are cold.  During the winter, the Sun travels through the lower part of the heavens and this is why the entire world is cold and the springs are hot."

We can understand this through the diagram above that relates to the Baraitha of Mazaloth.

Bereshith Rabbah 6:8:

How do the wheels of the Sun and the Moon set?  R. Yehudah ben R. La’ai and the (other) sages (dispute this).  R. Yehudah says behind the dome and above it.  The sages say behind the dome and beneath it.  Says R. Yohanan, “the words of R. Yehudah ben La’ai make more sense for he said behind the dome and above it during the summer when the whole world is hot and the springs are cold.  Rather than the sages who say behind the dome and beneath it during the winter when the whole world is cold and the springs are warm.  Said R. Shim’on ben Yohai, “we don’t know…”

The opinion of R. Yehudah is the same as that of R. Eli’ezer and R. Yehoshua’ above.  The opinion of the sages is the same as that of Ribbi.

I wanted to share this with you mainly because I think it is interesting to explore how the ancients viewed their world.  Also I wanted to show how difficult it would be for any rational person to claim that the words of the sages must always be true.  Later rabbis knew the limitations on their scientific knowledge though they did not mention them much.

Racism in our daily lives 3

In the April 5th edition of The Oregonian, on the front page, is an article titled "Western Oregon U. a model for its Latino graduation rate."

...The Monmouth college's support programs for Latino students, she said, "are definitely key to my success:

They also help explain why the college completion rate at Western, unlike at most colleges and universities in Oregon and the nation, is higher for Latino students than for their white peers.  Nearly 49 percent of the Latino students at Western graduate within six years, compared with 45 percent of white classmates, according to a study last month by the American Enterprise Institute...

Universities are focusing more on Latino students because they are the fastest-growing population group in the nation.  In Oregon, one in five public school students is Latino, and the number is growing...

Even with financial aid, tuition and other costs continue to be a major barrier to college for Latino students, said Martha Balshem, a PSU sociology professor and a special assistant to the president for diversity...

There are several questions that need to be asked here.  Firstly, if the Latino graduation rate is higher than the white graduation rate, at this university, then why are there no programs to help white students?  Secondly, if it is logical to place an emphasis on Latino students "because they are the fastest-growing population group in the nation" then surely it would be just as logical to place emphasis on white students because "they are the largest population group in the nation" or because this nation was founded upon the culture these white students are heirs to."  Thirdly, if financial barriers are a prime motivation to render more aid to Latino students, why not cut to the chase and simply focus on low-income students of whatever ethnicity?

The answer to all three of these questions is systematic, and pervasive, racism against whites in America.  It is time we all recognize this and be more vocal about it - not only on the web but also in our real lives.

Are blacks "disadvantaged"?

For many years we've been conditioned to look at "Hispanic" or "African-American" as if these groups are disadvantaged.  The media refers to them as such countless times and, as conventional wisdom correctly has it, repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it.  I picked a mainstream article, at random, that deals with black being "disadvantaged" in order to dissect it to try to figure out what "disadvantaged" means.

This article is titled "Blacks the Most Disadvantaged Racial Group in Pittsburgh".  Here are the ways blacks are "disadvantaged" according to this article:

Families, Youth, and Elderly
Blacks and Whites in the Pittsburgh region, like those across the nation, live largely in racially segregated communities. This has serious implications for Black communities, which are often disadvantaged in many quality-of-life factors, including job and transportation access and public safety. Only about one-quarter of Black women in Pittsburgh are married, compared with half of White and Hispanic women and two-thirds of Asian women.

It is worth noting that, according to the 2000 census, blacks comprise 27.12% of Pittsburgh's population.  This is considerably higher than the nation as a whole.  Whites comprised 67.63% of the city.  Are they "disadvantaged" by being segregated from the blacks?  In many cities across America we find Orthodox Jews, who make up only a tiny percentage of the population, existing in segregated communities.  Are they "disadvantaged"?  Segregation is only a disadvantage to an ethnic group if that ethnic group underperforms in important ways.  It is a disadvantage if that ethnic group depends on other ethnic groups for business initiative, creativity, social services, education, health care, charity etc.  If that ethnic group is a source of all the above, then it is an advantage to be segregated from groups that don't perform as well; it is less of a burden upon them.  Hence, to call segregation a "disadvantage" is begging the question.

Education
A much higher percentage of Asians and Hispanics in the Pittsburgh area have graduate or professional degrees, compared with Whites and Blacks. Black students are not as proficient as White students in math in grades 5, 8, and 11. The number of Black girls graduating from Pittsburgh public high schools has increased substantially from 2003 to 2004, but the same did not occur for Black boys.

Those of us who recognize the importance of HBD would agree that blacks are, indeed, disadvantaged (as a group) compared to other groups.  But this is not a disadvantage that was imposed from without.  Nobody can be blamed for disparate average I.Q.'s except, perhaps, God himself or Mother Nature.  Of course, when leftists (i.e. the Mainstream media) present us with a "disadvantage", the implication is that it is the white man's fault and, therefore, his responsibility to correct it.  Disparate average I.Q. in blacks  is no more the white man's fault than shorter stature is in Asians.  We accept that Asians tend to be shorter.  So too should we accept that blacks tend to be less intelligent.

Economic Disparities
Home ownership rates in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area are higher for Whites and Hispanics, compared with the rest of the country. And, as is the case throughout the country, Asians in this region have the highest median household income. All four racial/ethnic groups use public transportation at a higher rate to go to work in the Pittsburgh area than do like groups elsewhere in the nation.

Economic disparity has the same cause as educational disparities; they are both consequences of lower average I.Q.'s - as has been already shown in "The Bell Curve".  Leftists will list each and every consequence of low average I.Q. and list it as a separate "disparity" in order to bolster their fallacious claims of pervasive white racism.  Of course they will also point to blogs such as this one as evidence of "racism" - but never in my life have I held another person back, from advancing his career because of his race.  Even if it were in my power to do so, I would not do so.  It is interesting that the author of the article admits that Asians have the highest median household income.  Apparently Mrs. Blake considers it purely coincidence that Asians have the highest average I.Q. and also the highest average income.  It must be the Devil at work to lead us astray into the maw of racism!

Intergroup Relations
About half of Allegheny County’s Black residents and one-fifth of its White residents see race relations as a serious problem both in the region and nation. Half of the county’s Black residents also reported being victims of unfair treatment or discrimination in a store within the last six months. Fewer than half of the county’s Black residents said they believe citizens of all races are treated fairly by the police.

Take a random segment of the population and pound it into their heads, from cradle to grave, that they are victims of unfair treatment and guess what?  They will find unfair treatment everywhere.  If a white person encounters a jerk in his everyday life, he'll say "Wow.  That person is a jerk!".  A black person, encountering that same jerk, is likely to say, "Wow.  That person is a racist!"  Blacks have been conditioned to see racism everywhere.  When they, predictably, report encountering it, the same forces that brought about this situation cite it as proof that they were right.  It is a self-perpetuating racket on a grand scale.  As for the police treating blacks unfairly, this might be so but it should be no mystery why this is so.  Blacks always commit crime far out of proportion to their numbers.  It would be shocking if big city police did not become conditioned to view blacks as potential criminals and treat them accordingly.  This is unfortunate for law-abiding blacks but it should not be difficult for them to understand.  Jared Taylor has already pointed out that men are far more likely to be criminals than women, and so law enforcement will investigate men more aggressively than women:

Everyone knows that a group of unknown men is potentially more dangerous than a group of otherwise similar women. It is entirely reasonable to take precautions around men that one would not take around women. From a statistical point of view, it is just as reasonable to distinguish between blacks and whites as carefully as one distinguishes between men and women. It would be foolish not to lock the car doors when driving through black neighborhoods.

Police, of course, know that blacks commit a great deal of crime, and this explains “racial profiling,” the practice of stopping and questioning proportionately more blacks than people of other races. The police would be crazy not to. They also stop more men than women and more young people than old people. The police know from experience who the crooks are likely to be. If they spent as much time investigating old Asian ladies as they did young black men they would never get their jobs done. Everyone understands that men are more crime-prone than women and they understand why men are stopped more often than women.

The original article goes on to list...

Mental Health
Pitt researchers found the rate of serious mental illness in Allegheny County substantially higher among Blacks than Whites. Whites with an income of less than $25,000 a year have a higher rate of serious mental illness than Whites with a higher income. Blacks who earn less than $25,000 a year have a higher rate of serious mental illness than Whites who earn that amount.

The implication here is that there is a correlation between income and the prevalence of mental illness.  Here I'll quote from the Surgeon General's Report:

African Americans are over-represented in high-need populations that are particularly at risk for mental illnesses:

• · People who are homeless. While representing only 12% of the U.S. population, African Americans make up about 40% of the homeless population.


• · People who are incarcerated. Nearly half of all prisoners in State and Federal jurisdictions and almost 40% of juveniles in legal custody are African Americans.


• · Children in foster care and the child welfare system. African American children and youth constitute about 45% of children in public foster care and more than half of all children waiting to be adopted.

Every one of the above is closely linked to I.Q. and so mental health goes together with educational and economic disparity as explained above.

Criminal Justice
In the Pittsburgh region, most of the Black individuals arrested for murder and non-negligent manslaughter are involved in cases in the city of Pittsburgh, while the majority of White arrests for the same crimes are outside Allegheny County. The majority of juveniles and adults arrested for property crime in the city are Black, while most of the juveniles and adults arrested for property crime in the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area and the nation overall are White.

It is unclear why being arrested in the city, as opposed to being arrested in another area, would be considered a "disadvantage".  In any case, if people feel they are disadvantaged because they commit more crime, the solution is obvious: stop committing crime.  In all fairness, many times leaving a life of crime is much more easily said than done.  Yet there are so many programs, and so many advantages, for blacks who seek to improve themselves, that "lack of opportunity" is no longer a valid explanation in most cases.

There is one disadvantage that American blacks suffer from on a massive scale.  It is the one I mentioned at the beginning of this post: that we are constantly being told it is a disadvantage to be black or Hispanic.  I'm a Jew and most of my life people have expected more of me, intellectually, because of it.  At this point in my life I do not enjoy the feeling of being stereotyped as being a certain way simply because I'm Jewish - even if it's a positive stereotype.  But there is no denying that such expectations would have a positive effect on a child.  What kind of effect does it have upon millions of black and Hispanic children to be constantly told they are "disadvantaged"?  It seems to me that this is child abuse and it should cease immediately.  Let fate take its course and then, when that person is 90 years old and on his deathbed, we can tell him, "by the way, you were disadvantaged."

The Israel lobby versus American/Jewish interests

Much ink has been spilled over AIPAC and how it seems to have a stranglehold on American foreign policy.  AIPAC claims that it "...works with both Democratic and Republican political leaders to enact public policy that strengthens the vital U.S.-Israel relationship."  It should be fairly obvious, even to a casual observer, that AIPAC's goals are not so much to foster a "vital U.S.-Israel relationship" as to strengthen Israel militarily and politically.  Every one of the achievements that AIPAC boasts of is beneficial to Israel and in not a single case is it even claimed to strengthen the U.S. in any way.  The fact that they even use the term "U.S.-Israel" - putting the U.S. first - is an insult to our intelligence and an obvious attempt to obfuscate the fact that they consider America as naught but a tool to advance the interests of Israel.

But there are some basic issues that many people overlook.  Firstly, when AIPAC lobbies for Israel, it is actually lobbying for the government of Israel.  I do not believe that the government of Israel represents the best interests of the Israeli people much more than the government of the U.S. represents the best interests of the American people (or whatever is left of it).  It is true that, in some cases, the policies of Israel's leaders happen to correspond to the wishes of a majority of Israel's people.  But even when this is so, it does not mean that what they wish for is in their best interest.  In some ways, the masses are like children; they need elites to make good decisions for them.  This is one reason why pure democracy is such a bad idea.  Is it really in the best interest of the Israeli people that their leaders force a matter that will ultimately alienate their strongest ally?

Even if the government of Israel, and by extension AIPAC, pursue policies that really are in the best interests of the people of Israel, American Jews should be asking whether those interests necessarily coincide with the best interests of American Jews.  For too long it has been assumed that whatever is best for Israeli Jews is also best for American Jews.  One can easily imagine a scenario where perceived allegiance to a foreign power leads to a rise in anti-Jewish sentiment in the U.S.  One can also imagine increased awkwardness or danger to American Jews traveling abroad because of this.   It might be asked if it is in the interest of American Jews (and gentiles) to pay more in taxes in order to support a foreign government.  Ultimately we should be asking if it is in our best interest to risk involvement in unnecessary wars as a result of an unnaturally strong alliance between the U.S. and Israel.  How many American Jews would be willing to have their sons and daughters die in such wars?  If they are so willing, let them volunteer their own sons and daughters; they have no right to sacrifice the sons and daughters of other Jews - let alone the sons and daughters of gentiles.

AIPAC stands for "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee".  Presumably most of their members are American.  As such, I don't think it is too much to ask of them that they put their own country first.  As it stands, they are careful to put American first only on the most superficial level: when they must decide which word to type first.  Beyond that, it is always Israel first.   When proud Mexicans fly the Mexican flag in the U.S., we tell them to return to Mexico if they love it so much.  The same should be said to AIPAC.  If they love Israel so much, let them move there and support it the honest way, by serving in its military, building its industry, educating its children and contributing to its general well being.  To remain in the U.S. and lobby so that our government can extort our hard-earned money is a sleazy, underhanded and parasitic way to support a foreign country.  It pains me that their methods now serve as a model for other nationalities.  Each nation now sends its citizens to our shores so that they can proceed to vote to rob us of yet more of our earnings to support their home countries.  Meanwhile, we increasingly resemble cattle that are exploited by our government for those other nations, our own home-grown kleptocrats and, ultimately, the vast international corporations that are intertwined with all the above.

A short hiatus

Dear friends,

Due to a combination of long work hours, feeling under the weather and sleep deprivation, I probably won't be posting anything new for a few days.

Cheers!

jewamongyou

An argument against democracy

By now I'm sure most of you have viewed Hank Johnson's infamous comments where he displays his stupefying stupidity for millions to behold.  If the reaction at my workplace is any indication, millions of jaws are dropping, accompanied by an incredulous "wow" all across America, as the horrifying realization set in that people like Johnson are setting the course of our nation and voting on matters of life and death.

People are asking, "how is it possible that individuals like Johnson can make it to Congress?"  Johnson's website claims the comment was not to be taken literally:

"The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island."...

Even if we believe the above (which I do not), Johnson does not come across as being very bright - the word "narrow" apparently not being part of his vocabulary.  Also, his attempt to sound sophisticated by bringing up "environmental concerns" is pathetic.

What are Johnson's political priorities?  It seems that helping blacks get a bigger piece of the pie is high on the list (from his website):

The Internal Revenue Service is seeking an Equal Employment Specialist in Atlanta. The specialist would develop and support Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment, Affirmative Employment, Special Emphasis Programs, Diversity, Persons with Disabilities, and Prevention of Sexual Harassment. Specialists also administer the EEO Complaints Program, and provide service, guidance and training to employees and to managers on all EEO process matters. For more information or to apply

Also:

To kick off Black History Month, Congressman congratulates U.S. Navy for naming a supply ship after civil rights leader:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-GA) H. Res. 1022, a resolution honoring the life and achievements of civil rights hero Medgar W. Evers (1925-1963), passed the House today 426 to 0.

No doubt his fixation on blacks has something to do with the fact that his district is about 54% black.  This is what happens in a democracy; each special interest votes to grant itself as large a portion of government loot as possible.  While leftists are quick to claim that blacks cannot get past their race due to white racism, it should be obvious that it is leftists who cause blacks to place their race above all else and to, therefore, vote as a block.  It is leftists who celebrate black history month, agitate for special "African-American studies" programs, support specifically black T.V. programming, black oriented movies and books, postage stamps that commemorate black history, holidays that enshrine famous blacks (we now have none that enshrine famous whites - except the controversial Columbus day), special school assemblies for "people of color", "a black face in every crowd" laws, pro-black discrimination in hiring, special government health programs directed specifically at blacks etc. etc.  If I were black, I might be crying out, "enough of this already!  Can't you just see me as a fellow human being?"

Indeed, the left has created a Frankenstein Monster.  An embedded ethnicity that is hyper-conscious of race, ever more sensitive and ever more demanding.  At this point it is difficult to know how things might have been if not for the left's obsession with the black race.  Had the left not continuously pounded it into the black psyche that blackness is the most important aspect of their being, might we then be able to trust a black jury with a white defendant?  How much less would be black crime?  How many fewer "discrimination" cases would be clogging court dockets?  How many billions of dollars less wasted?  Alas, it is impossible to know.  I suspect that, left with the naked genetic racial disparities, there would still be problems with black crime, substance abuse, STD's and so on but not to the extent we have today.

How many blacks are offended by nooses because their grandfather was lynched?  How many consider "boy" to be a fighting word because they remember being called that in the old South and have bitter memories of it?  It seems to me that what we have here is more implanted memories than any sort of post traumatic stress syndrome - and I'm not denying that there is legitimate history, only that the overemphasis of that history (and distortion in many cases) has brought more harm than any natural recollection of it ever could.

I think that sometimes there is a fine line between teaching history so that certain events will not occur again and teaching it in such a way that generations of bitter, hypersensitive haters grow up wanting to "get even".

In any case, if democracy ever did have a chance of working on such a large scale, the leftist racialist agenda has destroyed it.  They have created warring factions where a single national identity could have been.  By singling out "people of color" for favor and inflated ethnic pride, leftists can now take responsibility for necessitating a nationalism of those who are not "people of color".  They have ensured that democracy cannot succeed and made the ethnic state even more of an imperative.

My first experiences with diversity

I was a small skinny boy of 11 when the powers that be decided to advance their political goals by busing white kids to black schools and black schools to white schools.  At the time, we lived in Inglewood, California and our part of Inglewood was still white.  The school bus would take me across Inglewood to a group of three schools, all right next to each other: an elementary school, a junior high school and a high school.

From the start, things were different for me - and not in a good sort of way.  I found myself bullied as never before and being chased around campus.  My memories of the first three years in those ghetto schools (they were over 90% black) are fuzzy but I'll never forget the events of my last few months of Morningside Highschool.

Threats and taunts had become an almost daily occurrence but my experience in Latin class was especially noteworthy.  Our instructor was a holocaust survivor.  A Polish Catholic who probably had many tales to tell and who would have made our class a fascinating one - except for the fact that he was terrified of his own "students".  Clearly, he had experienced abuse similar to what I had experienced.  It bothered me to contemplate an old man, who had already gone through so much suffering in his life, being tormented by the feral animals that passed for "students".

This Latin instructor had set up a political system in his class whereby the students would elect a president, a secretary and maybe one or two other officers.  It was unclear what duties each "official" would have in class and it was unclear what was supposed to be accomplished through such a system.  What was clear, from the start, was that the black students would use this system to purge the class of any non-blacks.  There were only about five non-blacks in the entire class of thirty or so.  When the blacks overwhelmingly elected a white student as "president", the boy was initially happy.  But, as the harassment increased and the threats and attacks mounted, the white "president" soon realized that he had been targeted for elimination from the class.  Electing him "president" was only a means whereby the blacks could have more fun while doing so.

After the first white student had been so eliminated from our class, the blacks moved on to the second white student and did the same to him.  After he left, the only white girl left of her own accord.  They then elected a Hispanic student who, if memory serves me right, did not stick around for harassment; he left immediately.  When they started the next election, it was obvious that I, as the only non-black remaining, would be selected.  Indeed I was.  For the rest of class that day, I was subject to objects being thrown at me, getting gum stuck in my hair and incessant taunts.  All this was right in front of our teacher - who feared too much for his own safety to do anything about it.

The moment class was over, and I stepped outside, they were all waiting for me.  Nearly 30 blacks stood around me slapping me, throwing things at me, insulting me with racial slurs and threatening me.  More blacks joined in from other classes.  It was a true mob attack - but I showed no fear at all.  By then I'd learned that showing fear only makes matters worse so I kept steadily walking.  One of them said, "those Mexican sho is cool (back then "cool" meant fearless)!"  Over the course of a few minutes, the mob started to disperse and I was approaching my next class.  Just then, a stone whizzed past my head just missing me and hitting the wall in front of me with a loud thump.

Up to that point I had not told my parents about the abuse I was subject to at school.  This time I had no choice but to tell them; I could not return to that class.  They made some calls and made some sort of arrangement to keep me away from Latin class - but the threats and intimidation continued.  One day I was approached by three black kids who held a knife to my throat.  "We don't like the way you look!" they announced.  Luckily, a black girl came to my rescue, telling them they should be more interested in her than in me.  Another day, as I sat on a bench minding my own business, a black boy sat next to me and asked, "what are you?"  I told him "white".  "Then why you dark?" he retorted and I replied I'm just tanned.  Then he said, "As long as you ain't no Jew.  I don't like Jews."

While not all the blacks in those ghetto schools were violent and hateful, enough were to make the experience one that I would not wish on any child.  This was my childhood experience with diversity - and it's the story I recently told a large group of fellow employees at our mandatory "diversity training".

"Confessions of an Honest Black American"

I wish I could take credit for this but, obviously, I did not write it.  I found it a while back and wanted to share it with you:

Confessions of an Honest Black American

My distant cousins in African live in abject poverty, are surrounded by political corruption and exist in a perennial state of health crisis due to AIDS and other endemic diseases.

Yet here am I — as black as they — enjoying the comfort of my modest American home, the owner of two automobiles, and access to the most advanced health care system ever known.

Why the difference?

It can be summed in simple observation: My African kin are the living legacy of our African heritage. I, on the other hand, am the beneficiary of Western European culture.

Granted, that observation smacks of racial betrayal. But it is also a matter of reality. White people, once free from the medieval madness of feudalism, applied themselves to industry and, having learned to bridal social injustice, blessed their cultures – and the rest of the world – with standards of living that would have been the envy of the greatest emperors of antiquity.

It was a matter of fate that my ancestors were snatched from their African village by slave traders. Am I glad they suffered the pain and indignities of slavery? Of course not. But I am fortunate. And I am grateful that they got on that boat!

There are some who call me a fool for ignoring the lingering injustice that our African American community endures. For every dollar earned by white families, they say, we earn 62 cents. Indeed, statistics are cold calculators that cannot be ignored. $31,969 was the medium income for black families in 2008. White families earned more — much more — $50,673!

Families living in Africa, however earned a mere $315.

I ask my black American friends: Where would you rather be? In America earning 62 percent compared to white Americans? Or in Africa, earning 1 percent compared to black Americans?

Do you not understand that our African cousins would need to work 100 years to earn what we earn in one year?

And do I dare mention the Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Shall I mention that, after a career of denouncing our white countrymen, Rev. Wright retired in a white community in a $1.6 million home? Did you know that the annual wages of 5,000 Africans would hardly cover the cost?

No, I am not betraying my race; I am stating my case. The descendants of American slaves are the blessed beneficiaries of Western culture. White people gave us flight, electricity and computers. It was their culture that reached the moon, discovered and unraveled the mysteries of DNA, and probed the depths of human anatomy. They attached contraptions on their buggies and, a generation later, drove the world along Interstate highways. They replaced famine with food so abundant that obesity has become our great health concern. They connected us with terminals for traveling through air at 500 miles per hour and terminals for traveling through cyberspace at the speed of light. We gave them the Motown sound. They gave us the technology to allow that sound to be recorded and heard around the world.

Lecture me on the evils of the white devils if you will. And, for the most part, I will agree. But I will do so here, in America, not Africa. And I will remind you that in America white people elect black leaders. In Africa black people depose white leaders. And for that, their cultures suffer.

How foolish we are in our blind racist rage to destroy the western culture that enriches every aspect of our lives. How foolish to amuses ourselves with grand delusions when, in reality, we are merely regressing to the pathetic lives of our ancient culture.

Western culture is rapidly eroding. When it is gone, where will we go? Back to Africa? Back to bathing our babies in cow urine? Back to subsistence living in grass huts? Back to the witch doctors and grotesque lip plates? Back to the bloated bellies of emaciated children? Back to tribal wars and brutal chieftains? Back to ignorance and high mortality? Do we really want to go back to that Africa?

Yes, I am grateful my ancestors got on that boat. And you should be grateful, too — while it lasts.
Anonymous

Our line in the sand

Each of us has his own line in the sand.  When this line is crossed, we take a stand and fight.  When I say "fight", I'm not talking about sending letters to congressmen or attending protests while holding signs.  No, I'm talking about standing firm against the "authorities" and making it clear that blood will be spilled if any more aggression is committed against you.  Every so often we hear about individuals whose line in the sand had been crossed and that person snapped - but his resistance was futile because he stood alone.