October 2012


Fortunately, you can say almost anything in a blog. The challenge is in speaking the truth, speaking it well and in getting people to read it. But public figures  face dire consequences for breaking the rules of political correctness. Syndicated columnists, talk-show hosts and politicians will lose their jobs – after being made to grovel and to publicly humiliate themselves.

But one public figure:

… recounts various recent instances of black racist crime, which have been the subjects of articles on this blogsite as well as others not covered here, including serious incidents at Skidmore College, in Denver, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and on Chicago’s beaches.  All involved black gangs committing patently-obvious racist hate crimes against both whites and Asians, although the more punitive hate crime charge is rarely applied by either the police or by the media to the miscreants. In a scathing and verified indictment of the MSM, (he) audaciously and perspicaciously writes, “In many of these brutal attacks, the news media make no mention of the race of the perpetrators.  If it were white racist gangs randomly attacking blacks, the mainstream media would have no hesitation reporting the race of the perps.”

It’s hard to believe that the above refers to anything but a pro-white blogger. But it’s actually referring to economist Walter Williams, pictured below.

Williams also recounts the following, in a recent column:

During a reception, one of the Marxist professors asked me what I thought about the relationship between capitalism and slavery. My response was that slavery has existed everywhere in the world, under every political and economic system, and was by no means unique to capitalism or the United States. Perturbed by my response, he asked me what my feelings were about the enslavement of my ancestors. I answered that slavery is a despicable violation of human rights but that the enslavement of my ancestors is history, and one of the immutable facts of history is that nothing can be done to change it.

The matter could have been left there, but I volunteered that today’s American blacks have benefited enormously from the horrible suffering of our ancestors. Why? I said the standard of living and personal liberty of black Americans are better than what blacks living anywhere in Africa have. I then asked the professor what it was that explained how tens of millions of blacks came to be born in the U.S. instead of Africa. He wouldn’t answer, but an answer other than slavery would have been sheer idiocy. I attempted to assuage the professor’s and his colleagues’ shock by explaining to them that to morally condemn a practice such as slavery does not require one to also deny its effects.

Neither point is an original one for readers of this blog, or any other pro-white blog. We’ve been declaring these truths over and over again for years. But there is zero chance of any pro-white blogger being allowed to voice his opinions on national T.V. No major newspaper will print our columns. Our opinions will not grace the pages of Newsweek or USA Today. But regarding Walter Williams, Wikipedia says:

His syndicated column is published weekly in approximately 140 newspapers across the United States, as well as on several web sites by Creators Syndicate. He also wrote and hosted documentaries for PBS in 1985. The “Good Intentions” documentary was based on his book The State Against Blacks.

I’m happy for him; I’m glad that he is able to advance positions that I happen to agree with. But the fact remains that, had he been white, it’s doubtful he would be allowed to say half the things he says without being forced into ignominy and poverty. Though he takes a lot of heat for his opinions, he’s still allowed to state them without dire repercussions. For better or for worse, Williams can say what whites, in similar positions, cannot say. I’m certain that he would be the first to agree.

Google “black victims of white crime” and this is what you get:

Clearly there’s not enough white-on-black violence to write about, and it’s not as if people aren’t looking.

A search for “Afro-American blog” yields over 92 million results. There is no lack of negro-centric/negrophilic online activity. The entire corporate-controlled media and government apparatus is heavily pro-black. You would think that, with the infinite resources they have, somebody would have come up with a video like this one, or like this one, or this one - without resorting to rehashing incidents that occurred over 50 years ago, before most of us were even born.

In “The imaginary war against white people” Harold Pollack dismisses claims of black mobs attacking whites because they come from “fringe groups”. What makes them “fringe groups”? They are considered “fringe groups” because they bring up black-on-white violence. This violence is well-documented, but we’re supposed to ignore it. Then he quotes John Derbyshire and dismisses him because he wrote a “racist essay”. Deeming him a “racist” is apparently enough to discredit anything he has to say. Pollack writes:

In fact, the high crime rate in minority communities has been the most obsessively-covered story in American urban life for at least forty years. If some politically-correct conspiracy has sought to obscure this issue, it has been an epic failure.

We’re still waiting for corporate/government media to cover the black-on-white aspect of black crime. So far, the only concern is for its black victims, while it is forbidden to bring up the fact that blacks go out of their way to victimize whites. It’s not even permitted to discuss “black crime”, only “black-on-black” crime. A google search for “black crime” yields 983,000 results – but a search for “black on black crime” yields 2,840,000 results. Many of those reports make the ridiculous claim that black-on-black crime is ignored. Obviously, it’s black-on-white crime that’s ignored. A search for “black on white crime” yields only 310,000 results. Many of those reports only mention it in order to ridicule the notion. The article in question is a case in point.

Pollack goes on to say:

Despite obsessive media attention at Fox News or wherever, lethal black-on-white crimes are rarer than you might believe. Crime rates are below those of ten years ago. They are way below the levels of twenty years ago. U.S. homicide rates are the lowest they’ve been since the early 1960s. I’m aware of no data to indicate that black-on-white crime is a specifically worsening problem. Coppins cites an FBI report listing 575 reported anti-white bias crimes in 2010. That’s a tiny number in a nation of 300 million people.

Pollack should read the latest reports. It turns out there has been an increase in violent crimes against whites, even according to the government’s biased statistics. Perhaps Pollack is unaware that the FBI is biased in its reporting of crimes against, and by, whites. One would think, since he reads “racist” opinions, that Pollack is aware of the way our government uses Hispanics in order to fudge white crime and make it appear there is less anti-white crime than there really is. One would think that Pollack would be aware that one cannot depend on FBI statistics to count anti-white bias crimes in the U.S. That only a very small percentage of anti-white bias crimes are recorded as such. Even a cursory reading of pro-white blogs and websites will turn up many such crimes where we are told “race was not a factor”, when it obviously was a factor.

Pollack continues:

In 2008, a graduate student and I examined Chicago medical examiner records for two hundred consecutive homicides involving teenage and young-adult victims. Only eleven of these 200 victims were non-Hispanic whites. I expected to find a few white students who were set upon and killed by robbers (say) at an ATM or a carjacking. I found no such cases. Such things do happen, but not very often in today’s urban America.

Out of those eleven, how many were murdered by blacks? We are not told. Out of all those non-whites, how many were murdered by whites? We are not told. But Pollack is quick to draw conclusions, based on his sampling of 200 Chicago homicides, about the rest of the country. If 189 gang-members are murdered by other gang-members, it makes the rest of us that much safer. But the murder of eleven non-Hispanic, law-abiding (if this was the case), whites, is a tragedy.

The rest of Pollack’s article is anecdotal but it’s worth noting the straw-man argument he sets up. According to him, people like Derbyshire believe that all blacks are evil killing machines laying in wait for their innocent white victims.

I know people who talk on their cell phones while driving. Some of them have done so for many years without incident. I’ve been known to do so myself. Yet according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

  • In 2009, more than 5,400 people died in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver and about 448,000 people were injured.
  • Among those killed or injured in these crashes, nearly 1,000 deaths and 24,000 injuries included cell phone use as the major distraction.

So we are advised, and even required, to avoid using our cell phones while driving. According to The Color of Crime:

  • Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
  • Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
  • Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
  • Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to be wary around blacks. This is what most of us believe.

One comment on Pollack’s article, by Katja, reads:

For example, I’ve never gotten a good answer from the likes of John Derbyshire why they don’t also engage in gender-based profiling. After all, men are around ten times more likely (with minor variations by country) to be the perpetrators of violent crimes than women, right? So, should we shun and ghettoize the male half of the species? Obviously, the answer is “no”. As a reasonably smart woman, I know, for example, that I am safest from violent crime committed by men in the company of other men. That’s because the behavior of a criminal minority of a segment of the population is not a predictor for the behavior of the rest of that segment.

Since the website in question doesn’t appear to be accepting comments any longer, I’ll explain it here. Among young people (who are almost always the perpetrators of violent crime), a majority are men. It is simply not practical to “shun and ghettoize” males. You’d have to live as a hermit far from human habitation to do so. It is obviously not possible to put all men in ghettos or for women to shun them. But it is practical, and advisable, to keep blacks away from whites as much as possible. Saving white lives is just one, of several, reasons for this.

At least Katja recognizes that she should be wary of lone males. I’m sure she also takes their dress and speech patterns into consideration. I’m also certain that sometimes she is wary of groups of men; she can’t always assume that a group of men is safe to be around. Jared Taylor has pointed out that the difference in criminality between blacks and whites is just as great as between men and women. So perhaps Katja and I are in agreement. As for Pollack, I would encourage him to continue ignoring Derbyshire’s advise. Eventually the Pollack problem will solve itself.

In the 2012 movie “Flight“, Denzel Washington plays the heroic pilot who manages to save the lives of all 102 people on board his plane. He later gets in trouble for having alcohol in his system. I haven’t seen the movie, but obviously he is vindicated in the end. It goes without saying.

Millions of people will see the heroic black pilot in “Flight” but only a few know about the real-life episode of Flight 1771. From ask.com:

Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 was a commercial flight that crashed near Cayucos, California, United States, on December 7, 1987, as a result of a murder-suicide scheme by one of the passengers. All 43 people on board the aircraft died. The man who caused the crash, David Burke (born May 18, 1952), was an angry former employee of USAir, the parent company of PSA.

Burke had been terminated by USAir for petty theft of $69 from in-flight cocktail receipts, and had also been suspected of other crimes. After meeting with Raymond F. Thomson, his supervisor, in an unsuccessful attempt to be reinstated, he purchased a ticket on PSA Flight 1771, a daily flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Burke’s supervisor was a passenger on the flight, which he took regularly for his daily commute to and from work.

Using his unsurrendered USAir credentials, Burke, armed with a loaded .44 Magnumrevolver that he had borrowed from a co-worker, was able to use the employee security bypass checkpoint at Los Angeles International Airport. After boarding the plane, Burke wrote a message on an airsickness bag which he probably gave to Thomson to read before shooting him:

Hi Ray. I think it’s sort of ironical that we ended up like this. I asked for some leniency for my family. Remember? Well, I got none and you’ll get none.

The perpetrator, David Burke, was born May 18, 1952 to Jamaican parents living in Britain.

Previously Burke had worked for an airline in Rochester, New York, where he was a suspect in a drug-smuggling ring that was bringing cocaine from Jamaica to Rochester via the airline. He was never officially charged, but is reported to have relocated to Los Angeles to avoid future suspicions.

Hollywood’s hero:

Real-life demon:

But was there a real-life pilot hero? Of course there was. A poster at Stormfront pointed out that Captain Chesley Sullenberger heroically landed his craft in the Hudson River, saving all 155 people aboard. According to Wikipedia:

Chesley BurnettSullySullenberger, III (born January 23, 1951) is an American Airline Captain, aviation safety expert and accident investigator, best-selling author, speaker and consultant. Sullenberger gained fame when he successfully ditched US Airways Flight 1549, which had been disabled by striking a flock of Canada Geese during its initial climb out, in the Hudson River off Manhattan, New York City, on January 15, 2009. All of the 155 passengers and crew aboard the aircraft survived.

The real-life hero looks nothing like the movie version:

But Hollywood will only portray heroes as white when it feels there is no other alternative. Otherwise its top priority is lionizing blacks for their self-esteem – and to promote miscegenation. The self-esteem of whites, and their welfare, is of no consequence to them.

Regarding the horrific murders of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, known as the Knoxville Horror, Snopes.com demonstrates its ignorance of the media double standard in racial matters.

It starts by quoting an anonymous email account of the victims’ fate, and then early news accounts. The fact that just about all murder cases evolve over time, with new facts emerging and old accounts being discarded, doesn’t stop Snopes from telling us that:

Subsequent reports have contradicted many of these details, including that neither Newsom nor Christian was mutilated as described, and that the perpetrators murdered Christian within days of the kidnapping [rather than holding her captive for several days], poured cleaning solution into her mouth to eliminate DNA evidence [rather than as a form of torture, and killed her by binding her inside several plastic garbage bags and leaving her to suffocate [but did not shoot her or set her body on fire as they did with Newsome]…

It’s hard to tell if Snopes is merely listing the errors in the initial report, reflected in the email, or if it’s trying to minimize the magnitude of the crimes.

Snopes could have quoted any number of later accounts, from pro-white websites, that had more accurate accounts of what transpired. Instead, they cited an early, and inaccurate one. It’s worth noting that the Snopes article was last updated in December of 2011, so they’ve had plenty of time to present more accurate accounts from pro-white sources. Instead, they stuck with one that shows pro-whites in the worst possible light. What would happen to their credibility, or popularity, if they did the same with Holocaust stories?

Snopes claims that since “no evidence demonstrated the race of the victims was a motivation in their killing” and that police stated they did not believe it was a hate crime, there was no reason for the media to treat it as such. But was there evidence of a hate crime in the infamous Duke lacrosse case? In fact there was none whatsoever, but since the accused were white and the alleged victim black, this was enough for a national media feeding frenzy. With few exceptions, any time a black is victimized by a white, a “hate crime” is automatically suspected. Meanwhile, blacks continue to commit blatantly racist attacks against whites and law enforcement refuses to acknowledge it. Their mantra is almost always “race was not a factor”. Snopes is either unaware of this pattern or chooses to ignore it. It means nothing when a police department claims that “race was not a factor”; they are clearly trained, and required, to make such statements whenever the culprit is black. As for the family of the victims, how would they know? They are probably as brainwashed as most Americans.

Snopes then goes on to defend the lack of national coverage by writing:

… the fact is that only a tiny handful of of the approximately 15,000 murders that occur in the United States every year makes national news, and the cases that do tend to attract prolonged nationwide coverage are the ones exhibiting a combination of factors (e.g., scandal, mystery, sexual elements, celebrity involvement, shockingly large numbers of deaths, murders of children and other victims who elicit especial sympathy) that makes them particularly fascinating and compelling to the public at large, such as the still-unsolved murder of 6-year old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, the mysterious disappearance (and death) of pregnant Lacy Peterson, the massacre of 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech, and the celebrity trial to determine whether actress Lana Clarkson committed suicide or was killed by reclusive record producer Phil Spector.

And of course, the fact that the victims were white and the (presumed) killer black didn’t stop the O.J. Simpson murder trial from becoming the most media-covered event in the history of U.S. jurisprudence.

It’s odd that Scopes doesn’t consider the murders of Christian and Newsom gruesome or shocking enough to merit national attention. Even Snopes admits that the details of the crime were “horrific” and that they were “sensationalized” by the (local) press. If so, why would the national press ignore it? It’s also telling that Snopes cites the O.J. Simpson case as proof that the national media does not ignore black on white crime. By its own admission, this crime could not be ignored since it involved a celebrity. It’s also a sad commentary on Snopes that its writers do not consider a beautiful couple, in the prime of their lives, worthy of “especial sympathy” when they are brutally murdered by worthless thugs.

Even so, Snopes rates the account of the murder of Newsom and Christian as “mostly true”. The implication is that, while accounts of the murders are “mostly true”, accusations against the national media are not true. As a matter of fact, the only inaccuracies are in some of the details in early accounts.

I’m not so certain that I would rate Snopes quite as generously.

 

Mercury News of Silicon Valley, California reports that a “French group” is threatening to sue Twitter over some posts that violate France’s hate-speech laws.

PARIS — Twitter agreed to pull racist and anti-Semitic tweets under a pair of French hash tags after a Jewish group threatened to sue the social network for running afoul of national laws against hate speech, the organization said. The decision came a day after Twitter bowed to German law and blocked an account of a banned neo-Nazi group there.

The freewheeling San Francisco-based social network is increasingly running up against European anti-discrimination laws, many of which date to the aftermath of the Holocaust by governments that acknowledged the contribution of years of hate speech to the Nazi attempt to annihilate the Jews. Friday’s action, which was not carried out immediately, could mark a new stage for the company that has famously refused efforts to police its millions of users.

But it’s not entirely clear how the social network planned to carry out the agreement or in what timeframe.

“Twitter does not mediate content,” the company said in a statement. “If we are alerted to content that may be in violation of our terms of service, we will investigate each report and respond according to the policies and procedures outlined in our support pages.”

The company’s policies require international users to comply with local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content. They also ban any content with direct threats of violence.

The French Union of Jewish Students, which planned to supply Twitter with a list of the offensive tweets to be pulled, said it would still file a formal complaint against the social network to bring the tweeters to justice. The union held a conference call Thursday night with Twitter executives in California.

Though some European Jews are shifting to the Right, historically, they have rejected it. According to Extremis Project:

Jewish communities, however, have understood that undermining pluralistic and open societies may also undermine the equality and freedoms that they have achieved, and have not been afraid to say so in public.

It remains to be seen how “pluralistic” and “open” Europe will be once it is run by Africans and Arabs. Laws against “hate-speech” don’t strike me as being particularly “open” or “pluralistic” either.

Swastikas are not appealing to me, but I’d rather allow neo-Nazis to display swastikas, and reveal their true colors, than force them underground and make it more difficult for the rest of us to identify them. Let the neo-Nazis fly their swastikas and let the gangbangers wear their saggy pants. It’s good to be able to recognize danger from a distance. As for the neo-Nazis, displaying the swastika will not gain them many new recruits, except for those who already have issues.

The entrenched Jewish establishment in Europe has been slow to recognize the dangers of mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East. It tends to sugarcoat Muslim-on-Jewish violence in terms that are meant to arouse sympathy toward the former. For example, Lori Hinnant writes, on the European Jewish Congress’ webpage:

French Jews believe the danger comes from radical messages that appeal to young Muslims in France who are unemployed, angry, alienated and looking for someone to blame. But France has struggled to address the problem head-on because of the social sensitivities. President Francois Hollande met Sunday with the head of an umbrella group of Muslim organizations, assuring him that the government would not stigmatize all Muslims for anti-Semitic acts committed by a radical fringe…

“Anti-Semitism previously came from the extreme right, and the movements expressed their attitudes toward Jews with posters, words, perhaps by desecrating a cemetery,” said Yossi Malka, a Moroccan Jew who settled in Sarcelles in the 1980s. “Today, we have an anti-Semitism that doesn’t end with words but goes into the realm of action.”

Malka blames conflicts overseas as well as the wave of post-colonial immigration from North Africa that has left a generation of struggling young Muslims…

Many French Jews say it’s impossible to separate anti-Semitism from France’s problems with its disaffected youth — up to 50 percent unemployment in some heavily immigrant housing projects — or from anger about Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. Only a small part of that anger translates into anti-Semitism : Young people also target symbols of the French government, most recently in the northern city of Amiens, where dozens of youths faced off against riot officers in August in a night of violence that ended with 17 officers injured, and a pre-school and public gym torched.

“Disaffected” is a loaded word. It can mean mean “alienated” or “discontented” and dictionary.com gives the following sentence as an example of its use:

Until the disaffected are given a voice, violence is their only tool to get noticed.

It implies that the perpetrators are, at some level, also victims and it evokes sympathy. The “disaffected” youth in question live in government housing projects and receive government welfare. If they are angry over their station in life, perhaps they should direct their anger toward their parents, who came to France of their own free will. If things are so bad for them in France, perhaps they should consider moving to their ancestral homes in Africa.

I can understand the reticence of French Jewry to condemn immigration. After all, most French Jews are themselves immigrants from North Africa or their children. But it should be obvious to all concerned that it is not Jews who form the criminal underclass in France today. It’s not Jews who perpetrate violence against Muslims, but the other way around. It’s not Jews who threaten the liberty of France, and it’s not Jews whose numbers threaten to overwhelm Europe and transform its native populations into minorities.

Unfortunately it is Jews who have been instrumental in promoting the catastrophic immigration policies now in place. Not all Jews, just the wealthy and powerful ones. From the European Jewish Congress article quoted above, it’s clear that their goal is not to stop immigration. Rather it is to appease the immigrant underclass, by throwing more money at them, until they behave themselves. This is the policy the U.S. has been pursuing with its blacks and Hispanics and it’s suicidal in the long term.

Just as I can’t blame French Jews for taking a while to realize that their future lies with the Right, similarly I can’t blame the Right for being wary of the Jews.  But the Right and the Jews, even if they don’t love each other, must marry out of necessity.

Back in 2010, Georgia representative Hank Johnson made a fool of himself by suggesting that the island of Guam might capsize due to increased U.S. troop levels. Now it turns out he may not have been that far off the mark. Scientists are theorizing that the removal of ground water may trigger earthquakes, such as the one that struck Lorca, Spain in 2011 and killed 9 people.

According to Ouramazingplanet:

Groundwater removal triggered the unusually shallow and deadly earthquake that hit Lorca, Spain, in 2011, according to a new study…

The researchers were also able to precisely calculate the physical changes that generated the quake. The results will help seismologists better understand the physics that control when an earthquake starts and stops — an important step in predicting when and where a quake will occur, and its size…

But the 2011 quake ruptured only 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) below the Earth’s surface, which meant the earthquake’s energy was concentrated at the surface. Nine people were killed and dozens were injured, and both unreinforced masonry, like medieval churches, and modern buildings were damaged.

Thanks to previous research work in Spain, González suspected the quake’s shallow epicenter could be related to groundwater extraction near Lorca. The groundwater table south of Lorca has dropped as much as 820 feet (250 meters) since 1960.

Considering that Spain has a birthrate of only 1.47 babies per woman, one might ask why so much water was pumped out of the ground in recent years.  Perhaps the fact that Lorca is a destination for large numbers of immigrants, mainly from Ecuador and Morocco, has something to do with it. Back in 2001, the BBC reported:

Ecuadorians fleeing poverty at home make up one of Spain’s largest immigrant communities.

In Lorca alone there are up to 9,000 working on farms that grow vegetables such as tomatoes and lettuce, said Lorca town hall spokesman Tomas Guillen.

And according to Wikipedia:

In recent years, Lorca has experienced a population growth because of peasant immigration, mostly coming from Ecuador and Morocco.

More people = an increased need for water. It’s an immutable fact of nature. Thus we see that mass immigration can upset the balance of nature in previously unforeseen ways.

According to Livescience:

Of all the world’s major religious groups, Muslims are the least likely to have sex outside of marriage, new research found. And as a country’s Muslim population grows, the rate of premarital sex declines for all residents, even non-Muslims, according to the study.

Researchers analyzed the responses of over 620,000 people (ages 15-59) who were interviewed as part of the Demographic and Health Surveys in 31 mostly developing nations from 2000 to 2008. Most countries included in the sample had either a Muslim or Christian majority, except India and Nepal, which have Hindu majorities, and Cambodia which has a Buddhist majority. (The United States was not included in the study.)

They found that, overall, the odds of married Muslims reporting premarital sex are 53 percent lower than for Christians. Hindus are 40 percent less likely to report premarital sex, compared with Christians. Meanwhile, Jews and Buddhists have greater chances of having sex before getting hitched than Christians do, according to the study.

The study has some obvious weak spots. For example, it could be that people in Muslim-dominated societies are more likely to lie about their sex-lives than others. The authors of this study assumed that lying would be kept to a minimum if the interviewers were the same sex as the subjects, and if nobody else was in the room. Perhaps. I suppose that, short of following people around and monitoring their sex-lives, this was the best they could do.

Also,the article goes on to say:

“All major world religions discourage sex outside of marriage, but they are not all equally effective in shaping behavior,” wrote the researchers, led by Amy Adamczyk, an associate professor of sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Yes, it’s true that other religions are not as effective; probably because their adherents don’t resort to honor-killings, acid attacks and female genital mutilation. Lynch mobs are very effective at curbing criminal behavior, but I’m willing to bet that Adamczyk does not support them.

In Adamczyk’s defense, she has published a number of similar studies in the past, all of which tend to support her conclusions in this book. She’s studies HIV rates and found them to be lower in predominantly Muslim countries as well.

I’m not sure that Livescience did a good job conveying the nature of the study to its readership. If we consult the John Jay College account of Professor  Adamczyk and co-author Brittany Hayes’s book, “Religion and Sexual Behaviors: Understanding the Influence of Islamic Cultures and Religious Affiliation for Explaining Sex Outside of Marriage,” we find the following:

Adamczyk and Hayes’s study found that Hindus and Muslims are less likely than Christians and Jews to have premarital sex and Muslims are less likely to have extramarital sex. Muslims’ lower likelihood of premarital and extramarital sex is related to their commitment to, and community support for, strict religious tenants that only permit sex within marriage. The researchers also found that national Islamic cultures influence the sexual behaviors of all residents, even people who do not identify themselves as Muslim. The authors posit that religion tends to have a more powerful effect than restrictions on women’s movement in many Muslim countries (bold mine).

This supports what I’ve been saying for quite some time, that the dominant culture/religion of a society shapes the overall behavior of that society, even those who do not subscribe to the dominant religion/culture. We can carry this insight one step further, into the realm of time, and state that historically Christian societies behave differently, even after the religion is gone, than historically non-Christian societies. If I may be so bold, I would like to call this homeopathic morality. It’s the religion-based morality that remains even after the religion is gone.

A good friend of mine has claimed that we have little to fear from a “Muslim-majority” Europe since the vast majority of “European Muslims” shed their religiosity. Like the masses of shiftless, mindless, youth everywhere, they’d rather be second-rate niggers* than first-rate Arabs or Polynesians or what have you. But, unfortunately, Europe can suffer the worst of both worlds. The same second, and third, generation aliens can be niggers during periods of bad behavior, and Muslims during periods of good behavior. That is to say, when they’re not murdering, looting, raping and vandalizing, they’re voting for Muslim interests, raising Muslim kids, participating in Muslim marches and protests and supporting Muslim culture. It’s a double-edged sword. Good cop/bad cop.

*For new readers: When I say “nigger”, I refer to criminal, trashy, people of any background or those who make it a point to emulate them.

 

A couple of commenters, Hugh and Ivan, set me straight on my appraisal of the movie Agora. I should have done more research before posting. It appears that the producers of Agora took some liberties with historical facts – which is not unusual in movies. I had also been told, by a trusted source, that the movie more or less stuck to the facts. It is entirely possible that this source, if he reads this blog, can defend Agora against its critics. He is a knowledgeable fellow. Thank you, Hugh and Ivan, for bringing the controversy surrounding this movie to my attention.

I believe somebody was quoted, in the movie, as saying that idolators can only believe in things they can see. Hence the need for statuary. It dawned on me that movies are today’s idols. People base their opinions  up0n dramatic events in their lives – and the vast majority of dramatic events people see occur in movies. In fact, I would bet that for every one dramatic event that occurs in real life, there are hundreds that the average person sees in movies and television shows. For the most part, television shows and movies constitute the a huge portion of what most Americans experience (through the senses of sight and sound). This medium is so powerful that it overrides real experiences in their lives. When it comes to ancient history, actual history doesn’t stand a chance against the make-believe history of movies and television – since no living person has experienced the real thing.

I suggested, in a comment on the previous post, that Agora’s producer, Amenábar, used the story of Hypatia as an allegory of the Muslim threat we face today.

I do stand by my previous opinion that the movie is wonderfully made and I recommend it to those who are not as sentimental as I.

While visiting a friend recently, he persuaded me to watch the movie Agora with him. Accolades flowed from his mouth. “You must see it”, he said. In the end, I regretted it.

The movie is extraordinarily well done. Indeed, I would call it a masterpiece. The acting is phenomenal, though I admit that I’m no expert. It was obvious that its producers went to great pains to depict Roman Alexandria as accurately as possible. The actors looked like the actual people who lived in Alexandria at that time, with the exception of the prominent black faces their P.C. sensibilities forced them to include. The hair styles were 100% spot on. The architecture, the dress, and even Hypatia’s dog were clearly gleaned from accurate historical sources. The only thing, other than the painfully obvious inclusion of blacks, that bothered me was the way they depicted Jews. I seriously doubt that the Jews of ancient Alexandria wore earlocks and played Hassidic-style music. But I can forgive them for this, since nobody can prove otherwise.

I regret having seen it because the character of Hypatia, played by Rachel Weisz, was so perfect that I could not help but feel anguish over her murder. It’s a real tearjerker and I watch very few movies – so my resistance level is very low. I didn’t actually cry but it bothered me. It bothered me because my friend kept reminding me that, in real life, she died a much more horrible death than depicted in the movie.

What I loved about the Hypatia character was, aside from her stunning beauty, that she loved knowledge purely for the sake of knowledge. This is something I was brought up with. While I appreciate people who learn a profession in order to earn a living, the attainment of knowledge strictly for its own sake is on a higher plane in my eyes. Actually, it’s not so much the attainment that excites me, it’s the effort and fervor that speaks to my soul. Rachel Weisz did such a good job depicted the love of learning that it touched me deeply. The thought of her death, at the hands of ignorant monks, repels me – and this, by most accounts, is what truly happened.

After reading the Wikipedia account of Hypatia’s life, it seems Agora’s account of what transpired is as valid as anybody else’s. Not much, for certain, is known about her except that she was a brilliant thinker who was murdered in the prime of her life by monks. None of her works survive and all the theories, attributed to her in the movie, are conjecture.

In Agora, the Christians come across much as Muslims do today. Obviously, reality is much more complicated. The movie has Christians destroying the great library at Alexandria, but nobody really knows how the library was destroyed.

Why did Christianity spread so rapidly in Roman Egypt? Perhaps traditional Egyptian beliefs had been on the decline for centuries, as had the Greco-Roman pantheon. Greek philosophy, and ever-changing Roman emperors, had weakened the old gods to the point where only formalities remained and few still believed in their power. Greek philosophy was one of the first attempts at secularism and free-thinking. But the Egyptians were not ready for it. They had nostalgic memories of their own pharaonic theocracy in centuries past. As soon as Christianity gained some authority, they latched onto it as a return to the past. Religious authority was what they craved and Christianity was the only vehicle available to them that had any credibility. The Egyptians were sick and tired of Greco-Roman secularism and politics masquerading as religion. They wanted the real thing but their old gods were dead. Their anger toward Hypatia may have actually been anger toward secularism. A secularism that had been imposed upon them by force through Greeks like Hypatia.

In our own day, knowledge far greater than anything Hypatia could have imagined is at our fingertips. It’s there for the taking. But most people are more interested in celebrities or sports. Politics is a combination of the two. We’re swimming in knowledge and yet few seek it for its own sake. In its stead, faith sustains them. Whether it’s the blind faith of liberalism or an organized religion. Modern Western civilization can flourish because Christianity has lost the power to impose its will on others. It can no longer decree inquisitions, burn witches or force scientists to deny their work. It lurks in the background, mostly harmless and sometimes helpful. But what about the teeming multitudes who practice Islam? While there are some signs that it too is receding to the background, the process might take centuries. We must recognize the risks – something Hypatia failed to do.

I just finished watching this video and thought I’d share it with the rest of y’all. It’s interesting to watch low I.Q., brainwashed, attendees asking questions that show how much they fail to comprehend. Speaking to them is like speaking to a wall. A thick wall of ignorance.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers