Some people are just crazy; it doesn’t take much to provoke them into committing acts of violence. Most of us need a lot of provocation before we resort to bloodshed; everybody has his snapping point.

I don’t claim to know whether Frazier Glen Miller is a natural-born psychopath. Unlike the $PLC or the ADL, I don’t claim to be an expert. But, according to the Washington Post:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a respected activist organization that tracks hate crimes and racist activities, said the man arrested and identified by police as Frazier Glenn Cross is actually Frazier Glenn Miller. Miller, the SPLC said, founded and ran the Carolina Klan before he was sued by the SPLC “for operating an illegal paramilitary organization and using intimidation tactics against African Americans.”

He later founded another Klan outfit, the White Patriot Party, which put him in violation of the terms that settled the suit brought by the SPLC. He was found in criminal contempt in 1986 and served six months in prison. He moved underground while out on bond and was caught in Missouri with other Klansmen with a reserve of weapons, the SPLC stated.

The next year, he pleaded guilty to a weapons charge. He was indicted for plotting to obtain stolen military weapons, and for planning robberies and the assassination of the SPLC founder Morris Dees. As part of a plea deal, he testified against other Klan leaders and received a five-year sentence. He served only three years, the SPLC stated.

Considering the history of black violence against whites, it’s absolutely necessary to defend ourselves against blacks. Firearms are a crucial component of any such defensive measures. There is nothing unreasonable or hateful about this; it’s a matter of survival – and this appears to be what Miller was doing (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).

But this is not acceptable to organizations such as the $PLC. The “Southern Poverty Law Center” is an anti-white organization, and Miller was (at least in his own mind) a pro-white activist. The $PLC has a lot more money, and political power, than Miller – so it set about persecuting Miller. It would appear that Miller was hounded by this anti-white hate-group for years.

The “Southern Poverty Law Center” is largely Jewish. So is the ADL. Both organizations had caused Miller a lot of grief over the years, and now this bitter 70-year-old man chose to go out with a bang and take his revenge against “The Jooz.”

It’s a pity that Miller, his murderous mind now shrunken with age, didn’t focus his attention on the real culprits: The $PLC and the ADL. Had he eliminated some of them, we might owe him a debt of gratitude. Instead, he chose a soft target and murdered 3 innocent people.

Perhaps the victims’ survivors should sue the $PLC and the ADL for pushing Miller over the edge. The “Southern Poverty Law Center” is probably the most significant source of fuel for Jew-haters world-wide. They most certainly have blood on their hands.

Unfortunately, Millers cruel rampage will feed the $PLC’s coffers even more. The beast will become ever more bloated, and generate even more hatred and bloodshed. And so the cycle continues.

jabba the hutt

 

 

I remember, back in high school, being upset that a quiz question asked what date Christmas falls on. I didn’t know, and this hurt my score. As an adult, I view things differently; scoring a bit lower on a quiz is a small price to pay for the benefit of attending schools that are representative of a functional culture – even if it’s not exactly my own culture.

It would appear that some Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan feel imposed upon because their children received invitations to an Easter egg hunt at school. According to the Christian Post:

Some Muslim parents in Dearborn, Mich., are upset over an “Eggstravaganza” Easter egg hunt invitation their children received from teachers at school because the event is going to be held on the grounds of the Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church.

Attorney Majed Moughni, the father of two public school students, said his son was uncomfortable about receiving the flyer from the Presbyterian church for their event on April 12.

“It really bothered my two kids. My son was like, ‘Dad, I really don’t feel comfortable getting these flyers, telling me to go to church. I thought churches are not supposed to mix with schools,’” Moughni told The Detroit Free Press.

Moughni said he’s uncomfortable with publically paid school teachers passing “out these flyers that are being distributed by a church. I think that’s a serious violation of separation of church and state.”

While separation of church and state is a worthy goal, it shouldn’t render public schools culture-free zones. When we speak of “public institutions” we should not lose sight of the fact that they’re supposed to represent a specific public. If we were to somehow succeed in catering our schools to people in general, without deference to any particular culture, we would be robbing our children of both their heritage and their childhood.

If we were to take the separation of church and state to its extreme, public schools would be dry, depressing, places. There’s a large grey area in our culture that, while not overtly religious in nature, has its roots in what passes for Christianity. Easter egg hunts, Christmas, graduation caps and gowns and St. Patrick’s Day are good examples of this. They’re part of American culture, and I see no harm in allowing schools to recognize them – without shoving them in our faces of course.

To the offended Muslim parents I say, you (or your parents) came to this country of your own free will. You benefit from our functional society and liberal government – which are offshoots of our culture. When you came to this country, you agreed to put up with this culture and, if you don’t like it, you can return to whatever Muslim-dominated country you came from. You’ll probably find that there’s less separation of religion and state in that country than you enjoy here.

Meanwhile, black women in the military are upset that new hairstyle regulation adversely affect them. According to Yahoo News:

New Army regulations meant to help standardize and professionalize soldiers’ appearance are now coming under criticism by some black military women, who say changes in the hair requirement are racially biased.

The Army earlier this week issued new appearance standards, which included bans on most twists, dreadlocks and large cornrows, all styles used predominantly by African-American women with natural hairstyles. More than 11,000 people have signed a White House petition asking President Barack Obama, the commander in chief, to have the military review the regulations to allow for “neat and maintained natural hairstyles.”

Some black military women, who make up about a third of the women in the armed forces, feel they have been singled out with these new regulations.

“I think that it primarily targets black women, and I’m not in agreement with it,” said Patricia Jackson-Kelley of the National Association of Black Military Women. “I don’t see how a woman wearing three braids in her hair, how that affects her ability to perform her duty in the military.”

Yes, there’s actually an organization called the “National Association of Black Military Women.” Their website states their goal as:

“To seek out, record, maintain and tell the historyof every Black Military Women...”

My advice to them would be to brush up on their writing skills, or at least hire a good editor, before putting together a website. I couldn’t help but notice that their president, Kathaleen F. Harris, seems awfully young to be retired. She must have been paid very well while in the military; I’m sure being black, and a woman, didn’t hurt her career.

Yes, being black and female can do wonders for one’s career, especially if it’s in a government job. If griping about hairstyle regulations is what now occupies them, clearly there’s not much in the way of real oppression to burden them. Is there an organization that works specifically for the benefit of white women in the military? Don’t be silly!

Can white Christians also be offended? As a matter of fact they can. Some Idaho parents objected when their school district included, as part of their official curriculum, a book that ridiculed Christianity and includes vulgar language. According to Yahoo news:

The largest school district in Idaho has banned from its curriculum an award-winning book about the struggles of a Native American teenager after complaints by parents that the novel was rife with profanity, racial epithets and anti-Christian rhetoric….

The book is described by publisher Little, Brown as a “heartbreaking, funny and beautifully written” tale about the experiences of a young Native American who leaves his troubled school on an Indian reservation in Washington state to attend an all-white high school in a nearby farming community.

I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that the book also includes anti-white rhetoric – but it’s not politically acceptable to object to the persecution of whites, because unlike Muslims or blacks, whites truly are an oppressed group (unless they happen to be well-connected of course).

Of the three aggrieved groups I cited above, the only one I sympathize with is the white Christians of Idaho. Does this make me a white-supremacist? Hardly. The “plight” of Muslim immigrants, who would rob school children of their culture, does not move me. Neither do I worry much about the military hairesy against black women (though I do feel that black women should be happy with their natural hair). But the cause of parents fighting a school district’s attempt to disparage their traditions, in their own native lands, is a worthy one.

 

While reading a news story about a substitute teacher’s bizarre behavior, I was reminded of my own high school experience, also involving a substitute teacher. As odd as Mr. Deutsch’s behavior, described in the above article, may have been, I like to think that my own story tops it.

It was my freshman year at Morningside High School in Inglewood, California. This school was 90% black, and a rough place to try to get an education. Staying alive was a more pressing priority. I’ve written about some of my experiences there previously.

I can’t remember which class it was, but it certainly had nothing to do with magic or paranormal phenomena. Nevertheless, our class (in which I was the only non-black) found itself with a rather peculiar substitute teacher one day. It was a young, white, new-age type woman. Maybe this woman had forgotten what our class was supposed to be about, or maybe she considered her own priorities more important.

At some point, she placed an object on a table and told us to be silent. She then instructed all of us to concentrate on the object – and, with the power of our minds, levitate it. That’s right. Our substitute teacher thought she could harness the mental power of 30 gangbangers, with their bitches and hos (and yours truly, of course), to raise an object into the air.

As I recall, I didn’t even try. The embarrassment I felt for her was almost painful – and even though I’ve always been an oddball myself, this was too much even for me.

In case you were wondering, the object remained motionless on the table.

In his recent Bloombergview article, Francis Wilkenson ridiculed conservatives for their  distorted demographic perceptions. He wrote:

In June and July, Latino Decisions conducted a national poll for the Center for American Progress and PolicyLink. The poll’s sample was especially large — 2,943 adults, including 1,319 non-Hispanic whites. In one question, respondents were asked to give their “best guess” about the percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. population…

Every racial group overestimated the size of the nonwhite population, which in reality is about 37 percent. “Asians had the most accurate estimates,” the survey report stated, “with respondents estimating an average of 43 percent — followed by whites with an average of 48 percent, Latinos with an average of 50 percent, and African Americans with an average of 53 percent.”…

On average, whites overestimated the nation’s minority population by 11 percentage points. Digging a little deeper, the poll showed that 59 percent of conservatives estimated the minority population at 41 percent or higher, with 33 percent of conservatives believing nonwhites account for more than half of the U.S. population, a demographic milestone that is still decades away.

Keep that figure in mind as you consider this result from the same poll report: “Sixty-one percent of white conservatives and 56 percent of whites ages 65 or older agree that discrimination against whites will increase due to rising diversity.”

So conservatives think the nation is already either majority or almost-majority nonwhite, and a majority of conservatives believes that they will be discriminated against as the nation becomes more nonwhite.

There was a time, before the days of television, billboards, movies and brochures, when peoples’ perception of reality was shaped by what they saw and heard in real life. Folks spent most of their time among their countrymen, working, socializing, worshiping and playing. It’s true that they were ignorant of foreign lands, but they were acutely aware of the goings on in their own villages and provinces. Medieval man might have believed that troglodytes inhabited far-away lands, and sea-monsters the waters, but he was an expert when it came to local matters.

Today, many people spend more time in front of the television than mingling among the locals. Furthermore, today’s cities are so populous that one cannot even rely on what he sees to gauge demographic trends; at any given time, all he’ll see is a specific subset of the population. So, while the modern city-dweller may not believe in sea-monsters or troglodytes, he can easily be fooled about his own immediate surroundings.

In my search for a particular item of clothing, a friend recommended my local Kohl’s. While I didn’t find what I was looking for at Kohl’s, I did notice a profusion of model images throughout the store. I have previously written about Target’s habit of under representing white people in its signage. Kohl’s is no different. Here are some images I snapped there.

 

kohls1a

kohls2a

I apologize for the poor image quality; the lighting was difficult and I used my cellphone. But, at least in the men’s section, very few whites are depicted. Blacks outnumber whites. Is Kohl’s trying to cater specifically to blacks? In the women’s section, the vast majority of images are of white, or Asian, models. It’s hard to see how this would benefit Kohl’s financially – but it’s easy to see the similarity to Target.

I don’t watch television, but I’ve viewed enough commercials (online) to know that non-whites are featured in numbers wildly out of proportion to their actual percentages of the population. Does Wilkenson have anything to say about this? I doubt it.

People like Wilkenson are responsible for the over representation of non-whites in the media, and in places like Target and Kohl’s. While they may not directly demand it, their attitudes (of promoting non-whites whenever possible) necessarily lead to such phenomena. It’s interesting that Wilkenson would ridicule people for perceptions that are a direct result of policies he promotes.

 

 

Recently, I had occasion to visit one of Oregon’s fine credit unions. These institutions offer many services, and  they provide competition to traditional banks. They tend to be friendly, informal, places. Not that my local bank is unfriendly; I’m always greeted with a smile there, and they have free coffee. But my neighborhood credit union offers free pop corn as well. Hard to beat that!

Unfortunately, this recent visit was not to my local credit union. It was to one on the other side of town, in not-so-friendly East Portland, home to many tweakers and white trash – who have formed an unholy alliance of filth with trayvons and other assorted diversity.

The female banker who sat across from me gave the impression she had no intention of doing anything more than the minimum for me. A smile would cost me extra. When I asked for a specific printed document, she curtly informed me that such documents weren’t provided. Only after I mentioned that I’d been told, previously by phone, that I’d get such a document, did she acquiesce.

As she rose from her chair, I understood her reluctance. Her buttocks was so large, it almost took the chair with it. As I starred in disbelief, I imagined how each year it must have spread out, like some sort of personal continental drift, over the chair she was required to sit upon for 8 hours a day. Given enough time, it would spill over to the floor and create a tripping hazard to her coworkers.

What a way to make a living! There are exercises one can do while seated, but not with a steady stream of customers coming your way. She could attend a gym, or go on a diet, but maintaining a healthy weight is usually an uphill battle when one’s job consists of sitting at a desk for long hours. Diets typically don’t work either.  Perhaps she had few other choices when she chose to take the credit union job. I try not to be judgmental.

But there was a time, not very long ago, when a woman didn’t have to take a job. All she had to do was get married and let her man bring home the bacon. Her job, and we’re reminded it wasn’t an easy one, was to be a “homemaker” and to raise kids.

According to Self’s calorie calculator, a woman can burn almost 200 calories by doing housework for an hour. With several hours of housework, and responsible eating, she can maintain a svelte figure. Others have pointed out that feminism causes obesity by increasing the number of prepared meals we eat at the expense of home-cooked meals. This may be so, but desk jobs certainly share some of the blame – and many of the women, who now work such jobs, would have been better off doing housework and raising kids. That way, she’d have time to cook her own (healthy) meals and she’d be burning almost 200 calories an hour.

In general, I don’t think it makes much sense “making a living” by dying. A desk job may not be as bad as being a coal miner (in the old days) but people need to set some sort of limit: “If my butt spreads out beyond such and such a point, I’m getting up off this chair and finding a more active job.”

The complex history of English manifests itself in various ways. It contains a multitude of loan words both from the English having been conquered, and having been conquerors. The commercial, religious and political history of the English is all evident in our language. Indeed, it can be said that English is a “diverse” language for that reason.

But the massive flood of non-English speakers, into traditionally English-speaking countries, has taken its toll.  Similarly, the increase (and popularity) of “ebonics” and “gangsta culture” has eroded the finer aspects of our language. Words that are not associated with the lower classes are falling by the wayside. For example, the pronoun “whom” has been dying a slow death.

I’ve been in regular contact, recently, with a black man who works for a financial institution. He holds a position that requires him to communicate with the public, yet his mastery over the English language is rudimentary. He says “ax” instead of “ask,” he can’t pronounce “relevant,” and he struggles with many terms that we would expect to be used by those with a high school diploma or better. Whether he gained his position through affirmative action or not, such institutions have a social obligation to make sure that those charged with public communication can actually speak English correctly.

English is not simply a mode of communication; it’s living testimony to our history and cultural heritage. It pains me to witness the finer aspects of this noble language fading away.

One casualty of this onslaught is our irregular plural nouns. Some English-speakers shudder when they hear that Arabic has a multitude of plural forms; they think, “how do people remember all these?” But English also has a multitude of plural forms. Those of us who were raised speaking English often forget this. Here are some examples of irregular forms:

Elf  —————  Elves

Man ————– Men

Foot ————– Feet

Mouse ———– Mice

Child ————- Children

Deer ————— Deer

Amoeba ———- Amoebae

Genus ————- Genera

Cactus ———— Cacti

Datum ———— Data

Index ————- Indices

Crisis ————- Crises

Phenomenon — Phenomena

It’s safe to say that most English-speakers, at least in the U.S., get confused between “phenomenon” and “phenomena.” Those of lower education, lower class, and foreigners tend to become vexed when it comes to such irregular plurals. To make themselves understood, they’ll often default to simply adding an “s” to form a plural. Thus we find the increasing popularity of “indexes” instead of “indices,” “memorandums” instead of “memoranda,” and “syllabuses” instead of “syllabi.”

The death of irregular plurals starts with the most obscure, and proceeds to the more common. I predict that in the future, perhaps within the lifetime of some readers, we’ll hear forms such as “childs,” “mans” and “foots.”

Diversity brings about a state of affairs where everybody is eventually reduced to the lowest common denominator. Forcing together people of different social classes, races and ethnicities can only lead to the dumbing down of language.

Back in 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Arizona’s immigration law (SB 1070). According to the New York Times:

PHOENIX — The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the State of Arizona on Monday and let stand a lower court decision blocking the most contentious parts of the state’s immigration law from going into effect…

Critics of the law, who have held protests and filed lawsuits to strike it down, were thrilled with the ruling.

“One of the reasons we have a judiciary is so that mobs don’t rule, so that when the Legislature oversteps its bounds there is someone to stop them,” said Omar Jadwat of the A.C.L.U. Immigrants’ Rights Project.

In its decision, the Ninth Court of Appeals agonized over the precise wording of SB 1070, scrutinizing its minutiae and the technicalities of federal law. It’s not surprising that federal law favors the federal government over state governments. And so we find statements such as these:

Even state and local officers authorized under § 1357(g) to investigate, apprehend, or detain immigrants do
not have the authority to remove immigrants; removal is exclusively the purview of the federal government.

and:

We are not aware of any INA provision demonstrating that Congress intended to permit states to usurp the Attorney General’s role in directing state enforcement of federal immigration laws.

and more importantly:

In addition to providing the Attorney General wide discretion in the contents of each § 1357(g) agreement with a state,
Congress provided the Executive with a fair amount of discretion to determine how federal officers enforce immigration
law. The majority of § 1357 grants powers to DHS officers and employees to be exercised within the confines of the Attorney General’s regulations; this section contains few mandatory directives from Congress to the Attorney General or DHS. The Executive Associate Director for Management and Administration at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement within DHS has explained the purpose of this Congressionally-granted discretion: “DHS exercises a large degree of discretion in determining how best to carry out its enforcement responsibilities” which “necessitates prioritization to ensure ICE expends resources most efficiently to
advance the goals of protecting national security, protecting public safety, and securing the border.”

The decision gives a lot of power to the attorney general. It assumes that his interests are the same as the interests of the American people. The court did not take into consideration the possibility that the attorney general’s interests are at odds with those of Americans. Insofar as its job is to interpret the law as it stands, it might not have been able to do so in its decision. How unfortunate.

Now that the Ninth Court of Appeals has given carte blanche to Eric Holder (and, by extension, to the office of the president) to flood the country with Mexicans and other Democrat-voters, it has the audacity to curtail our freedom of speech on the grounds that angering those migrants might be dangerous. In this decision, the court documented racial friction at the school and determined:

School officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with
school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances. As a consequence, we conclude that school
officials did not violate the students’ rights to freedom of expression, due process, or equal protection.

Once again, the court focused on technicalities and ignored the reality on the ground: That this is an invasion, an invasion largely facilitated by judges such as themselves.

When Hispanic thugs are allowed to set the tone at public schools, and when their threats of violence are rewarded, I wonder what people like Omar Jadwat would call it. I would call it “mob rule.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers