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".
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
"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:
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
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
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
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.
Monday, March 29, 2010
"Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey"
My mother just recommended I watch the thirteen part youtube video "Journey of Man". She thought I would find it interesting and claimed it "has nothing to do with evolution". There is something in my tradition about honoring one's mother and father so I watched it.
In this video, geneticist Spencer Wells traces the genetic lineage of Mankind from Bushmen to Australia and then from Bushmen to Asian, Europe and the Americas. He travels to central Asia and meets a man who is, reportedly, a direct descendant of the man who fathered all Europeans, Asians and Americans. At the end of his journey, he visits some Navajos and explains to them that they are related the Chukchi and how their ancestors crossed the Bering Straight so many thousands of years ago. It is an inspiring video and very entertaining. I couldn't help but notice that there were certain questions that Wells studiously avoided:
1) He speaks of a "quantum leap" in intellect that occurred 50,000 years ago in Africa due to climate change. We should be asking, if such climate change brought about advanced mental capabilities at that time in Africa, couldn't such events have happened at later dates and in different places as well as a result of other climatic challenges?
2) He mentions that the Bushmen are near extinction but does not mention that they used to inhabit much of Africa and were replaced by blacks. While he is quick to give them credit for their "advanced hunting and tracking skills" it doesn't occur to him that they were displaced because other races were more advanced than they were.
3) All scientists, in the video, are Caucasian (including one Indian). Though he is quick to praise the uniqueness of non-white aboriginal peoples, it never occurs to him to praise his own race - the whites who developed the science he uses. He does not allow himself to consider the possibility that the rigors of the ice age in Europe might have something to do with Europeans long-term planning skills and higher intellectual prowess. In contrast, he does discuss how the Chukchi's bodies have adapted to the cold over thousands of years.
4) Though he attempts to explain the origins of every other major race on Earth, he makes no effort to explain the origins of black Africans - preferring, instead, to blur any distinction between them and the Bushmen. The assumption can then be made that black Africans are just as ancient as the Bushmen and represent the "original humans".
5) At the end, he proclaims we are "all Africans under the skin" - thus negating the 50,000 years of evolution he had just painstakingly narrated. If anything, his video illustrates just how quickly humans can evolve to adapt to their new environments. It does nothing to refute the scientific notion of race. On the contrary, it shows how race is Man's answer to changing environments and how important it must be to have developed so quickly. Then, without even a shred of evidence, as if to show that all this science has not shaken his faith, he announces: "Old fashioned concepts of race are... scientifically wrong." This is so typical of politically correct "scientists". One gets the impression that this statement is some sort of religious mantra like "Allah hu Akbar" or Hail Mary.
The dangerous concept of "conservatism"
There was a time, not long ago, when most whites felt good about their own race, when they objected to miscegenation, racial integration and the notion that all races are equal. Since these attitudes are largely those of the past, they are now often associated with other attitudes of the past such as opposition to: feminism, new styles of music, body art, pornography, atheism and homosexuality. It was, of course, the leftists who were largely responsible for relegating those attitudes to the past in the first place. By seizing control of the education system and government, they were able to change prevailing attitudes about such things. Once this was accomplished, they were able to describe the displaced attitudes as "old-fashioned". Another word for "old-fashioned" is "conservative".
While there is plenty of variety of opinion amongst those who call themselves "conservative", the powers that be have succeeded in associating the term with certain values in the eyes of the general public:
1) An adherence to traditional religion or, at least, a respect toward it
2) A lack of tolerance toward sexual minority practices
3) A preference for a certain way of dressing and certain music
4) A respect for the rule of law domestically but a "my country right or wrong" attitude internationally.
5) A deference toward one's own race, especially the white race
It might be accurate to describe the lumping of all these together, under the umbrella of "conservative" as the "Archie Bunker Complex". Though I might risk sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I believe it is possible that the left intentionally nurtured this wider notion of "conservatism" as part of a strategy of divide and conquer.
When I met Matthew Tait in Virginia this February, we had a short conversation about socialism and race realism. I told him that I disapprove of socialism and that the BNP does seem to be socialist in nature. We agreed, in the end, that our most pressing concern should be the preservation of the true British in Britain. Everything else is secondary. If the British people (or white people in general) become extinct, then the political and social trappings of white civilization will fade away as well. At that point, libertarianism would not be viable. So, if the only movement capable of rescuing the British people happens to be a socialist one, then so be it. If a person is trapped in a burning building, and a firefighter arrives to rescue him, is he going to concern himself with the creed of the firefighter? So, even though the BNP is not "conservative" in the political sense, still we should consider them allies in our racial struggle.
Why do non-religious race realists go out of their way to bash homosexuals? I can understand Judeo-Christian ones doing so - it's an "abomination". But the advancement of an anti-white agenda is a far more serious "bomb in our nation" than homosexuals and why make enemies when you could make friends instead?
It should be obvious that only the practice of heterosexuality can propagate our species and race. In that sense, it is the sexuality that is "normal" on a societal level. That being said, I don't think we should condemn individuals for leaning that way and we certainly should not reject them from our movement. So my stance on this is that homosexuality should not be promoted amongst our children and it should not be portrayed as equal to heterosexuality in virtue. But we should not try to make life miserable for those who practice it - whether we hold such urges to be a matter of choice or not. I don't see the point in wasting pixels condemning homosexuals either; they'll do as they please with or without our approval and it really is none of our business. As for those who parade about publicly half naked to show their pride, they invite ridicule upon themselves but that's where it should stop: ridicule and exercising our own rights to freedom of association.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Racism in our daily lives 2
Here we have yet another example of non-white privilege:
A $1,000 scholarship ...was elected from among about 40 peers in the sessions to have best embodied the program's ideals of positive attitude and collaboration... particularly kids of minority heritage, who demonstrate ability and interest in technology careers.
This is the cheerful, smiley face of discrimination against whites. It's not enough that the recipient's white colleagues (sure, they threw a Hispanic in the photo for good measure) were deemed "not worthy" of the scholarship (due to their second class status), but they are even made to smile for the camera to showcase it. What can be more sick than a society, founded by whites, discriminating against whites? The brainwashing of youngsters into cheerfully submitting to such injustice and making them believe that, somehow, this is a "positive" thing.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
My Amren wish list
Far be it from me to try to dictate the policies of a noble organization such as Amren, but this doesn't mean I cannot put forward my own wish list and I hope that if Mr. Taylor reads this, he will take it as friendly suggestions rather than complaints:
1) While Amren is, officially, a monthly magazine, in the minds of many it is more than that. If it were only a magazine, we would not have semiannual meetings. My wish is that Amren become a bona fide organization in the sense that it would have membership and annual/monthly fees (aside from the subscription fees). These fees would be put to good use to aid whites around the world, fund scholarships and fight discrimination against whites. It would be something like the CofCC only not Christian oriented and, perhaps, with a more libertarian bent.
2) It has been written that Amren is merely a message board for people to gripe about the evils of non-whites, specifically blacks and Hispanics. Of course this is not so - but I think it would be beneficial to exercise tighter control over posted comments. Though I've been guilty of it myself, we should refrain from taking cheap shots at non-whites that our enemies can use as evidence of our "racism". Our enemies are ignorant of the massive crimes perpetrated against whites world-wide. Therefore, they do not understand the anger and resentment that most of us feel. I've already written about the difference between expressing bitterness about injustice and mindless hatred. Those in power use blacks and Hispanics as whips to torment us. We lash out, verbally, against the whips instead of those holding the whips. Of course, many claim it is "the Jews" holding the whips and that is a different subject (already addressed somewhat). So, though it may be comforting for us to spew venom about blacks and Hispanics, we should ask ourselves if this is helpful to our cause. I think such talk needlessly turns away many good people and helps alienate the good blacks and Hispanics who deserve to hear our message just like anybody else. So my suggestion would be that Mr. Taylor make it quite clear that Amren hates no one because of their race or ethnicity - and then make sure the comments reflect that attitude. Amren's message should be solely a positive one, as Mr. Craig Bodeker rhetorically asks in his video "why is it that pro whites are assumed to be anti everybody else?" Of course even such a change of tone will not satisfy the leftists for, in their eyes, any negative comment about their favorite ethnicities is a stain that will never fade. But it is not those hardened leftists who are Amren's target audience; they will never change. The target audience is those reasonable people who might get the message if it were presented without what they've been raised to consider shrill hysterics.
3) Expand the "Activists Corner". Surely we can come up with more than four fliers - and yes, I'm as guilty as anybody for not creating them (stay tuned). The Activist Corner might have a wider variety of suggestions how to make a difference in our communities. It could list emails and phone numbers, of people willing to have such information posted, so that others in their area can contact them. It might include links to short, and effective videos that people can send to their friends and family. The Activist Corner should not be hidden away, as an obscure link under "Contact Us". Instead, it should be a large, prominent, link out in the open where nobody could miss it. Activism should be the primary focus of Amren; without it, we are only preaching to the choir. Many years ago, I was involved with Habad/Lubavitch. This is a Hassidic sect known for its activism. We would stand on street corners asking random people "Excuse me, are you Jewish?" and then, if their answer was "yes", we would speak to them, give them literature and perform Jewish rituals with them. This takes a lot of courage and commitment. Perhaps Amren should learn from Habad. Mr. Taylor could be the Amrener Rebbe!
4) The American Renaissance magazine is always a pleasure to read but I think there is room for improvement, at least in the electronic version. It would be more entertaining if they could find a more-or-less talented cartoonist to spice it up with humor. The letters to the editor section could be about twice as long. There could be a quiz or puzzle in each issue - whose solution would be in the following issue. In short, Amren could stand to steal some ideas from traditional newspapers. Ideas that were implemented in order to encourage people to read them. There is no need to reinvent the wheel; shamelessly copy those ideas.
1) While Amren is, officially, a monthly magazine, in the minds of many it is more than that. If it were only a magazine, we would not have semiannual meetings. My wish is that Amren become a bona fide organization in the sense that it would have membership and annual/monthly fees (aside from the subscription fees). These fees would be put to good use to aid whites around the world, fund scholarships and fight discrimination against whites. It would be something like the CofCC only not Christian oriented and, perhaps, with a more libertarian bent.
2) It has been written that Amren is merely a message board for people to gripe about the evils of non-whites, specifically blacks and Hispanics. Of course this is not so - but I think it would be beneficial to exercise tighter control over posted comments. Though I've been guilty of it myself, we should refrain from taking cheap shots at non-whites that our enemies can use as evidence of our "racism". Our enemies are ignorant of the massive crimes perpetrated against whites world-wide. Therefore, they do not understand the anger and resentment that most of us feel. I've already written about the difference between expressing bitterness about injustice and mindless hatred. Those in power use blacks and Hispanics as whips to torment us. We lash out, verbally, against the whips instead of those holding the whips. Of course, many claim it is "the Jews" holding the whips and that is a different subject (already addressed somewhat). So, though it may be comforting for us to spew venom about blacks and Hispanics, we should ask ourselves if this is helpful to our cause. I think such talk needlessly turns away many good people and helps alienate the good blacks and Hispanics who deserve to hear our message just like anybody else. So my suggestion would be that Mr. Taylor make it quite clear that Amren hates no one because of their race or ethnicity - and then make sure the comments reflect that attitude. Amren's message should be solely a positive one, as Mr. Craig Bodeker rhetorically asks in his video "why is it that pro whites are assumed to be anti everybody else?" Of course even such a change of tone will not satisfy the leftists for, in their eyes, any negative comment about their favorite ethnicities is a stain that will never fade. But it is not those hardened leftists who are Amren's target audience; they will never change. The target audience is those reasonable people who might get the message if it were presented without what they've been raised to consider shrill hysterics.
3) Expand the "Activists Corner". Surely we can come up with more than four fliers - and yes, I'm as guilty as anybody for not creating them (stay tuned). The Activist Corner might have a wider variety of suggestions how to make a difference in our communities. It could list emails and phone numbers, of people willing to have such information posted, so that others in their area can contact them. It might include links to short, and effective videos that people can send to their friends and family. The Activist Corner should not be hidden away, as an obscure link under "Contact Us". Instead, it should be a large, prominent, link out in the open where nobody could miss it. Activism should be the primary focus of Amren; without it, we are only preaching to the choir. Many years ago, I was involved with Habad/Lubavitch. This is a Hassidic sect known for its activism. We would stand on street corners asking random people "Excuse me, are you Jewish?" and then, if their answer was "yes", we would speak to them, give them literature and perform Jewish rituals with them. This takes a lot of courage and commitment. Perhaps Amren should learn from Habad. Mr. Taylor could be the Amrener Rebbe!
4) The American Renaissance magazine is always a pleasure to read but I think there is room for improvement, at least in the electronic version. It would be more entertaining if they could find a more-or-less talented cartoonist to spice it up with humor. The letters to the editor section could be about twice as long. There could be a quiz or puzzle in each issue - whose solution would be in the following issue. In short, Amren could stand to steal some ideas from traditional newspapers. Ideas that were implemented in order to encourage people to read them. There is no need to reinvent the wheel; shamelessly copy those ideas.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Win-win situation?
It appears that some Muslims object to the new full body scanners now mandatory in the U.K. (thanks to strike the root for the link). I think it's abhorrent of governments to force people to reveal their naked bodies in order to travel by plane. It seems there is no limit to the depths governments will descend to in order to humiliate us "for our own safety".
I do find it interesting, however, that Muslims might especially have a problem with it - considering that their presence was what caused the threat that served as an excuse for such excesses in the first place. Muslims, in large numbers, do not belong in European society; they make no secret of their plans to overwhelm Western nations with their numbers and, eventually, subjugate the native populations.
Will Muslim protests eventually scale back the police state? I doubt that their overall effect will be positive but we can at least hope for positive outcomes now and then. In this particular case, if Muslims succeed in eliminating this latest government indignity, it will be a small victory for us all. If they are made uncomfortable enough to leave, in large numbers, then it will be a large victory for the rest of us. Given the pitiful track record of the U.K., my guess is that there will be special provisions for Muslims so that they can have another Muslim (of the same sex) body search them. Then, of course, we lose. Will non-Muslims be reduced to pretending they are Muslim in order to avoid the body scan? Personally, I think the body scan would be less of an indignity.
As a side note, I think that when we are forced to reveal ourselves in such a way in order to travel by plane, we can have fun with it. Specifically I'm thinking of using some sort of high-density tape to write messages on our own bodies in such a way that only through the scanner will it be visible. The government goon who "makes his living" by humiliating the rest of us would be treated to such sublime messages as "F**k you!" or "You're a loser" or "Get a REAL job".
I do find it interesting, however, that Muslims might especially have a problem with it - considering that their presence was what caused the threat that served as an excuse for such excesses in the first place. Muslims, in large numbers, do not belong in European society; they make no secret of their plans to overwhelm Western nations with their numbers and, eventually, subjugate the native populations.
Will Muslim protests eventually scale back the police state? I doubt that their overall effect will be positive but we can at least hope for positive outcomes now and then. In this particular case, if Muslims succeed in eliminating this latest government indignity, it will be a small victory for us all. If they are made uncomfortable enough to leave, in large numbers, then it will be a large victory for the rest of us. Given the pitiful track record of the U.K., my guess is that there will be special provisions for Muslims so that they can have another Muslim (of the same sex) body search them. Then, of course, we lose. Will non-Muslims be reduced to pretending they are Muslim in order to avoid the body scan? Personally, I think the body scan would be less of an indignity.
As a side note, I think that when we are forced to reveal ourselves in such a way in order to travel by plane, we can have fun with it. Specifically I'm thinking of using some sort of high-density tape to write messages on our own bodies in such a way that only through the scanner will it be visible. The government goon who "makes his living" by humiliating the rest of us would be treated to such sublime messages as "F**k you!" or "You're a loser" or "Get a REAL job".
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Is anti-semitism good for the Jewish people?
When the bulk of European Jewry gradually lost its distinctive Mid-Eastern look , culture - especially language, religion and dress - became the only things that set these Jews apart from their gentile neighbors. While Europe was effective in erasing the "Jewish look" over a thousand years, America was effective in erasing Jewish culture within a century (with obvious exceptions of course). Nonetheless many American Jews still wish to remain "Jewish" even as they retain only faint vestiges of their ancestral culture. While an Irish-American might be content to dust off his Irishness once a year to celebrate St. Patrick's day, and an Italian-American might reminisce about his grandmother's cooking, a Jew often feels the need for his Jewishness to take a more active role in his life. He might feel empty otherwise.
An occasional anti-Jewish slur, by a passing drunk, is enough to fill this role. As a matter of fact, so desperate have some Jews become, to find anti-semitism, that they will even cling to outbursts by drunk celebrities directed at nobody in particular.
Pathetic as such bottom-feeding may sound, from an objective point of view, occasional displays of anti-semitism do serve to remind Jews that they are Jews and therefore strengthen our ethnic cohesion. In this sense they are productive. Many "lost Jewish souls" found their way back to Judaism because of anti-semitism.
It is not a pleasant experience to be the target of ethnic slurs or intimidation. I can say this having experienced it myself. Yet we can look at it as a bitter pill to swallow for those Jews who are lost to their people and on the verge of total assimilation.
When I argue for the continuity of my own people, I am not advocating for a complete return to traditional Judaism - and in this I walk a fine line. One that is full of questions and contradictions. Can the Jewish People exist long term without its religion? Should it? What right do Jews have to the Promised Land if they do not believe in either He who promised it or the book that documents it? Alas, I do not have all the answers - but future posts may explore them further.
An occasional anti-Jewish slur, by a passing drunk, is enough to fill this role. As a matter of fact, so desperate have some Jews become, to find anti-semitism, that they will even cling to outbursts by drunk celebrities directed at nobody in particular.
Pathetic as such bottom-feeding may sound, from an objective point of view, occasional displays of anti-semitism do serve to remind Jews that they are Jews and therefore strengthen our ethnic cohesion. In this sense they are productive. Many "lost Jewish souls" found their way back to Judaism because of anti-semitism.
It is not a pleasant experience to be the target of ethnic slurs or intimidation. I can say this having experienced it myself. Yet we can look at it as a bitter pill to swallow for those Jews who are lost to their people and on the verge of total assimilation.
When I argue for the continuity of my own people, I am not advocating for a complete return to traditional Judaism - and in this I walk a fine line. One that is full of questions and contradictions. Can the Jewish People exist long term without its religion? Should it? What right do Jews have to the Promised Land if they do not believe in either He who promised it or the book that documents it? Alas, I do not have all the answers - but future posts may explore them further.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Provisional whites
Earlier, I quoted diamed from his blog The Road Less Traveled. There is much of interest in that blog and I recently came across his take on borderline "whiteness". Any white movement must, sooner or later, resolve the problem of how to define "white". I recommend reading the entire post but here is his idea in a nutshell:
Tentatively I like his idea because, in practice, many of us have been looking at things this way for a long time. If we encounter a light-skinned "black" who speaks and behaves just like a white and whose attitudes are those of a healthy white, do we not look at that person (for most purposes) as a white? What diamed did was put into writing what has been lurking in the backs of many of our minds anyway. Codifying it is a step in the right direction. He goes on to list three tiers of "whiteness":
It seems to be as good a system as any but I do have a couple of problems with it. Even though I am not a subscriber to the idea of a "pure race", it seems to me that we do have relatively pure races. As it stands today, most people who consider themselves "white" are relatively pure; it is likely that they have, in their distant past, some non-whites but they are still pure-blooded enough to be considered of "indigenous European" origin. I doubt that "Native Americans" can say the same. We Jews lost that relative purity long ago so that now we're reduced to various degrees of mongrelization. It would be a shame if the same thing happened to whites and diamed's suggestion of allowing 10% of the white population to be non-white would certainly lead to gradual degradation. Furthermore, in any large nation, politics and corruption would surely come into play when determining who has the "right attitudes" (amongst borderline whites) to be worthy of being "provisional whites". There would be many grey areas and, in the end, who you know would carry as much weight as anything else. Perhaps it would be best if any future white nation be a small nation or a confederation of small nations. This might help curb corruption.
I think this would be a good place to point out what many of us already know: in the long run, the only way to ensure the survival of the white race is for there to be a white nation with strong territorial integrity. In the long run there are only two possibilities: the extinction of the white race or the creation of a white nation. This cannot be said of any other major race of Mankind. There is no danger of Orientals or blacks becoming extinct. As for Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, Pygmies and various Native American tribes, they need to have their own nations as well. I would not want them to disappear either. Polynesians, given their own exclusive nation, would also have to grapple with the question "who is a Polynesian?" As for those who wish for the extinction of whites, or any other race, what they are really advocating for is genocide. In civilized society, we do not hold those who promote genocide in high esteem. It could reasonably be said that such people are "haters" and "bigots". Therefore you, the reader, have a choice: either you are a "white nationalist" or you are a "bigot". Which will it be?
If someone is 3/4 white and 1/4 black, he's provisionally white. If he acts like a decent white man who calls himself white and defends other whites, he'll stay provisionally white. He can never be pure white, because he is too genetically distant. But he can be provisionally white. If he identifies as a black and walks around with a chip on his shoulder blaming everything on whites and saying 'kill the white man,' then he's a black. For this reason, Jeremiah Wright, who's clearly genetically closer to white than black, is a black. He lost his chance at whiteness by damning us to hell. See how it works? In all borderline cases, the cases constantly thrown at us by anti-racists: "Well what about mixed races? What about jews? What about Armenians? What about --?" The answer is now solvable. "These people are provisionally white, their own behavior will determine whether they are included by us, or excluded by us, as white or non-white." If anyone wants to be included by us, all they have to do is 'act white.' Behave well, behave righteously, identify yourself as white, and be loyal to the white race.
Tentatively I like his idea because, in practice, many of us have been looking at things this way for a long time. If we encounter a light-skinned "black" who speaks and behaves just like a white and whose attitudes are those of a healthy white, do we not look at that person (for most purposes) as a white? What diamed did was put into writing what has been lurking in the backs of many of our minds anyway. Codifying it is a step in the right direction. He goes on to list three tiers of "whiteness":
First Tier: Genetically white, whitey-mc-white-whites. These people should be given free admission to the country, on the sole basis of loyalty and abiding by the laws we set forth. This is the easiest level of admission.
Second Tier: Borderline cases, provisionally white. These people would be included on a case by case scenario, based on their loyalty, behavior, and character. This is a stricter standard than the previous standard, but admission is still open. IE, as many people of this type as qualify, are allowed in.
Third Tier: Non-whites. These people would again be included only as individuals. But they would have to have exceptional abilities. For instance, an IQ no less than 120. Perfect health. Good looks. Extremely talented athletes. Extremely rich. Skilled workers. Scientists or artists who have proven their stuff. You get the idea. In addition, they must be loyal to our race and abide by our laws. Obviously, if they make trouble, they're gone. Whatever compassion or patience we show for the first tier, will not be shown to the third tier. And in addition to this, they can at no time exceed 10% of the population. So no matter how qualified you are, if our quota is full, you can't enter. Through this simple measure, the white genome can't be extinguished, AND we can select non-whites for their quality. This way, we do not cut ourselves off from the gifts and genes of exceptional non-whites, but we do not destroy ourselves either. It's fair and balanced. If non-whites resent all the restrictions we put upon them, tough, they still have the rest of the world to live on. They don't have to live here. Humorously enough, even if jews weren't provisionally white, I'd still allow many of them in as non-whites with exceptional ability. Excluding jews entirely, who hold the secrets to a 15 IQ boost somewhere in their genes, would be sheer folly.
It seems to be as good a system as any but I do have a couple of problems with it. Even though I am not a subscriber to the idea of a "pure race", it seems to me that we do have relatively pure races. As it stands today, most people who consider themselves "white" are relatively pure; it is likely that they have, in their distant past, some non-whites but they are still pure-blooded enough to be considered of "indigenous European" origin. I doubt that "Native Americans" can say the same. We Jews lost that relative purity long ago so that now we're reduced to various degrees of mongrelization. It would be a shame if the same thing happened to whites and diamed's suggestion of allowing 10% of the white population to be non-white would certainly lead to gradual degradation. Furthermore, in any large nation, politics and corruption would surely come into play when determining who has the "right attitudes" (amongst borderline whites) to be worthy of being "provisional whites". There would be many grey areas and, in the end, who you know would carry as much weight as anything else. Perhaps it would be best if any future white nation be a small nation or a confederation of small nations. This might help curb corruption.
I think this would be a good place to point out what many of us already know: in the long run, the only way to ensure the survival of the white race is for there to be a white nation with strong territorial integrity. In the long run there are only two possibilities: the extinction of the white race or the creation of a white nation. This cannot be said of any other major race of Mankind. There is no danger of Orientals or blacks becoming extinct. As for Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, Pygmies and various Native American tribes, they need to have their own nations as well. I would not want them to disappear either. Polynesians, given their own exclusive nation, would also have to grapple with the question "who is a Polynesian?" As for those who wish for the extinction of whites, or any other race, what they are really advocating for is genocide. In civilized society, we do not hold those who promote genocide in high esteem. It could reasonably be said that such people are "haters" and "bigots". Therefore you, the reader, have a choice: either you are a "white nationalist" or you are a "bigot". Which will it be?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Is there hope for the future?
I have a dear friend who firmly believes that there is no hope for the white race. He is an atheist so he holds no hope of salvation via supernatural forces. From a moral standpoint, he correctly points out that the vast majority of whites deserve what they get; they hate their own genes and allow themselves to be trampled upon and enslaved. There is no government, on the face of the Earth, that has any concern for the white race. Neither are there any major corporations that possess any loyalty for the white race. It would appear that there are not even any very wealthy individuals who champion our cause. If ever there were an underdog, in the history of Mankind, it would be white nationalists and race realists in our own era. As white nationalists go, so goes the white race in general.
A gentleman by the name of Diamed the roadless writes:
He claims that, in the end, advanced technology will reign supreme, that we shall be replaced by androids or something to that effect. Follow the link above and read the whole column – if you don’t mind being depressed. One of the claims he debunks is that “worse is better”. Indeed, many have pointed to South Africa as proof that virtually nothing can awaken the slumbering white masses, even as they are slaughtered, raped and marginalized to the extreme. One might counter that South Africa cannot serve as proof of white apathy and obliviousness because a white South African can always aspire to escape to safer, more tranquil regions. Indeed many have already done so. The same can be said about white Americans. They have fled the inner cities for the suburbs and the suburbs for the town and the towns for yet other towns. Eventually, there will be nowhere to run to and nowhere to hide. Then what? I hold an ember of hope that, with his back to the wall, the white male will shake the dust off his manliness and revert to an earlier state of being – when he will be worthy of the name “man”. I hold some hope that the white female, with her back to the wall, will tire of being the plaything of men of color. That she will remember how all the great things whites have accomplished could not have been done if not for the power of her womb. At that point, she will be reborn and merit the name “woman”.
I’ve often claimed that there is a link between the hatred leftists have for the white race, on the one hand, and their ceaseless yearning for a return to nature on the other. One need not be an expert demographer to conclude that a truly global economy, with free movement of people, will eventually result in the countless masses from failed societies migrating to more successful societies and overwhelming the latter. Ostensibly, the leftist holds that there are no meaningful differences between the races. Indeed, he rejects the concept of “race” entirely (except when it suits his convenience of course). This is why he is not bothered by the eventual colonization, of the entire world, by blacks. Presented with this possibility, he will laugh. He laughs for two reasons: Firstly because he doesn’t think such a thing possible – much as he once laughed at the idea that the U.S. would become majority non-white. Secondly because he doesn’t see that it would matter anyhow; after all, “we’re all the same”.
With the current arrangement, blacks will inherit the Earth because of two things: they have the most babies and, due to their lower average I.Q. and higher impulsiveness/testosterone, their societies are generally not as successful as other societies. Since their societies tend to be chaotic, crime-ridden and poor, they will be net exporters of people; few non-blacks would choose to live among them given a choice. Over the course of time, their excess babies will spread throughout the globe and steadily blacken their host countries. We would do well to look carefully at successful black societies and try to find ways to clone them in other places – but that is a topic for another post.
I do not believe that the above scenario is lost upon the leftist elites. As a matter of fact, I think it quite likely that they view the black colonization of the Earth as a means to an end: our return to nature. Once all nations are sufficiently blackened, the elites will be able to control Earth’s population with great ease. Not only will they be able to control it, they will be able to reduce it. They aim to reduce our population to such an extent that nature will reclaim what it has lost over the last few hundred years. As a matter of fact, without majority white nations to prop up third world countries and to feed their starving millions, the elites needn’t do anything. All they’ll have to do is sit back and watch as the Earth’s population dwindles of its own accord. Many will starve and many more will wither away from disease. Yet more will be killed in wars – wars for fresh water and food. In their eyes, all this is a good thing. The very last thing a black person should want is the destruction of white nations and the Western societies that they make possible. If blacks believe they are suffering now, let them wait and see how much worse it will be without whites to give them sanctuary and aid.
After all is said and done, we can rest assured that the elites will be protected in their guarded, gated communities (or perhaps deep underground). We can also rest assured that most of those elites will be white. They will be few and they will probably be evil but they will still carry white genes and, the Earth being empty as it is, they will want children. Even a handful of people can go forth and repopulate the Earth – so I would not give up so easily.
A gentleman by the name of Diamed the roadless writes:
“After twenty years of lobbying for political improvements for the white majority, Amren, Vdare, and their ilk have achieved nothing. In fact, everything has gotten irretrievably worse in all categories. Restoring America is like putting humpty dumpty back together again. The generations born and raised today don't even have any concept of what America's past was like. If they learn anything about the past, it's that it was wholly evil and repugnant. Nor do the young of today have any knowledge or connection to their European homelands. They are completely rootless, tradition-less, and atomized.”
He claims that, in the end, advanced technology will reign supreme, that we shall be replaced by androids or something to that effect. Follow the link above and read the whole column – if you don’t mind being depressed. One of the claims he debunks is that “worse is better”. Indeed, many have pointed to South Africa as proof that virtually nothing can awaken the slumbering white masses, even as they are slaughtered, raped and marginalized to the extreme. One might counter that South Africa cannot serve as proof of white apathy and obliviousness because a white South African can always aspire to escape to safer, more tranquil regions. Indeed many have already done so. The same can be said about white Americans. They have fled the inner cities for the suburbs and the suburbs for the town and the towns for yet other towns. Eventually, there will be nowhere to run to and nowhere to hide. Then what? I hold an ember of hope that, with his back to the wall, the white male will shake the dust off his manliness and revert to an earlier state of being – when he will be worthy of the name “man”. I hold some hope that the white female, with her back to the wall, will tire of being the plaything of men of color. That she will remember how all the great things whites have accomplished could not have been done if not for the power of her womb. At that point, she will be reborn and merit the name “woman”.
I’ve often claimed that there is a link between the hatred leftists have for the white race, on the one hand, and their ceaseless yearning for a return to nature on the other. One need not be an expert demographer to conclude that a truly global economy, with free movement of people, will eventually result in the countless masses from failed societies migrating to more successful societies and overwhelming the latter. Ostensibly, the leftist holds that there are no meaningful differences between the races. Indeed, he rejects the concept of “race” entirely (except when it suits his convenience of course). This is why he is not bothered by the eventual colonization, of the entire world, by blacks. Presented with this possibility, he will laugh. He laughs for two reasons: Firstly because he doesn’t think such a thing possible – much as he once laughed at the idea that the U.S. would become majority non-white. Secondly because he doesn’t see that it would matter anyhow; after all, “we’re all the same”.
With the current arrangement, blacks will inherit the Earth because of two things: they have the most babies and, due to their lower average I.Q. and higher impulsiveness/testosterone, their societies are generally not as successful as other societies. Since their societies tend to be chaotic, crime-ridden and poor, they will be net exporters of people; few non-blacks would choose to live among them given a choice. Over the course of time, their excess babies will spread throughout the globe and steadily blacken their host countries. We would do well to look carefully at successful black societies and try to find ways to clone them in other places – but that is a topic for another post.
I do not believe that the above scenario is lost upon the leftist elites. As a matter of fact, I think it quite likely that they view the black colonization of the Earth as a means to an end: our return to nature. Once all nations are sufficiently blackened, the elites will be able to control Earth’s population with great ease. Not only will they be able to control it, they will be able to reduce it. They aim to reduce our population to such an extent that nature will reclaim what it has lost over the last few hundred years. As a matter of fact, without majority white nations to prop up third world countries and to feed their starving millions, the elites needn’t do anything. All they’ll have to do is sit back and watch as the Earth’s population dwindles of its own accord. Many will starve and many more will wither away from disease. Yet more will be killed in wars – wars for fresh water and food. In their eyes, all this is a good thing. The very last thing a black person should want is the destruction of white nations and the Western societies that they make possible. If blacks believe they are suffering now, let them wait and see how much worse it will be without whites to give them sanctuary and aid.
After all is said and done, we can rest assured that the elites will be protected in their guarded, gated communities (or perhaps deep underground). We can also rest assured that most of those elites will be white. They will be few and they will probably be evil but they will still carry white genes and, the Earth being empty as it is, they will want children. Even a handful of people can go forth and repopulate the Earth – so I would not give up so easily.
Using "A Conversation About Race" effectively
A few months ago, I purchased "A Conversation About Race" and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Within a short time, I had no less than six people watch it at my home. After mentioning it to my boss, I offered to lend him the DVD. He found it thought-provoking and agreed with Greg Bodeker on just about every count. Since then, I've had at least ten other co-workers borrow the DVD and watch it. In fact, it hasn't seen the doors of my home in several months. It seems to me that this valuable tool would be wasted gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. My point, in all this, is not to brag but to encourage my readers to do the same. It's probably a good idea to make sure that all transfers, of the DVD, take place outside of your actual work environment. The parking lot might be a good place. It's probably also a good idea to avoid drawing the attention of non-whites - just so you won't have to do any unnecessary explaining.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Racism in our daily lives...
Our company decided to fund a scholarship and:
This blatant racism was brought to my attention by none other than my boss, who found it insulting that he (being a white male) would be considered a second-class citizen in the eyes of his employer. While this was being discussed amongst us, I took advantage of the situation, trying to recruit some of my co-workers to join me downtown with signs denouncing anti-white discrimination (though not, specifically, our employer). There were no serious takers though. One man equated such a protest with being neo-Nazi or skin-head. It was asked why it is considered alright to discriminate against whites so openly and to such a degree. My answer was, of course, that it is because only whites allow themselves to be trampled upon.
Preference will be given to women and applicants of minority heritage; if no eligible female or minority student applies, a total of two scholarships will be awarded to other students.
This blatant racism was brought to my attention by none other than my boss, who found it insulting that he (being a white male) would be considered a second-class citizen in the eyes of his employer. While this was being discussed amongst us, I took advantage of the situation, trying to recruit some of my co-workers to join me downtown with signs denouncing anti-white discrimination (though not, specifically, our employer). There were no serious takers though. One man equated such a protest with being neo-Nazi or skin-head. It was asked why it is considered alright to discriminate against whites so openly and to such a degree. My answer was, of course, that it is because only whites allow themselves to be trampled upon.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Changing our tactics pt. 2
The last time I posted about changing our tactics, people came up with some worthy goals involving immigration
Changing our tactics pt. 2
After I recently posted about changing our tactics, people commented with worthy suggestions. Those suggestions related to immigration law, the education system and the media. While all those are worthy goals, I think there are more effective, and realistic, things we can do right away.
First of all, we need to set up a fund (we can call it a "scholarship") from which sums are awarded based on Educational Blitzkrieg Attacks. These E.B.A.'s would have to accomplish certain things and avoid certain things.
They must be directed at children or young people. They must be composed of effective, accurate and positive sound bites. They must attract a certain amount of attention. They must be done in a fun and cheerful manner (ideally with a smile). At least two people should participate, ideally three (one to document it on video).
They cannot be dangerous, illegal or hostile in any way. They should not appear suspicious or sneaky. They must not be negative, hateful or "anti" anybody.
An ideal E.B.A. would be to wait outside a school when classes are dismissed for the day. When the children are out and about, they will be treated to the sound of a bull-horn saying things like "Be proud of your European heritage! Your heritage is precious!" This would last only a few moments. Wait a few days, or weeks, and then do it again - but with a different, related message. With any luck, those words will get some of the children thinking and asking questions. We are forced to pay taxes so that government can pollute the minds of our children with leftist garbage. The least we can do in return is give those kids some truth.
Another E.B.A. would be in the form of fliers. These fliers would be colorful and cartoonish. Each one might highlight a different famous white person. At the bottom, the bold caption might read "Your European ancestors did much to be proud of!" I know many will disagree with me on this, but I believe it is better to use the word "European" than "white". These fliers could be given away with toys - but the child would have to listen to a minute or two of European accomplishments before getting the toy.
More adult-oriented fliers would be used with college and high school students. Perhaps some of them would mention the plight of whites in South Africa - or even America (as long as it doesn't mention other races by name or inference). We want to be careful so that nobody can accuse us of spreading hate amongst children. It might be a good idea to set up a booth, near a high school, with music. In exchange for a free school supply or an i-tune gift card, the student would have to listen to a couple of minutes of European history and pride. When adults walk up and ask "what are you doing?" The answer would be "We are trying to raise awareness of European-American heritage." Say it with a smile and offer to share some information with the adult as well.
Many are not willing, or able, to participate in such activities. But there is no need for them to feel left out; they can always donate to the E.B.A. fund and encourage others to do so. The fund will provide a monetary award to those who can document that they participated in such activities. If hundreds of occurrences, like those described above, take place all over America people will start to notice. Sooner or later there will even be local news coverage. This sort of movement would be like a Tea Party for white activists. A campaign like this would be wholesome, American and guaranteed to get results - because we can blog about national policy until we're blue in the face but, outside of our own circles, few care. Our future is with our youth and our youth is at school - so this is where they must be reached.
First of all, we need to set up a fund (we can call it a "scholarship") from which sums are awarded based on Educational Blitzkrieg Attacks. These E.B.A.'s would have to accomplish certain things and avoid certain things.
They must be directed at children or young people. They must be composed of effective, accurate and positive sound bites. They must attract a certain amount of attention. They must be done in a fun and cheerful manner (ideally with a smile). At least two people should participate, ideally three (one to document it on video).
They cannot be dangerous, illegal or hostile in any way. They should not appear suspicious or sneaky. They must not be negative, hateful or "anti" anybody.
An ideal E.B.A. would be to wait outside a school when classes are dismissed for the day. When the children are out and about, they will be treated to the sound of a bull-horn saying things like "Be proud of your European heritage! Your heritage is precious!" This would last only a few moments. Wait a few days, or weeks, and then do it again - but with a different, related message. With any luck, those words will get some of the children thinking and asking questions. We are forced to pay taxes so that government can pollute the minds of our children with leftist garbage. The least we can do in return is give those kids some truth.
Another E.B.A. would be in the form of fliers. These fliers would be colorful and cartoonish. Each one might highlight a different famous white person. At the bottom, the bold caption might read "Your European ancestors did much to be proud of!" I know many will disagree with me on this, but I believe it is better to use the word "European" than "white". These fliers could be given away with toys - but the child would have to listen to a minute or two of European accomplishments before getting the toy.
More adult-oriented fliers would be used with college and high school students. Perhaps some of them would mention the plight of whites in South Africa - or even America (as long as it doesn't mention other races by name or inference). We want to be careful so that nobody can accuse us of spreading hate amongst children. It might be a good idea to set up a booth, near a high school, with music. In exchange for a free school supply or an i-tune gift card, the student would have to listen to a couple of minutes of European history and pride. When adults walk up and ask "what are you doing?" The answer would be "We are trying to raise awareness of European-American heritage." Say it with a smile and offer to share some information with the adult as well.
Many are not willing, or able, to participate in such activities. But there is no need for them to feel left out; they can always donate to the E.B.A. fund and encourage others to do so. The fund will provide a monetary award to those who can document that they participated in such activities. If hundreds of occurrences, like those described above, take place all over America people will start to notice. Sooner or later there will even be local news coverage. This sort of movement would be like a Tea Party for white activists. A campaign like this would be wholesome, American and guaranteed to get results - because we can blog about national policy until we're blue in the face but, outside of our own circles, few care. Our future is with our youth and our youth is at school - so this is where they must be reached.
Dialect and culture
Few things can match the sadness of the extinction of an ancient language. When a human is on his deathbed, his friends and loved ones are there to bid him farewell. He says his final words and passes amid weeping and bowed heads. But when a language is on its deathbed, its natural heirs carry on obliviously even as they strengthen the life of its murderer – by giving their stolen breath to form words of the alien tongue. But the alien tongue does not even need their contributions. English would have survived perfectly well without stealing Irish children from Gaelic. Arabic would still have flourished without those last few Aramaic speakers. Spanish would still be doing quite well without speakers of those Amerindian tribal languages.
While the passing of a language is tragic even when its speakers willingly give it up in favor of a more dominant one, it is even worse when the stronger language is forced upon a vanquished population. I think that the demise of a dialect is also a tragedy. It is symbolic of the decline of the culture that produced it. When I lived in Israel I fought hard for the preservation of authentic Semitic Hebrew. It was an uphill struggle, with the entire weight of government, educational institutions and the media against me. Still, I was not alone and had some success. Similarly, Southern English has always held a place in my heart. It is pleasing to the ear and represents the authentic America. It is also subject to powerful forces that wish to eradicate it: the mainstream media, government and the education system.
One organization, which valiantly fights for its linguistic heritage, is the League of the South. This is from their website, DixieNet.org:
I highly recommend reading all of chapter seven, linked to above and I applaud their efforts. It is disturbing that, at a time that Southern American English is under siege, “Ebonics” is proliferating among young people. Even though it is true that “Ebonics” is largely derived from Southern American English, currently it is the embodiment of something radically different. A dialect is like clothing for a culture and is symbolic thereof. So, of these two dialects – Southern and “Ebonics” – which one should America be promoting amongst its youth?
While the passing of a language is tragic even when its speakers willingly give it up in favor of a more dominant one, it is even worse when the stronger language is forced upon a vanquished population. I think that the demise of a dialect is also a tragedy. It is symbolic of the decline of the culture that produced it. When I lived in Israel I fought hard for the preservation of authentic Semitic Hebrew. It was an uphill struggle, with the entire weight of government, educational institutions and the media against me. Still, I was not alone and had some success. Similarly, Southern English has always held a place in my heart. It is pleasing to the ear and represents the authentic America. It is also subject to powerful forces that wish to eradicate it: the mainstream media, government and the education system.
One organization, which valiantly fights for its linguistic heritage, is the League of the South. This is from their website, DixieNet.org:
In an 18 June 1998 issue of the Charleston (S.C.) News and Courier, there appeared an article entitled 'Are Accents Holding Us Back in Life?' It begins with the questions 'How much is your Southern accent worth?' and 'Could keeping it cost you a chance at a lucrative career?' A professor at Mars Hill College in North Carolina proposes and 'accent modifying' center for Southern college students. She hopes to get funds (a big Federal grant, no doubt?) to study just how much of a Southern accent can hold a person back. Then the 'modifying centers' will reteach Southern students to achieve a 'national standard.' The professor cites the example of a top student who was a sure bet for a graduate fellowship in biomedicine at a top Southern university-until she had her interview, that is. The professor continues: 'She had to go to a secondary institution. It was specifically her accent . . . . They needed her to be able to present at national conferences.' One may question whether it is actually the accent that is wrong or the rank prejudice of the academics who denied the candidate her position on such grounds. One might also pose the question of whether the professor would do better by demonstrating such cases of true discrimination (and might we say, violation of an individual's civil rights?) toward the purpose of eliminating the discrimination rather than the accent. It seems that once again in this crazy time of absurd reversals and values run amok, that the cart is put before the horse, Where too, we might ask, is the academic's professed honouring of diversity-that sacred cow idol of current academia.
I highly recommend reading all of chapter seven, linked to above and I applaud their efforts. It is disturbing that, at a time that Southern American English is under siege, “Ebonics” is proliferating among young people. Even though it is true that “Ebonics” is largely derived from Southern American English, currently it is the embodiment of something radically different. A dialect is like clothing for a culture and is symbolic thereof. So, of these two dialects – Southern and “Ebonics” – which one should America be promoting amongst its youth?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
It is time to change our tactics
What do KKK members, skinheads, David Duke, Don Black, BNP members, Michael Levin and Jared Taylor all have in common? They're all pro-white. Of course they have their differences; some are ignorant thugs while others are refined scholars. Still others focus on politics and others lean toward militant action. Some are religious while others atheist. Perhaps it's time we have a pro-white organization that encompasses all of the above. This organization would only act on matters that are not controversial (among pro-whites): aid to South African whites, helping white orphans, teaching white/Western history and pride, bringing attention to medical issues that affect mainly whites, stamping out violence against whites in American/European cities, increasing the white birth-rate and working toward white homelands for example.
During the last Amren meeting, which was abridged due to persecution, some talk was heard of changing our tactics. While research, blogging and education are all important and should continue, I think it is vital that we consolidate forces as a voting block, as a lobbying group, as a mobile (and reliable) group of protesters and yes, even as an agent of intimidation when necessary.
We no longer have the luxury of being "nice guys in suits" all the time. While in Virginia, I met John Browne of Tip of the Spear and I found him to be inspiring. We need more people like him, who are not afraid to stand up to evil, look it in the eye and say "no more!"
Can we take skin-heads and channel their energy to good use? I don't know but it might be worth trying. There is a lot of pent up anger among young whites, who suffer daily from racist aggression - but they are ignorant of racial truths and know nothing of pro-white organizations. Any "outreach" ideas can be discussed here.
During the last Amren meeting, which was abridged due to persecution, some talk was heard of changing our tactics. While research, blogging and education are all important and should continue, I think it is vital that we consolidate forces as a voting block, as a lobbying group, as a mobile (and reliable) group of protesters and yes, even as an agent of intimidation when necessary.
We no longer have the luxury of being "nice guys in suits" all the time. While in Virginia, I met John Browne of Tip of the Spear and I found him to be inspiring. We need more people like him, who are not afraid to stand up to evil, look it in the eye and say "no more!"
Can we take skin-heads and channel their energy to good use? I don't know but it might be worth trying. There is a lot of pent up anger among young whites, who suffer daily from racist aggression - but they are ignorant of racial truths and know nothing of pro-white organizations. Any "outreach" ideas can be discussed here.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The struggle for Hebrew
There is much to say about the sorry state of “Hebrew” in Israel. What now passes for “Hebrew” is naught but a garbled pigeon-English that is an insult to the ears, sounds like a comatose Frenchman choking on a (still living) frog and shouldn’t even be called a “language” at all. Of course there are individuals, in Israel, who are better than that but practically all Israelis under the age of 40 or so, who have been processed by the education system there, speak in the laziest manner possible. Israeli “Hebrew” as used on radio is certainly better but still a far cry from what it should be. All said, if every Israeli would just give up “Hebrew” and speak Arabic instead, they’d probably be closer to real Hebrew than what they have now. Apparently back in 1979 there was still hope and a man by the name of Dr. Abraham Matalon wrote a book about it. Dr. Matalon was born in Egypt and moved to Israel in 1949, where he was active in promoting the Hebrew language. I do not know if he is still alive. As far as I know, this book has never been translated into English. I’ve translated only the forward (minus the last couple of paragraphs) and here it is:
This book is an expanded version of a pamphlet that was published in 1965: “The Degeneration of Hebrew in Israel”. Many were shocked that we chose such a title for the pamphlet. For those who considered this to be a testimony of contempt for our language, in fact we come to redeem the disgrace of our beloved (language), to demand the return of its crown to its head and the restoration of its lost honor.
Everybody agrees that the situation of our language is steadily deteriorating, in vocabulary and the wonton intrusion of foreign words, and syntax – which is vulnerable to foreign influences without end, and in the realm of pronunciation. This is all because of a lack of coordination and rules.
Prior to the foundation of the State of Israel, it was common opinion that a struggle for the restoration of the language is a worthy cause, just like activism for the independence of Israel in its land. From the time that the State of Israel was announced, people became complacent for we had “achieved our goal”. A few demanded that the Zionist movement be disbanded, for its goal had been met according to them. Others sought to sever the historic ties between the Jews of Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora, claiming that there is now an “Israeli identity” which is distinct from the dispersed Jewish people. Others even lost interest in fighting for the continuation of revitalization of Hebrew, since it was announced to be the national language of Israel. Voices were heard claiming that Hebrew need not be preserved in our mouths for we can expect, and make possible, the emergence of a new language that would replace “traditional” Hebrew. In order to facilitate the morphological, grammatical and phonetic replacements of Hebrew, they sought to free the people from “outdated” conventions.
Thirty years after the establishment of the State of Israel, there is still difficulty in defining three primary concepts in the life of our people and we ask: Who is a Jew? What are the boundaries of the State of Israel? What is the preferable pronunciation of Hebrew? The lack of historical, and linguistic, norms against these questions brings deep and great confusion to our society and even blemishes the faith of many in (the concepts of our) people, nation and language.
Even though the correct pronunciation was fixed at the beginning of the century, some educators rose up against rules that were contrary to what they were used to and they cast doubt upon the authority of those who had defined the correct pronunciation. New rules were not set and they argued that a solution not be reached until a later time. However, since the language was a living one, it required immediate solutions to unprecedented problems that arose. When people are appointed to teach the rules of a language and to publicize them, we would get expected answers – or, at least, close to those that would be expected. But when there are no rules, we get answers that are shocking and undesirable, that cripple the language’s ability to develop in ways that are faithful to its past and its foundations. Without fixed rules, behold “each man does what is right in his own eyes.” Each teacher teaches as he sees fit… and they all serve as a bad example for the ears of the people. Hebrew pronunciation is divided by the tribes of Israel and its statuses, according to societal dynamics. The mix of pronunciations in Israel might bring about a situation where “one man cannot understand the speech of his fellow” as was said about the people of Babylon in ancient times.
Hebrew, in our days, is like a maiden by a fork in the road under a flourishing tree: anybody who wishes has his way with her; but the city leaders see and say nothing. Verily it is so with Hebrew these days, our age can be called “the generation of chaos.”
Within the thirty years of statehood that have elapsed, groups of Jews have migrated here who have packed, within their baggage, the trappings of non-Western culture. From the beginning people arrived from different cultural backgrounds. Since solutions were not found to generally accommodate the social habits of these people, many problems developed and even worsened.
There were educators and public servants, in Israel, who believed that anything that had any hint of non-Western culture – must be considered “primitive”, and anybody who wished to be considered “modern” would hasten to distance himself from those things. There came to be a negative connotation and wholesale rejection of the family structure, of tradition and religion, of mannerisms, of traditional garb and cuisine. The fire of criticism spread to the Hebrew pronunciation of these Jews who had come from the lands of Islam. Their sons were handed over to educators who flooded their ears, as if it were some kind of wonder, a pronunciation that was different from that of their forefathers and that was contrary to the correct pronunciation. In the hearts of the students was solidified the conviction that they must abandon the pronunciation of their ancestors as if it were a despicable thing, that they must join the procession to become “modern” toward the “new” Hebrew. Just as they were taught to disdain the traditions of their fathers, so too were they taught to hold the correct pronunciation in contempt, since it was represented as primitive.
We should feel fortunate and say that, within the last few years, there has been a change for the good in Israeli society. They no longer put off societal problems until “time does what it will”. Many community leaders are prepared to admit that the path we took in the past, the wholesale throwing into the sea of all aspects of Oriental Jewish culture, is not acceptable. The drunkenness with “Western” culture is gradually subsiding with the revelation that some evils were gotten from there: drugs, abandonment of moral principles, spiritual destruction and a lack of faith in values. Will this wave of sobriety reach also to the realm of language, so that we may continue in our efforts to restore Hebrew to its correct pronunciation?
Our generation is troubled with severe physical and political problems: is it possible, within this situation to make heard the cry of Hebrew and its pronunciation?
Every language struggle, amongst peoples, arose and succeeded according to the degree with which it was integrated within their societal struggles. A language war is not waged on its own. The Hebrew language rose back to life as an essential vessel for the political rebirth of Israel. The struggle for the correct pronunciation will rise and succeed when it is seen as a vital force for the political rebirth and when it is strongly connected to Israeli society. At the same time that hopes of peace are being felt across the sea and over the heavens, so too does the demand for a correct Hebrew pronunciation go hand in hand with the need to bring Hebrew and Arabic cultures closer together.
Like any societal question, pushing it off for another day cannot solve the problem of pronunciation. On the contrary, every delay only makes the matter worse. The problem of pronunciation is tied to the question of Hebrew script, for the way to effective communication is double: hearing and seeing, the ear hears and the eye sees. It is necessary for the methods of script and writing bring about accurate reading, according to the demands of correct pronunciation. We can find a solution to the problem of Hebrew script without vocalization (vowel marks). Writing “kethiv maleh” (using some consonants excessively in order to compensate for the lack of vowels) is not the best way.
“The Hebrew Pronunciation in its struggle” by Dr. Abraham Matalon. Tel Aviv 1979
Forward
This book is an expanded version of a pamphlet that was published in 1965: “The Degeneration of Hebrew in Israel”. Many were shocked that we chose such a title for the pamphlet. For those who considered this to be a testimony of contempt for our language, in fact we come to redeem the disgrace of our beloved (language), to demand the return of its crown to its head and the restoration of its lost honor.
Everybody agrees that the situation of our language is steadily deteriorating, in vocabulary and the wonton intrusion of foreign words, and syntax – which is vulnerable to foreign influences without end, and in the realm of pronunciation. This is all because of a lack of coordination and rules.
Prior to the foundation of the State of Israel, it was common opinion that a struggle for the restoration of the language is a worthy cause, just like activism for the independence of Israel in its land. From the time that the State of Israel was announced, people became complacent for we had “achieved our goal”. A few demanded that the Zionist movement be disbanded, for its goal had been met according to them. Others sought to sever the historic ties between the Jews of Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora, claiming that there is now an “Israeli identity” which is distinct from the dispersed Jewish people. Others even lost interest in fighting for the continuation of revitalization of Hebrew, since it was announced to be the national language of Israel. Voices were heard claiming that Hebrew need not be preserved in our mouths for we can expect, and make possible, the emergence of a new language that would replace “traditional” Hebrew. In order to facilitate the morphological, grammatical and phonetic replacements of Hebrew, they sought to free the people from “outdated” conventions.
Thirty years after the establishment of the State of Israel, there is still difficulty in defining three primary concepts in the life of our people and we ask: Who is a Jew? What are the boundaries of the State of Israel? What is the preferable pronunciation of Hebrew? The lack of historical, and linguistic, norms against these questions brings deep and great confusion to our society and even blemishes the faith of many in (the concepts of our) people, nation and language.
Even though the correct pronunciation was fixed at the beginning of the century, some educators rose up against rules that were contrary to what they were used to and they cast doubt upon the authority of those who had defined the correct pronunciation. New rules were not set and they argued that a solution not be reached until a later time. However, since the language was a living one, it required immediate solutions to unprecedented problems that arose. When people are appointed to teach the rules of a language and to publicize them, we would get expected answers – or, at least, close to those that would be expected. But when there are no rules, we get answers that are shocking and undesirable, that cripple the language’s ability to develop in ways that are faithful to its past and its foundations. Without fixed rules, behold “each man does what is right in his own eyes.” Each teacher teaches as he sees fit… and they all serve as a bad example for the ears of the people. Hebrew pronunciation is divided by the tribes of Israel and its statuses, according to societal dynamics. The mix of pronunciations in Israel might bring about a situation where “one man cannot understand the speech of his fellow” as was said about the people of Babylon in ancient times.
Hebrew, in our days, is like a maiden by a fork in the road under a flourishing tree: anybody who wishes has his way with her; but the city leaders see and say nothing. Verily it is so with Hebrew these days, our age can be called “the generation of chaos.”
Within the thirty years of statehood that have elapsed, groups of Jews have migrated here who have packed, within their baggage, the trappings of non-Western culture. From the beginning people arrived from different cultural backgrounds. Since solutions were not found to generally accommodate the social habits of these people, many problems developed and even worsened.
There were educators and public servants, in Israel, who believed that anything that had any hint of non-Western culture – must be considered “primitive”, and anybody who wished to be considered “modern” would hasten to distance himself from those things. There came to be a negative connotation and wholesale rejection of the family structure, of tradition and religion, of mannerisms, of traditional garb and cuisine. The fire of criticism spread to the Hebrew pronunciation of these Jews who had come from the lands of Islam. Their sons were handed over to educators who flooded their ears, as if it were some kind of wonder, a pronunciation that was different from that of their forefathers and that was contrary to the correct pronunciation. In the hearts of the students was solidified the conviction that they must abandon the pronunciation of their ancestors as if it were a despicable thing, that they must join the procession to become “modern” toward the “new” Hebrew. Just as they were taught to disdain the traditions of their fathers, so too were they taught to hold the correct pronunciation in contempt, since it was represented as primitive.
We should feel fortunate and say that, within the last few years, there has been a change for the good in Israeli society. They no longer put off societal problems until “time does what it will”. Many community leaders are prepared to admit that the path we took in the past, the wholesale throwing into the sea of all aspects of Oriental Jewish culture, is not acceptable. The drunkenness with “Western” culture is gradually subsiding with the revelation that some evils were gotten from there: drugs, abandonment of moral principles, spiritual destruction and a lack of faith in values. Will this wave of sobriety reach also to the realm of language, so that we may continue in our efforts to restore Hebrew to its correct pronunciation?
Our generation is troubled with severe physical and political problems: is it possible, within this situation to make heard the cry of Hebrew and its pronunciation?
Every language struggle, amongst peoples, arose and succeeded according to the degree with which it was integrated within their societal struggles. A language war is not waged on its own. The Hebrew language rose back to life as an essential vessel for the political rebirth of Israel. The struggle for the correct pronunciation will rise and succeed when it is seen as a vital force for the political rebirth and when it is strongly connected to Israeli society. At the same time that hopes of peace are being felt across the sea and over the heavens, so too does the demand for a correct Hebrew pronunciation go hand in hand with the need to bring Hebrew and Arabic cultures closer together.
Like any societal question, pushing it off for another day cannot solve the problem of pronunciation. On the contrary, every delay only makes the matter worse. The problem of pronunciation is tied to the question of Hebrew script, for the way to effective communication is double: hearing and seeing, the ear hears and the eye sees. It is necessary for the methods of script and writing bring about accurate reading, according to the demands of correct pronunciation. We can find a solution to the problem of Hebrew script without vocalization (vowel marks). Writing “kethiv maleh” (using some consonants excessively in order to compensate for the lack of vowels) is not the best way.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Rednecks, leftists, blacks and racism
I wrote this a while back and the truth is my experience with rednecks is rather limited. So please, any rednecks out there, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this:
There is an ongoing feud between rednecks and leftists concerning racism and blacks and, being neither of those myself, I'd like to provoke some thought on the matter.
Both groups have been guilty of using poor English, flinging personal epithets and selectively citing facts.
Rednecks, though lacking scholarly research to back up their claims, have an overall negative impression of blacks - but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't recall seeing one paint all blacks with the same brush. In other words, even the most "racist" redneck will concede that there are some decent blacks out there. Therefore, technically speaking, the above negative impressions cannot be characterized as stereotypes but rather generalizations. Those generalizations (criminality, impulsiveness, hyper-sexuality, lower intelligence, materialism and lack of altruism) are accurate on a group level and there is much research to back them up. But rednecks are ignorant of that research, relying instead upon tradition and personal experience. In this sense, a person can be both ignorant and right at the same time - but, since the media is heavily leftist controlled, rednecks are assumed to be both ignorant and wrong. This is the message that is pounded into the heads of the masses through all major media outlets. This non-stop onslaught of propaganda serves to inflame the racialist attitudes of rednecks; it is natural to become angry when your rulers and their media puppets persistently contradict something you hold as self-evident. Hence the angry outbursts and the heavy use of invectives by rednecks - which further strengthens leftist claims that the former are ignorant and wrong.
As for leftists, neither the weight of science nor Anecdotal Evidence is on their side. What they do have on their side is the entire weight of government, well-funded private institutions, institutes of education and the media. Countless movies, TV shows, magazine articles and official literature parrot the message that to be a racial egalitarian is to be enlightened but to acknowledge racial differences in behavior and I.Q. is to be ignorant - and wrong. The main line of defense, for a leftist, is to ignore the obvious. He will say things like "whites date blacks, Asians date whites... it's all the same, one big mishmash because it really doesn't matter". He ignores the fact that there are clear patterns within inter-racial dating. He ignores the almost total absence of Asian male/ black female couples. He ignores the fact that around 80% of black/ white couples involve black men and white woman. He ignores evidence that neither poverty nor white racism is to blame for high levels of black crime. He ignores the fact that white women are being targeted, by blacks, for rape at astounding levels while black women are rarely targeted by whites. He ignores deliberate government deception when it comes to crime statistics. He will not read any of the numerous scholarly books documenting racial differences. From the word "ignore" we get "ignorance". Not just ignorance but willful ignorance. Yes, it is possible to be trendy, "enlightened", cultured, educated - and wrong.
There is an ongoing feud between rednecks and leftists concerning racism and blacks and, being neither of those myself, I'd like to provoke some thought on the matter.
Both groups have been guilty of using poor English, flinging personal epithets and selectively citing facts.
Rednecks, though lacking scholarly research to back up their claims, have an overall negative impression of blacks - but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't recall seeing one paint all blacks with the same brush. In other words, even the most "racist" redneck will concede that there are some decent blacks out there. Therefore, technically speaking, the above negative impressions cannot be characterized as stereotypes but rather generalizations. Those generalizations (criminality, impulsiveness, hyper-sexuality, lower intelligence, materialism and lack of altruism) are accurate on a group level and there is much research to back them up. But rednecks are ignorant of that research, relying instead upon tradition and personal experience. In this sense, a person can be both ignorant and right at the same time - but, since the media is heavily leftist controlled, rednecks are assumed to be both ignorant and wrong. This is the message that is pounded into the heads of the masses through all major media outlets. This non-stop onslaught of propaganda serves to inflame the racialist attitudes of rednecks; it is natural to become angry when your rulers and their media puppets persistently contradict something you hold as self-evident. Hence the angry outbursts and the heavy use of invectives by rednecks - which further strengthens leftist claims that the former are ignorant and wrong.
As for leftists, neither the weight of science nor Anecdotal Evidence is on their side. What they do have on their side is the entire weight of government, well-funded private institutions, institutes of education and the media. Countless movies, TV shows, magazine articles and official literature parrot the message that to be a racial egalitarian is to be enlightened but to acknowledge racial differences in behavior and I.Q. is to be ignorant - and wrong. The main line of defense, for a leftist, is to ignore the obvious. He will say things like "whites date blacks, Asians date whites... it's all the same, one big mishmash because it really doesn't matter". He ignores the fact that there are clear patterns within inter-racial dating. He ignores the almost total absence of Asian male/ black female couples. He ignores the fact that around 80% of black/ white couples involve black men and white woman. He ignores evidence that neither poverty nor white racism is to blame for high levels of black crime. He ignores the fact that white women are being targeted, by blacks, for rape at astounding levels while black women are rarely targeted by whites. He ignores deliberate government deception when it comes to crime statistics. He will not read any of the numerous scholarly books documenting racial differences. From the word "ignore" we get "ignorance". Not just ignorance but willful ignorance. Yes, it is possible to be trendy, "enlightened", cultured, educated - and wrong.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Debating the Holocaust
For some decades the consensus has been that the greatest calamity to befall the Jewish people has been the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews met their cruel demise. Therefore, if you want to make a Jew happy, tell him that far fewer than six million Jews died in that holocaust. Surely, once you explain that there are difficulties with the official account of those events, he will eagerly and joyously soak up every word you have to say on the matter.
Alas, this is not likely to be the case. Instead of paying attention to what you have to say, he will probably mock you and call you a "neo-Nazi". Not only will your words not be heard, but you will be persecuted for saying them. In some countries, you can get thrown in prison for speaking them. This is because the Nazi Holocaust has morphed into a religion of its own - the vast majority of Jews pay far more credence to the official account of the holocaust than they do to the Torah. Even if you don't actually dispute the official version, but suspect less than noble intentions for those who promote it, you can lose your job and become a pariah. Just ask Norman Finkelstein.
Many years ago, I decided to abstain from reading about the holocaust or watching any movies about it. To do so would only bring me pain and I saw no benefit in torturing my soul over a past I could do nothing about. I even refrained from asking the survivors I've known about their experiences. Some of them bore the infamous numbers tattooed onto their arms. This was testimony enough. Recently, however, a friend sent me the book "Debating the Holocaust" by Thomas Dalton, ph.D. I reasoned that reading about how so many Jews did not die would not cause depression - and I was right.
At the beginning of the book, Dalton feigns impartiality and tells us how he is going to present both sides of each issue. However, as the book progresses, it becomes clear that the author favors the revisionist side. If his claims about the tactics of the pro-"orthodox" camp are accurate, then we should not blame him for this. After all, if one side of a debate ignores the most powerful arguments of the other while focusing only on the weakest ones - and doesn't even do a good job at that - is that side worthy of equal respect?
One of the statistics, cited in the book, that I found most shocking was the sheer number of books about the holocaust that are published each year. They run into the tens of thousands if we include all languages. At this rate, it would not be surprising if each holocaust victim ended up having his own book eventually. A recent visit to the largest book store in the U.S., Powell's Books, verified this. There were dozens of holocaust books and, indeed, they seemed to outnumber those on Judaism proper. Will I make it my life's mission to disprove the official account of the holocaust? Will I spend years poring over those countless books in order to gain more insight? No and no. I am perfectly content with the knowledge that far fewer Jews may have been victimized than I'd been led to believe until now. This is a comforting thought.
Even after reading the book, I am not 100% convinced that the revisionists are correct. But, in my mind, the single most damning piece of evidence against proponents of the traditional view is that they resort to throwing revisionists in prison, assassinating their character, destroying their careers and disrupting their meetings. To me, this behavior is tantamount to an admission that they are being deceitful. To them I say, "if you have nothing to hide, then meet the revisionists in open debate, read their books and answer their objections." I've seen this kind of cowardice before. It is the default tactic of those whose views are based on emotion rather than reason. Since they lack solid arguments to use in a debate, they resort to thuggery and book-burning.
I am glad that there are those who fight for the truth. I applaud people like Thomas Dalton and Norman Finkelstein - because the holocaust continues each day and its victims continue to pile up. These are the Palestinians who are murdered, tortured and whose houses are demolished. The Jewish children who are raised to believe the whole world is out to get them and who are made to relive the suffering of those "six million" who perished. The American and European taxpayers whose money is extorted to perpetuate the racket that the holocaust industry has become.
Alas, this is not likely to be the case. Instead of paying attention to what you have to say, he will probably mock you and call you a "neo-Nazi". Not only will your words not be heard, but you will be persecuted for saying them. In some countries, you can get thrown in prison for speaking them. This is because the Nazi Holocaust has morphed into a religion of its own - the vast majority of Jews pay far more credence to the official account of the holocaust than they do to the Torah. Even if you don't actually dispute the official version, but suspect less than noble intentions for those who promote it, you can lose your job and become a pariah. Just ask Norman Finkelstein.
Many years ago, I decided to abstain from reading about the holocaust or watching any movies about it. To do so would only bring me pain and I saw no benefit in torturing my soul over a past I could do nothing about. I even refrained from asking the survivors I've known about their experiences. Some of them bore the infamous numbers tattooed onto their arms. This was testimony enough. Recently, however, a friend sent me the book "Debating the Holocaust" by Thomas Dalton, ph.D. I reasoned that reading about how so many Jews did not die would not cause depression - and I was right.
At the beginning of the book, Dalton feigns impartiality and tells us how he is going to present both sides of each issue. However, as the book progresses, it becomes clear that the author favors the revisionist side. If his claims about the tactics of the pro-"orthodox" camp are accurate, then we should not blame him for this. After all, if one side of a debate ignores the most powerful arguments of the other while focusing only on the weakest ones - and doesn't even do a good job at that - is that side worthy of equal respect?
One of the statistics, cited in the book, that I found most shocking was the sheer number of books about the holocaust that are published each year. They run into the tens of thousands if we include all languages. At this rate, it would not be surprising if each holocaust victim ended up having his own book eventually. A recent visit to the largest book store in the U.S., Powell's Books, verified this. There were dozens of holocaust books and, indeed, they seemed to outnumber those on Judaism proper. Will I make it my life's mission to disprove the official account of the holocaust? Will I spend years poring over those countless books in order to gain more insight? No and no. I am perfectly content with the knowledge that far fewer Jews may have been victimized than I'd been led to believe until now. This is a comforting thought.
Even after reading the book, I am not 100% convinced that the revisionists are correct. But, in my mind, the single most damning piece of evidence against proponents of the traditional view is that they resort to throwing revisionists in prison, assassinating their character, destroying their careers and disrupting their meetings. To me, this behavior is tantamount to an admission that they are being deceitful. To them I say, "if you have nothing to hide, then meet the revisionists in open debate, read their books and answer their objections." I've seen this kind of cowardice before. It is the default tactic of those whose views are based on emotion rather than reason. Since they lack solid arguments to use in a debate, they resort to thuggery and book-burning.
I am glad that there are those who fight for the truth. I applaud people like Thomas Dalton and Norman Finkelstein - because the holocaust continues each day and its victims continue to pile up. These are the Palestinians who are murdered, tortured and whose houses are demolished. The Jewish children who are raised to believe the whole world is out to get them and who are made to relive the suffering of those "six million" who perished. The American and European taxpayers whose money is extorted to perpetuate the racket that the holocaust industry has become.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Science and sensitivity
In Race and Human Evolution, Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari build a case for multiregional evolution. In this scenario, “humanity is an evolving subdivided species with geographically distinct populations.” According to their theory, modern races can trace some of their ancestry to very ancient local forebears. “This Multiregional evolution is a gradualist model, with the primary tenet that humans are a single polytypic species and have been for a very long time into the past… No speciation events seem to separate us from out immediate ancestors, and cladogenesis, the splitting of one species into two, last characterized our lineage at the origin of Homo sapiens some 2 million years ago, when members of what we once called “Homo erectus” first appeared in East Africa. For 2 million years, from the end of the Pliocene until now, ancient and modern Homo sapiens populations are members of the same species.” The multiregional model, not to be confused with polygenism, holds that the various human populations intermingled sufficiently, over the eons, to both transmit all advantageous genes to all populations and to ensure that the human species did not divide further into separate species.
One may surmise that, since the fossil evidence clearly implies that modern human populations are (at least partly) descended from earlier “proto-human” populations that inhabited the same areas, somebody had to address this in such a way as to preserve the orthodox view that racial differences are superficial. There are too many morphological similarities between Neanderthals and modern Europeans (which show a clear chronological transition) to be due to mere chance. The same is true of Asian populations and Asian “proto-humans”. Taken at face value, this evidence throws the whole “race is only skin deep” dogma into disarray. Wolpoff and Caspari tackle this problem creatively by claiming that all hominids, dating back to Homo erectus, are the same species: modern humans.
How do Wolpoff and Caspari define “modern human”? Well… first they start with the “precept” that all living humans are modern:
and:
Here we need to ask, from a purely scientific standpoint, why is it not possible that some contemporary human populations are not entirely “modern”? After all, even according to other anthropologists, it is quite possible that a properly educated Neanderthal could read, write and otherwise function in our society. This alone does not necessarily mean that they are “modern” humans. It is even possible that aliens from outer space might be able to function in human society (perhaps even better than we do) even though they are not human at all. If we examine the overall performance of Australian aborigines in modern times, one could easily imagine Neanderthals doing at least as well. It would appear that their average I.Q. is around 60, among the lowest in the world. To be sure, the term “modern”, even in the world of anthropology, can be a very subjective one. But, if it is to have any meaning at all, let it be based on science. Not sensitivity to the feelings of “living populations”.
One may surmise that, since the fossil evidence clearly implies that modern human populations are (at least partly) descended from earlier “proto-human” populations that inhabited the same areas, somebody had to address this in such a way as to preserve the orthodox view that racial differences are superficial. There are too many morphological similarities between Neanderthals and modern Europeans (which show a clear chronological transition) to be due to mere chance. The same is true of Asian populations and Asian “proto-humans”. Taken at face value, this evidence throws the whole “race is only skin deep” dogma into disarray. Wolpoff and Caspari tackle this problem creatively by claiming that all hominids, dating back to Homo erectus, are the same species: modern humans.
How do Wolpoff and Caspari define “modern human”? Well… first they start with the “precept” that all living humans are modern:
We know that in spite of its incessant use, “modern human” has proven to be an elusive and slippery term to define. There is no consensus on definitions of modernity… We don’t know how “modern human” is defined, because not only are different definitions contradictory, but when definitions of modernity have been proposed for skeletal remains, the inadvertent consequence has been that the definitions successfully excluding archaic groups also exclude some members of contemporary populations, and this, of course, will not do. We must begin with the precept that all living humans are modern! (pg. 344)
and:
This is why it has proved impossible to provide an acceptable definition of modernity. Repeated attempts at a definition based on skeletal variation have failed because when they were applied to skeletal samples, it was found they did not include all recent or living people. How could this happen? It comes back to the importance of Neandertals, because these anatomical definitions are based on the assumption Neandertals were not modern humans. Indeed, they were constructed to exclude Neandertals. However, when the definitions were applied to populations around the world, it was quickly discovered that significant numbers of Holocene and recently living Aboriginal Indigenous Australians were not “modern”. This problem, of course, is not with the Aboriginal Indigenous Australians who are each and every bit as modern as the authors of the definitions, but with the definitions themselves and their focus on Neandertals.
Here we need to ask, from a purely scientific standpoint, why is it not possible that some contemporary human populations are not entirely “modern”? After all, even according to other anthropologists, it is quite possible that a properly educated Neanderthal could read, write and otherwise function in our society. This alone does not necessarily mean that they are “modern” humans. It is even possible that aliens from outer space might be able to function in human society (perhaps even better than we do) even though they are not human at all. If we examine the overall performance of Australian aborigines in modern times, one could easily imagine Neanderthals doing at least as well. It would appear that their average I.Q. is around 60, among the lowest in the world. To be sure, the term “modern”, even in the world of anthropology, can be a very subjective one. But, if it is to have any meaning at all, let it be based on science. Not sensitivity to the feelings of “living populations”.
Statism versus unfettered immigration
Some libertarians naively believe that unfettered immigration would be a good thing and that the State is wrong in limiting the movement of people. So claims Manuel Lora in his strike-the-root column. Of course not all libertarians agree with him; many argue that the best solution would be a total lack of public property. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in Democracy: The God that Failed, argues for complete private ownership of lands. If all lands are private, then any "immigrants" would be trespassers and dealt with accordingly. One problem with this solution is that, presumably, leftists would also be allowed to own property. They could then proceed to invite multitudes of undesirables. Another difficulty is that the people of any particular society may actually want there to be communal land. Are we to force them into private ownership?
The underlying flaw in Lora's logic is that he completely ignores the concept of group rights. The rights of an individual are important - but each individual is partly defined by which groups he belongs to. If you negate the group, then you also negate an important part of the individual. If you completely destroy the culture of an Amazonian tribe, for example, but leave the shaman intact, what really remains of the shaman? His identity was closely linked to that of his tribe. Without his tribe, his life may be meaningless. Even if you went about alienating the rest of his tribe by persuasion, so that each individual acted of his own free will, nevertheless you have violated the rights of the individual shaman.
The word "libertarian" implies a belief in liberty and liberty should be valued not only on the individual level, but also on the group level. Unfettered immigration violates the liberty of successful societies because it will always lead to a large influx of "refugees" from less successful societies. In the end, there would be no successful societies as they would all have descended to the lowest common denominator. That Lora can recommend massive immigration from countries like Haiti - and blame all their problems on socialism - reveals a woeful ignorance of racial reality.
In conclusion, even though the State is responsible for much evil in the world, it does have legitimate functions. One of those functions is to protect its indigenous citizens from being overrun by foreigners. It might even be said that this is its primary function. This claim is eloquently made by Frank Salter in his book On Genetic Interests. I highly recommend it.
The underlying flaw in Lora's logic is that he completely ignores the concept of group rights. The rights of an individual are important - but each individual is partly defined by which groups he belongs to. If you negate the group, then you also negate an important part of the individual. If you completely destroy the culture of an Amazonian tribe, for example, but leave the shaman intact, what really remains of the shaman? His identity was closely linked to that of his tribe. Without his tribe, his life may be meaningless. Even if you went about alienating the rest of his tribe by persuasion, so that each individual acted of his own free will, nevertheless you have violated the rights of the individual shaman.
The word "libertarian" implies a belief in liberty and liberty should be valued not only on the individual level, but also on the group level. Unfettered immigration violates the liberty of successful societies because it will always lead to a large influx of "refugees" from less successful societies. In the end, there would be no successful societies as they would all have descended to the lowest common denominator. That Lora can recommend massive immigration from countries like Haiti - and blame all their problems on socialism - reveals a woeful ignorance of racial reality.
In conclusion, even though the State is responsible for much evil in the world, it does have legitimate functions. One of those functions is to protect its indigenous citizens from being overrun by foreigners. It might even be said that this is its primary function. This claim is eloquently made by Frank Salter in his book On Genetic Interests. I highly recommend it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Race-realism on the sly
There is no doubt that many mainstream scientists are fully aware of racial differences in I.Q. and temperament. Most of them, of course, cannot speak out publicly since this would place in jeopardy their careers and even their safety. Being intelligent people, some of these scientists throw out a hint here and there. Apparently they believe that the masses are smart enough to understand such hints and be nudged, ever so slowly, to a more sensible attitude about race than the moronic racial equalitarianism we are fed constantly. They are, of course, wrong. The vast majority of people are far more interested in sports, reality T.V. shows or the love lives of celebrities than such lofty matters.
One such hint I've noticed recently is the notion that the human brain has been evolving, at an accelerated rate, for the last ten thousand years or so. This qualifies as a "hint" because, by all accounts, racial distinctions have been around for at least ten thousand years and probably for as long as thirty or forty thousand years.
Here is an excerpt from a reputable scientific journal:
So, if civilization has been a catalyst for evolution - and it is obvious that various human populations experienced widely different levels/types of civilizations, including none at all - then it stands to reason that different human populations (races) have evolved differently over the last ten thousand years. Of course, a cursory glance at a Bantu versus a Swede should tell any sensible person that this is the case but the novelty here is the focus on the brain.
Of course, try to get one of those scientists to openly admit what he was hinting at and you'll get silence... or worse.
One such hint I've noticed recently is the notion that the human brain has been evolving, at an accelerated rate, for the last ten thousand years or so. This qualifies as a "hint" because, by all accounts, racial distinctions have been around for at least ten thousand years and probably for as long as thirty or forty thousand years.
Here is an excerpt from a reputable scientific journal:
Modern life's pressures may be hastening human evolution
By Robert S. Boyd, McClatchy Newspapers – Wed Apr 8, 1:49 pm ET
WASHINGTON — We're not finished yet. Even today, scientists say that human beings are continuing to evolve as our genes respond to rapid changes in the world around us.
In fact, the pressures of modern life may be speeding up the pace of human evolution, some anthropologists think.
Their view contradicts the widespread 20th-century assumption that modern medical practice, antibiotics, better diet and other advances would protect people from the perils and stresses that drive evolutionary change.
Nowadays, the idea that "human evolution is a continuing process is widely accepted among anthropologists,'' said Robert Wald Sussman , the editor of the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis ...
It's also the topic of a new book, "The 10,000 Year Explosion,'' by anthropologists Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran of the University of Utah , Salt Lake City .
"For most of the last century, the received wisdom in the social sciences has been that human evolution stopped a long time ago,'' Harpending said. "Clearly, received wisdom is wrong, and human evolution has continued.''
In their book, the Utah anthropologists contend that "human evolution has accelerated in the past 10,000 years, rather than slowing or stopping. . . . The pace has been so rapid that humans have changed significantly in body and mind over recorded history.''...
Another anthropologist, John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison , said, "Our evolution has recently accelerated by around 100-fold.''
A key reason, Hawks said, is the enormous growth of the world's population, which multiplies the size of the gene pool available to launch new varieties...
The American Association of Physical Anthropologists
So, if civilization has been a catalyst for evolution - and it is obvious that various human populations experienced widely different levels/types of civilizations, including none at all - then it stands to reason that different human populations (races) have evolved differently over the last ten thousand years. Of course, a cursory glance at a Bantu versus a Swede should tell any sensible person that this is the case but the novelty here is the focus on the brain.
Of course, try to get one of those scientists to openly admit what he was hinting at and you'll get silence... or worse.
Sam Dickson's Amren speech
A friend convinced me to upload my videos of Sam Dickson's speech even though I was only able to record part of it. Half a speech is better than none and I'm sure many of you will enjoy it. He is truly a great speaker - and very intelligent!
Sam Dickson's half speech
Sam Dickson's half speech
Sunday, March 7, 2010
On Eagle's Talons
I have, in my possession, a book called “On Eagle’s Talons”. It tells the tale of child kidnappings, deceit, theft, cultural genocide and murder of Yemeni Jews by the secular Zionist establishment. Following is an excerpt (my translation):
Many of those who read this book, when they raise their heads for a short break between one chapter and the next – will ask themselves, in their bewilderment: “Did these things really happen?” “Could such a crime truly have happened amongst the People of Israel?” and if this really is the case – then it requires a thorough house cleaning and perhaps even a change of values.
Then let me add this: “Indeed this horrible deed was done in Israel”… and much more than what is written here… for it is impossible to find all the material that has been written and printed, the archives and stories about this matter – for it is vast.
Here we have an attempt to present the material in a concise way, partly as a personal story and partly as documentation of events and an outline from the sources.
I strove to cite a source for each claim, so that each reader will be able to clarify, for himself, the details from the sources but even where a source is not cited the narration is still accurate. I didn’t want to add too many footnotes unnecessarily since the goal of this book is to be read and not as a scholarly source that would be limited academics.
The strategy:
The Bahajli family, from Rosh ha’Ayin, arrived at the transit camp in 1949. The father relates that, when they got to the camp, his four month old son was taken from him and transferred to the “infant ward” that had been erected in the camp: “One day we came to see him, and we were told that he was at the hospital. We searched in all the hospitals, but the child was not found…”. After some time had elapsed, the management of the camp requested the infant’s rations coupon (at that time, food was distributed according to coupons). The family turned to the officer of internal affairs and to the national president but they were not answered.
(“Al haMishmar” 07/08/1966)
The Marhabi family relates: “We arrived at Camp ‘Ayn Shomer. It was midnight. We carried with us a few packages that we’d brought from Yemen, and I held my one year old baby, Shoshana. They registered us and we went to the tent. After an hour the nurse came by and told us to give her the baby because it’s forbidden to hold babies in the tent”. The mother went to nurse her daughter in the infant ward until one day the nurse told her: “Ma’am, your daughter has died”. To her question: “How and why and what about the funeral?” the nurse replied: “I don’t know; it’s not my job to deal with dead children…”
(letter from Ginzekha haMedina 12/19/1950)
In “Al haShomer”, a periodical of Mapam (the Israeli Communist party), which was active with new immigrants, we found a shocking opinion from a writer who had a conscience:
Under the heading: “What is the truth regarding medical treatment for the children of the camps (10/05/1949), writes Yirmiyahu Shmueli, about the lax medical treatment that was given to children of the camps and to immigrants in general. He notes that in many cases children died as a result of gross neglect on the part of medical teams and/or mistakes in treatment. The accusations were so severe that the writer demanded the formation of an investigative committee to investigate the crimes.
The director general of the Health Department – Dr. Y. Meir – who was concerned about the ramifications of this letter, invited the writer in order to “investigate the accusations” (or really to explain the severity of the damage that the publicity caused, or is likely to cause…). The director of the Health Department at that time, Hayim Moshe Shapira, was apprised of the problem but still supported his people.
In “Ginzekha haMedina” is preserved a letter by the “Unified Confederation of Yemenite Immigrants”, regarding the disappearance of children from hospitals. The letter was presented to the police commissioner, Bechor Shitreet and to the director of the Health Department. In one case the police “investigated” even then, the complaint of Yihye Suberi about the disappearance of his son. In another instance the newspaper “Davar” published an article (19/29/1950) under the headline “Where are the Babies?” In this article is told the story of a baby by the name of Mosha ban Salim Najar, who was brought to the hospital in Tel-Levinsky (Tel haShomer), and when he recovered – he suddenly disappeared.
The director general of the police at the time, Y. Sahar, appealed to the director of the Health Department with this letter and proclaimed that the police report reveals a serious blight among hospital officials in the transit camps – a situation that requires fixing.
(letter from 11/03/1950)
Maghuri Cohen, a member of the Knesset of the “Herut” party, who is also the son of Yemeni immigrants, brought this up at the Knesset on 11/20/1950 and claimed: “Children were taken from their parents and the parents don’t know where to!”… He also asked: “Is this some kind of business or parcel packages!?” He complained about the director of the Health Department, who ignored his letters and requests on the matter, and the director of the Health Department continued to be silent and to silence others.
In one instance, the Health Department investigated the complaint of Avraham Yosef Yisrael, concerning the disappearance of his daughter, Si’eeda. The conclusion they gave the father in the end was that his daughter had died, but when the family sought her grave, it turned out that “there is no record of such graves”.
The story of Yosef Si’eed from the transit of Rosh Ha’ayin was published in the newspapers. The echoes of this incident were destined to reach the ears of government officials who were responsible for various departments and who dealt with immigrants from Yemen.
A thick smoke of silence accompanied stories of the disappearances of the children of Yemen.
(Haboker, Hatsofeh and Ha’aretz all from 03/07/1952)
On the Matter of The Children of Yemen
Here we shall quote a portion of an article that was published in newspapers from this month.
… a conspiracy of silence surrounds, to this day, the issue of the disappearance of hundreds of Yemenite babies who were taken (by force) from their parents as they arrived in Israel and who apparently were given over for adoption to influential families.
(The profit here was double: a] to remove them from their religion and b] monetary gain)
One of these fathers was ‘Ovadia Si’eed from Moshav Tavuoth. Today he is 65 years old. He arrived in Israel with operation “Magic Carpet” in 1950.
His daughter, Zahara, 10 months old, was taken at the airport from her mother’s arms (by force) by a nurse who worked for the (Jewish) Agency. All traces of her were lost from that day.
For decades her father, ‘Ovadia, tried to trace her whereabouts – in vain! From time to time he would send pleading letters to tens of Knesset members requesting an investigation into the issue of the disappearance of the children of Yemen – in vain!
“Ha’aretz” continues to tell of the commerce that took place in Brazil with babies who were taken from their parents, and demands, in their naivety, an investigation into the disappearance of the children of Yemen. (As if the thieves will investigate themselves?!).
“Are we beasts whose children’s fate is up for grabs?” asks the unfortunate father.
Not only did they make no serious effort to find the babies but they also afflicted the parents with false illusions!
In one letter from the director of population registration of the Department of the Interior, which was sent to the poor father, he says that his daughter, Zahara, is registered as somebody who immigrated in April, 1950 and that there is no other information. However, in a letter from the Immigration and Registration Department in the same office it is recorded that Zahara left Israel in 1963.
What response will the religious officials and Knesset members have?
There was a period when Jewish children were kidnapped by the Russian Tsar Nikolai to serve in his army in 1827 in order to estrange them from their religion. From that time, for over 120 years such kidnapping have not been known among the nations – the State of Israel renewed the tradition.
The investigator, Dov Levitan, who arranged a comprehensive investigation into the matter, notes in his investigation that each complaint was treated as an isolated incident despite the multitude of cases and their breadth. No attempt was made to connect the cases or to see them as a wider problem. This was first made clear at the end of 1952, during an internal investigation of the investigative branch of the police department. According to this investigation, which examined six cases of children disappearing from Yemeni households, the police were not able to solve even one case!
Yeshurun Shiff of the investigative branch turned, in writing, to the director general of the Department of Health, as he notes: “We shouldn’t be indifferent to this unfortunate situation and I believe that it will cause waves within the public”. That is to say: The fear was from full revelations to the public and this was what caused him to write the letter. Among the official reasoning for this communiqué, notes the writer that, if the public finds out and the newspapers report the matter properly, there will be shame and anger”.
Perhaps this communiqué was partly to serve as an official alibi? For we see, a case such as this necessitates a large police investigation within the Health Department and not just being satisfied with a “warning” and an invitation for “internal clarification” to answer the charges.
A Yemeni mother and a Medical Professor
Hundreds of children born to Yemeni mothers have disappeared. Most of them got death certificates. However the heart thinks otherwise.
There is a more logical suspicion: that the children did not die but were given over for adoption.
By Eliezer Davidson
This week the newspapers published a very important fact. It regards Mrs. Sarah Aharon, who turned to the High Court of Israel.
Mrs. Aharon, who emigrated in 1949 from Yemen during operation Magic Carpet, is convinced that the son she bore when she arrived in Israel, did not die – as the government claimed – but rather was given for adoption.
This legal plea focuses the spotlight once more on one of the shameful chapters of the immigration of the Jews of Yemen to Israel.
257 additional Yemeni Children disappeared in the early 50s
It is known that 30 of them are still alive and now efforts are being made to locate them * 170 of them do not appear within Department of Internal Affairs records at all * the number of missing children has now reached 599
- By Amos Nevo of “Yediot Aharonoth” –
257 new incidents of children who disappeared during the great migration from Yemen to Israel in the early 50s, were revealed over the last few months. With this, the number of missing Yemeni children reaches 599.
This new information is now being checked by the Public Council for Finding Missing Yemeni Children. Dov Levitan, from the University of Bar Ilan, who is researching the topic, says that the latest findings have made it clear that 50 children of the 257 new cases have died. 170 have no record within the Department of Internal Affairs and 30 are still alive. Now efforts will be made to locate them. Until now it was known that 342 Yemeni children were missing; only four of them were found alive. In the wake of these new efforts Yehoshua Kahana, manager of registration of citizens at the Department of Internal Affairs, has given an official statement to the head of Internal Affairs and an advisement to set up a governmental investigative council to get to the bottom of these disappearances. A similar advisement was tendered about a month and a half ago by the Internal Council of the Knesset to President Shimon Perez.
The report raises the specter of dedicated doctors working under adverse conditions and attacks those who organized the immigration for “lack of protocol” in registration. He also attacks the parents for “not understanding what was said to them”, even though the Health Department and those in charge gave the parents “all the information”. Dr. Yahel also emphasizes two incidents where parents did not demand their children from the WIZO Institute. It seems that, in those cases, the people of WIZO “granted themselves permission” to give those children over to adoption. Here we must note that during those difficult times, when the Yemenis lacked modern work skills as mentioned above, there were those who worked far from home and only returned to the camp after months had elapsed.
From the report we can see that Dr. Yahel was aware of the claim that the Ashkenazim sold the Yemenis to Ashkenazi families for adoption. In response to this he writes: “Had there been an attempt to take children without permission, it would have been by parents seeking to take the children of others because of the chaos that reigned”…
The researcher Levitan adds his notes to the report:
A) If it is true that the Health Department was not responsible for negligence and crimes at all – then why were the requests for information, of 1949-1952, not answered?!
B) Not only this, but why was “TOP SECRET” written on the report?
C) From the letter, it is implied that the Health Department was aware of the claims. If so – why did it not counter them, and disprove them, at that time?!
The researcher Levitan agrees that the questions remain unanswered, however there are explanations to these questions, and they are: the chaos that reigned, at the time, within government offices where there was a free for all. Not only this but – the general attitude that prevailed in certain corridors that Yemeni Jews are their own private property.
500 missing aged 35-40. Their 400 families were told that they had “died”. Most were even told how they were buried, but this “deceased” refuses to be forgotten. In one week those 400 Yemeni Families, whose children disappeared through mysterious circumstances, are to gather together and demand that interest in this matter be renewed publicly. “Firstly we shall find those lost children, then we shall take care of whoever needs to be taken care of” – says Yosef Yighal –head of the local council of Rosh ha’Ayin who is responsible for the gathering. Whoever is involved with these things and recognizes the new circumstances has what to be worried about – an old/new “A social bomb” is about to explode in Israel.
On Eagle’s Talons
The Entire Truth About Operation Flying Carpet
INTRODUCTION
Many of those who read this book, when they raise their heads for a short break between one chapter and the next – will ask themselves, in their bewilderment: “Did these things really happen?” “Could such a crime truly have happened amongst the People of Israel?” and if this really is the case – then it requires a thorough house cleaning and perhaps even a change of values.
Then let me add this: “Indeed this horrible deed was done in Israel”… and much more than what is written here… for it is impossible to find all the material that has been written and printed, the archives and stories about this matter – for it is vast.
Here we have an attempt to present the material in a concise way, partly as a personal story and partly as documentation of events and an outline from the sources.
I strove to cite a source for each claim, so that each reader will be able to clarify, for himself, the details from the sources but even where a source is not cited the narration is still accurate. I didn’t want to add too many footnotes unnecessarily since the goal of this book is to be read and not as a scholarly source that would be limited academics.
Chapter One
Where is Yosele?
New and instructive details about the disappearances of the children of Yemen
The strategy:
The Bahajli family, from Rosh ha’Ayin, arrived at the transit camp in 1949. The father relates that, when they got to the camp, his four month old son was taken from him and transferred to the “infant ward” that had been erected in the camp: “One day we came to see him, and we were told that he was at the hospital. We searched in all the hospitals, but the child was not found…”. After some time had elapsed, the management of the camp requested the infant’s rations coupon (at that time, food was distributed according to coupons). The family turned to the officer of internal affairs and to the national president but they were not answered.
(“Al haMishmar” 07/08/1966)
The Marhabi family relates: “We arrived at Camp ‘Ayn Shomer. It was midnight. We carried with us a few packages that we’d brought from Yemen, and I held my one year old baby, Shoshana. They registered us and we went to the tent. After an hour the nurse came by and told us to give her the baby because it’s forbidden to hold babies in the tent”. The mother went to nurse her daughter in the infant ward until one day the nurse told her: “Ma’am, your daughter has died”. To her question: “How and why and what about the funeral?” the nurse replied: “I don’t know; it’s not my job to deal with dead children…”
(letter from Ginzekha haMedina 12/19/1950)
One thread leads to – the health department
In “Al haShomer”, a periodical of Mapam (the Israeli Communist party), which was active with new immigrants, we found a shocking opinion from a writer who had a conscience:
Under the heading: “What is the truth regarding medical treatment for the children of the camps (10/05/1949), writes Yirmiyahu Shmueli, about the lax medical treatment that was given to children of the camps and to immigrants in general. He notes that in many cases children died as a result of gross neglect on the part of medical teams and/or mistakes in treatment. The accusations were so severe that the writer demanded the formation of an investigative committee to investigate the crimes.
The director general of the Health Department – Dr. Y. Meir – who was concerned about the ramifications of this letter, invited the writer in order to “investigate the accusations” (or really to explain the severity of the damage that the publicity caused, or is likely to cause…). The director of the Health Department at that time, Hayim Moshe Shapira, was apprised of the problem but still supported his people.
In “Ginzekha haMedina” is preserved a letter by the “Unified Confederation of Yemenite Immigrants”, regarding the disappearance of children from hospitals. The letter was presented to the police commissioner, Bechor Shitreet and to the director of the Health Department. In one case the police “investigated” even then, the complaint of Yihye Suberi about the disappearance of his son. In another instance the newspaper “Davar” published an article (19/29/1950) under the headline “Where are the Babies?” In this article is told the story of a baby by the name of Mosha ban Salim Najar, who was brought to the hospital in Tel-Levinsky (Tel haShomer), and when he recovered – he suddenly disappeared.
The director general of the police at the time, Y. Sahar, appealed to the director of the Health Department with this letter and proclaimed that the police report reveals a serious blight among hospital officials in the transit camps – a situation that requires fixing.
(letter from 11/03/1950)
Maghuri Cohen, a member of the Knesset of the “Herut” party, who is also the son of Yemeni immigrants, brought this up at the Knesset on 11/20/1950 and claimed: “Children were taken from their parents and the parents don’t know where to!”… He also asked: “Is this some kind of business or parcel packages!?” He complained about the director of the Health Department, who ignored his letters and requests on the matter, and the director of the Health Department continued to be silent and to silence others.
In one instance, the Health Department investigated the complaint of Avraham Yosef Yisrael, concerning the disappearance of his daughter, Si’eeda. The conclusion they gave the father in the end was that his daughter had died, but when the family sought her grave, it turned out that “there is no record of such graves”.
The story of Yosef Si’eed from the transit of Rosh Ha’ayin was published in the newspapers. The echoes of this incident were destined to reach the ears of government officials who were responsible for various departments and who dealt with immigrants from Yemen.
A thick smoke of silence accompanied stories of the disappearances of the children of Yemen.
(Haboker, Hatsofeh and Ha’aretz all from 03/07/1952)
On the Matter of The Children of Yemen
Here we shall quote a portion of an article that was published in newspapers from this month.
… a conspiracy of silence surrounds, to this day, the issue of the disappearance of hundreds of Yemenite babies who were taken (by force) from their parents as they arrived in Israel and who apparently were given over for adoption to influential families.
(The profit here was double: a] to remove them from their religion and b] monetary gain)
One of these fathers was ‘Ovadia Si’eed from Moshav Tavuoth. Today he is 65 years old. He arrived in Israel with operation “Magic Carpet” in 1950.
His daughter, Zahara, 10 months old, was taken at the airport from her mother’s arms (by force) by a nurse who worked for the (Jewish) Agency. All traces of her were lost from that day.
For decades her father, ‘Ovadia, tried to trace her whereabouts – in vain! From time to time he would send pleading letters to tens of Knesset members requesting an investigation into the issue of the disappearance of the children of Yemen – in vain!
“Ha’aretz” continues to tell of the commerce that took place in Brazil with babies who were taken from their parents, and demands, in their naivety, an investigation into the disappearance of the children of Yemen. (As if the thieves will investigate themselves?!).
“Are we beasts whose children’s fate is up for grabs?” asks the unfortunate father.
Not only did they make no serious effort to find the babies but they also afflicted the parents with false illusions!
In one letter from the director of population registration of the Department of the Interior, which was sent to the poor father, he says that his daughter, Zahara, is registered as somebody who immigrated in April, 1950 and that there is no other information. However, in a letter from the Immigration and Registration Department in the same office it is recorded that Zahara left Israel in 1963.
What response will the religious officials and Knesset members have?
There was a period when Jewish children were kidnapped by the Russian Tsar Nikolai to serve in his army in 1827 in order to estrange them from their religion. From that time, for over 120 years such kidnapping have not been known among the nations – the State of Israel renewed the tradition.
The investigator, Dov Levitan, who arranged a comprehensive investigation into the matter, notes in his investigation that each complaint was treated as an isolated incident despite the multitude of cases and their breadth. No attempt was made to connect the cases or to see them as a wider problem. This was first made clear at the end of 1952, during an internal investigation of the investigative branch of the police department. According to this investigation, which examined six cases of children disappearing from Yemeni households, the police were not able to solve even one case!
Yeshurun Shiff of the investigative branch turned, in writing, to the director general of the Department of Health, as he notes: “We shouldn’t be indifferent to this unfortunate situation and I believe that it will cause waves within the public”. That is to say: The fear was from full revelations to the public and this was what caused him to write the letter. Among the official reasoning for this communiqué, notes the writer that, if the public finds out and the newspapers report the matter properly, there will be shame and anger”.
Perhaps this communiqué was partly to serve as an official alibi? For we see, a case such as this necessitates a large police investigation within the Health Department and not just being satisfied with a “warning” and an invitation for “internal clarification” to answer the charges.
News Clips
A Yemeni mother and a Medical Professor
Hundreds of children born to Yemeni mothers have disappeared. Most of them got death certificates. However the heart thinks otherwise.
There is a more logical suspicion: that the children did not die but were given over for adoption.
By Eliezer Davidson
This week the newspapers published a very important fact. It regards Mrs. Sarah Aharon, who turned to the High Court of Israel.
Mrs. Aharon, who emigrated in 1949 from Yemen during operation Magic Carpet, is convinced that the son she bore when she arrived in Israel, did not die – as the government claimed – but rather was given for adoption.
This legal plea focuses the spotlight once more on one of the shameful chapters of the immigration of the Jews of Yemen to Israel.
257 additional Yemeni Children disappeared in the early 50s
It is known that 30 of them are still alive and now efforts are being made to locate them * 170 of them do not appear within Department of Internal Affairs records at all * the number of missing children has now reached 599
- By Amos Nevo of “Yediot Aharonoth” –
257 new incidents of children who disappeared during the great migration from Yemen to Israel in the early 50s, were revealed over the last few months. With this, the number of missing Yemeni children reaches 599.
This new information is now being checked by the Public Council for Finding Missing Yemeni Children. Dov Levitan, from the University of Bar Ilan, who is researching the topic, says that the latest findings have made it clear that 50 children of the 257 new cases have died. 170 have no record within the Department of Internal Affairs and 30 are still alive. Now efforts will be made to locate them. Until now it was known that 342 Yemeni children were missing; only four of them were found alive. In the wake of these new efforts Yehoshua Kahana, manager of registration of citizens at the Department of Internal Affairs, has given an official statement to the head of Internal Affairs and an advisement to set up a governmental investigative council to get to the bottom of these disappearances. A similar advisement was tendered about a month and a half ago by the Internal Council of the Knesset to President Shimon Perez.
Report of negligence by the Health Department
From the report composed by Mr. Yahel – manager of the hospital division of the Health Department – it is recognized that he understood the hint and what was expected of him.
The report raises the specter of dedicated doctors working under adverse conditions and attacks those who organized the immigration for “lack of protocol” in registration. He also attacks the parents for “not understanding what was said to them”, even though the Health Department and those in charge gave the parents “all the information”. Dr. Yahel also emphasizes two incidents where parents did not demand their children from the WIZO Institute. It seems that, in those cases, the people of WIZO “granted themselves permission” to give those children over to adoption. Here we must note that during those difficult times, when the Yemenis lacked modern work skills as mentioned above, there were those who worked far from home and only returned to the camp after months had elapsed.
From the report we can see that Dr. Yahel was aware of the claim that the Ashkenazim sold the Yemenis to Ashkenazi families for adoption. In response to this he writes: “Had there been an attempt to take children without permission, it would have been by parents seeking to take the children of others because of the chaos that reigned”…
The researcher Levitan adds his notes to the report:
A) If it is true that the Health Department was not responsible for negligence and crimes at all – then why were the requests for information, of 1949-1952, not answered?!
B) Not only this, but why was “TOP SECRET” written on the report?
C) From the letter, it is implied that the Health Department was aware of the claims. If so – why did it not counter them, and disprove them, at that time?!
The researcher Levitan agrees that the questions remain unanswered, however there are explanations to these questions, and they are: the chaos that reigned, at the time, within government offices where there was a free for all. Not only this but – the general attitude that prevailed in certain corridors that Yemeni Jews are their own private property.
The “deceased” who refuses to be forgotten
500 missing aged 35-40. Their 400 families were told that they had “died”. Most were even told how they were buried, but this “deceased” refuses to be forgotten. In one week those 400 Yemeni Families, whose children disappeared through mysterious circumstances, are to gather together and demand that interest in this matter be renewed publicly. “Firstly we shall find those lost children, then we shall take care of whoever needs to be taken care of” – says Yosef Yighal –head of the local council of Rosh ha’Ayin who is responsible for the gathering. Whoever is involved with these things and recognizes the new circumstances has what to be worried about – an old/new “A social bomb” is about to explode in Israel.
The nature of money and taxation
There are many books, and articles, on libertarianism. Most of them seem to fit into two basic genres: 1) deep libertarian theory/thought and 2) collections of anecdotes illustrating the abuses of government. While the second genre seems to be somewhat popular for mass consumption, the general public tends to ignore the first genre. Horror stories of government abuse, such as those found in John Stossel's books and "Lost Rights" by James Bovard (which I just got finished reading) make people angry - but they don't do a good job of educating people as to the basic tenets of liberty. Much is assumed and people rely on their innate sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately, that sense has been compromised through generations of government education and trashy television.
Here I just wanted to remind people what "money" really is and why taxation equals slavery. If I perform a service for somebody, I get paid in "money". So, in this sense, "money" is just a means to store credit for my labor - to be used at a later time. If we had agreed, instead, that the beneficiary of my labor would repay me with his own labor, then money would not be necessary for this transaction. It is only because I wish to use my labor-credit later on (or with somebody else) that money is used in this instance. Whether I get paid in precious metal, coins or pieces of paper, the value of that "money" is only symbolic. In the final analysis it is only an IOU. It holds the value of my labor for later use.
When I use that money later on, I am actually trading my labor. What if I got that money for goods instead of services? It's the same thing. The goods can only be created via labor - either through transforming them from raw material into a useful product or by transporting them to those who need them. Either way, labor is necessary. If I used money to buy those goods and then resold them, it still all goes back to labor no matter how many times the original labor is removed. "Labor" can be hard, back-breaking physical work or it could be talking or writing. It's all still labor. I can receive the labor of somebody else through gift or inheritance.
If somebody takes my money, then really they are taking my labor. If somebody steals my money, it's the same thing as stealing my labor. It means that I had worked for free. If I consent to such takings, then I would be volunteering my labor - doing the other party a favor. If the taking is not by my consent, then it turns out that I was being forced to work for free. In other words, I was a slave.
We often hear people claim that they consent to taxation. That they consider their contribution to be a sign of good citizenship. I believe that most of them are lying because their actions say otherwise. They do anything in their power to minimize their taxes, spending countless hours finding imaginative techniques to increase their "deductions". Most people would avoid paying taxes altogether if they could. There are some taxes that almost nobody actually pays because it is so easy to hide those taxable activities from the government. Use tax is a good example of this.
Many will ask, "how could society function without taxes?". Much has been written to answer this question and I will not address it here. But, even if taxation is necessary, we could reword the question thus: how could society function without slavery? I'm sure some ancient Romans asked the same question. Slavery is slavery, whether it is "necessary" or not.
I highly recommend Jonathan Gullible . For those who lack the time, or inclination, to read the whole thing, there is a short animation you can watch.
Here I just wanted to remind people what "money" really is and why taxation equals slavery. If I perform a service for somebody, I get paid in "money". So, in this sense, "money" is just a means to store credit for my labor - to be used at a later time. If we had agreed, instead, that the beneficiary of my labor would repay me with his own labor, then money would not be necessary for this transaction. It is only because I wish to use my labor-credit later on (or with somebody else) that money is used in this instance. Whether I get paid in precious metal, coins or pieces of paper, the value of that "money" is only symbolic. In the final analysis it is only an IOU. It holds the value of my labor for later use.
When I use that money later on, I am actually trading my labor. What if I got that money for goods instead of services? It's the same thing. The goods can only be created via labor - either through transforming them from raw material into a useful product or by transporting them to those who need them. Either way, labor is necessary. If I used money to buy those goods and then resold them, it still all goes back to labor no matter how many times the original labor is removed. "Labor" can be hard, back-breaking physical work or it could be talking or writing. It's all still labor. I can receive the labor of somebody else through gift or inheritance.
If somebody takes my money, then really they are taking my labor. If somebody steals my money, it's the same thing as stealing my labor. It means that I had worked for free. If I consent to such takings, then I would be volunteering my labor - doing the other party a favor. If the taking is not by my consent, then it turns out that I was being forced to work for free. In other words, I was a slave.
We often hear people claim that they consent to taxation. That they consider their contribution to be a sign of good citizenship. I believe that most of them are lying because their actions say otherwise. They do anything in their power to minimize their taxes, spending countless hours finding imaginative techniques to increase their "deductions". Most people would avoid paying taxes altogether if they could. There are some taxes that almost nobody actually pays because it is so easy to hide those taxable activities from the government. Use tax is a good example of this.
Many will ask, "how could society function without taxes?". Much has been written to answer this question and I will not address it here. But, even if taxation is necessary, we could reword the question thus: how could society function without slavery? I'm sure some ancient Romans asked the same question. Slavery is slavery, whether it is "necessary" or not.
I highly recommend Jonathan Gullible . For those who lack the time, or inclination, to read the whole thing, there is a short animation you can watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)