November 2012


No kidding! You can get paid for sleeping. The catch is you must be black, or at least half black.

An employee where I work had been taking regular naps on the job. Many of us complained – to no avail. He had been wasting copious amounts of company time doing nothing constructive. Many of us complained – to no avail. This had been going on for years and, as far as the rest of us could tell, nothing was ever done about it. As you can imagine, this had a negative impact on morale. Outsiders would see him sleeping and laugh at our department. “What kind of company allows its employees to sleep?” they would ask. But nothing was done.

Then everything changed. Said black employee chose to take his nap when the most powerful bigwigs in the company paid us a visit. There was some whispering and, shortly thereafter, the employee was fired. He was not fired for being worthless. He was not fired for sleeping on the job. He was fired for doing so in front of important people. All of the rest of us know why he got away with it for so long, and it had nothing to do with his work skills.

At least one thing can be said for him: He had a dream. Probably quite a few of them in fact.

We all love to speak our minds. Some of us feel so strongly about it we actually start our own blogs. Invariably we find like-minded people in the vast blogosphere and forge new alliances. That’s all find and dandy. The problems start when we reveal that we have opinions that range beyond the single issues upon which many of those alliances were forged.

Practically everybody here agrees that race is real, that white people exist and that white people have a right to exist. But what about homosexuality? What about the role of government? What about Christianity and religion in general? Obviously we don’t all take the same positions when it comes to these other matters. Most of us can find it in our hearts to agree to disagree and focus on our common causes.

But a lot of people have opinions that they feel cannot be compromised. They will have nothing to do with individuals who hold contrary views. The author of the now defunct blog Latte Island found this problem serious enough to cause her to stop blogging. She wrote me:

Hi, I’ve stopped blogging.  Here’s why:  my bias towards inclusion of all possible allies seems to be a lost cause.  Every major story, even this thing with Petraeus, has the usual chorus of, look, the women are responsible, the gays are responsible, everything would have been better if we could put women back in the kitchen and having babies, the gays should shut up with their demands for special privileges, etc.

Okay, if that’s what pro-white people want, fine.  I’m a feminist, and I like having the right to work instead of having babies. Not everyone is called to motherhood.  It’s always been like that.  Social conservatives are just making stuff up about how, in the good old days,  everyone was happy in the kitchen and closet.   I don’t think homosexuality is the cause of the fall of Rome and America.  When I read stuff like that, I laugh and think, it’s too bad these otherwise intelligent people don’t even realize how many gay people they already know and like.

But it’s all really the fault of the Jews, of course.

Do you remember Ian Jobling of White America?  He hasn’t been heard of in quite a while, for the same reasons as me.  After a while, you give up on  people who would rather hate on some of their own people, than be a bit more permissive and win.

I voted for Romney, because he’s a big tent pragmatist like me.  I wouldn’t have voted for one of those bible-thumping bigots the right loves so much.

Though Latte Island and I do not have identical views, I share her enthusiasm for big-tent pragmatism and I do agree with her that it’s self-defeating to harp on divisions that don’t need to be deal-breakers. Nor do I believe I’m compromising my principles by befriending proponents of big government or Christians or pagans or what have you.

Human stupidity, whose blog is still very much alive and well (and who has written a very nice series of articles on the George Zimmermann/ Travvon Martin case, which I recommend) has also been struggling with this problem. He has some well-founded, but controversial, opinions on diverse topics – and he’s found that expounding on one topic will alienate his allies in other topics. I’ve had similar concerns – but my readers appear to be more forgiving (thank you!). I’m pretty sure that Robert Lindsay has the same issue, but I’m also pretty sure he doesn’t care. It’s a certain state of blogger nirvana where you can speak your mind and some people think you’re crazy – but you don’t care because you’re having fun.

One solution, if you haven’t reached your blogger nirvana yet, would be to have separate blogs for each issue. But then somebody discovers that it’s the same writer and it becomes a scandal. Better to be upfront about your beliefs; if they’re too crazy to share, it might be time to trade them in for new ones anyway.

Yesterday I leafleted in front of Powell’s Books downtown. It went pretty well. It’s always interesting to see people’s reactions, and that makes it rather fun.

One young man said “I can’t read.” An old woman tried to give me 75 cents. A homeless black couple asked for a copy, so I gave them one. A few moments later the woman turned to me and said “I know what you mean. I know a woman who’s worked at the same place for 12 years and only makes $7.50 and hour.” A middle-aged woman took one, turned to me and said “I thought the SPLC were the good guys.” I replied “not everybody thinks so.” One man asked me who I work for. If nothing else, I probably got some people thinking and asking questions.

Unfortunately there was no possibility of getting somebody to photograph me handing out leaflets – short of giving my camera to a stranger. Maybe next time.

Human stupidity (he sends me a lot of stuff) sent me an interesting article about discrimination against short men. Though I’m of average height myself, this is a subject that has always been close to my heart. The article, by Jonathan Rauch, can be found here. I recommend the entire article, but here are some highlights:

Mr Miller favours protections for such little people. But he opposes extending protections to the “normally” short–men like America’s labour secretary, Robert Reich, who is 4’10″ and hears no end of it. (Bill Clinton, looking at a model of the White House made from Lego, commented: “Secretary Reich could almost live in there.”) Why protect Mr Miller but not Mr Reich? Because, Mr Miller says, one cannot protect everybody. “It would be totally unwieldy to let everybody in.” Quite true. But convenient, too, to draw the line so as to include him but exclude a raft of other claimants. Convenience is not a principled reason for leaving short men to suffer their fates.

Indeed, it is hard to find any principled reason. Most of the obvious excuses for excluding SHRIMPs from the list of disadvantaged groups do little but show how arbitrary is the concept of any “group”. For example, one might argue that there is no obvious line that demarcates a man short enough to be a SHRIMP. True enough; but in a world where blood mixes freely, there is equally no clear way to distinguish, for instance, a “Hispanic” from an “Anglo”, or an American Indian from a “white” man.

Perhaps a “minority group”, then, must be an ethnic or hereditary grouping? Plainly not. If women, homosexuals and people in wheelchairs may be minority groups, then surely short men can qualify. American Hispanics have nothing in common except the “Hispanic” label itself (they are mostly identified solely by their names). At least SHRIMPs are all detectably short.

In the West, the past quarter-century has been an era of awakening group consciousness. Blacks and women, Asians and indigenous peoples, homosexuals and the disabled–one by one, all have come to embrace group-based identities and protections. The obese are now reaching for group status; and, in truth, they too have a case. So why not short men? Logically, there seems no way out…

Knowing that short young men earn less money than other young men is, certainly, interesting. Knowing that only 9% of American Hispanics, as against 24% of non-Hispanics, hold a university degree is also interesting. But what do such facts imply? One does well to remember that they are mere statistical compilations, averages that blur together individuals who have virtually nothing in common. A “Hispanic”, for instance, is a mere Spanish-sounding name masquerading as a human being. A SHRIMP, similarly, is no more than a mark on a tape measure. To convert adjectives into nouns–as in “a SHRIMP”, or “a black” or “an Asian” or “a homosexual”–is to seize upon a single element of a person’s make-up and cast into the background everything else. This kind of thinking may be useful as a tool of social analysis; as a basis for public policy, however, it is treacherous.

But the Left, acting through government, the educational system, the media and business, has forced everybody else to pigeonhole members of “protected groups” into just such categories. If an individual accomplishes something noteworthy, and he happens to be black, we are never allowed to overlook this fact. It is pounded into our heads in every conceivable way. Unless one lives in a cave, he comes to view the individual as “the first black man to…” The same is true of Hispanics and, to a lesser extent, women.

Rauch doesn’t go into it, but heightism has racial implications within a multiracial society as well. If tall men are favored, and black men tend to be taller, then it follows that black men will be favored. If Asian men are shorter, then it follows that Asian men will be disadvantaged. Since there is a rough inverse correlation between height and I.Q. (racially), Asian men can somewhat make up for their disadvantage. Nevertheless, the most unfortunate of all are short, not-so-intelligent Asian men. The most fortunate of all are tall, intelligent black men.

I am against set-asides and “affirmative action” of any kind. But if such programs are to exist, I can think of few better candidates than short men.

After having encountered SPLC (Southern Poverty Center) activists in downtown Portland a couple of times, I found them again in front of my local library. This was yesterday and I told them, point blank, that the SPLC is a hate group. They didn’t like it very much.

Considering the amount of activity they’ve been involved in recently here in Portland, I realized that there must be a response. So, with the help of Unamusement Park, I put together a flyer. The entire flyer was taken from U.P.’s post exposing the SPLC’s extreme anti-white bias.

Here’s the flyer (PDF):

The Southern Poverty Law Center

Today I visited the same library I was at yesterday and distributed those flyers. By announcing “The SPLC is a hate group”, I could get some of my message across even to those who couldn’t be bothered to take a copy (about 80% of passersby). It was cold and rainy, but an overall success considering I gave out quite a few flyers and even spoke (briefly) to some people. Of course there were those who objected to my message. A couple of women assumed that since they were lesbian, my message doesn’t apply to them. The SPLC is just like government. It’s corrupt, it has deep pockets and it caters to certain constituencies.

Libraries are good places to distribute flyers, as long as you don’t obstruct traffic and keep a certain distance from the doors. They are considered bastions of free speech and they’re relatively safe.

I suppose now is as good a time as any to mention that those flyers cost money to print – and there’s a “donate” button on the right of this blog. I’ll definitely be doing more of this because it must be done. The SPLC cannot be allowed to advance its agenda with no opposition.

I’m still reading “The Perfect Swarm” by Len Fisher. Although the author decries the pitfall of “groupthink”, and he admits that he is not immune to it, his blanket condemnation of “racism” shows that he may be more prone to it than he thinks.

Nevertheless, his descriptions of how two populations dealt with epidemics are interesting studies in contrast between Europe and black Africa. Regarding the Black Death, Fisher writes (pg. 124, 125):

A signal example of the way in which diseases spread is provided by the story of how the Black Death made it to the English village of Eyam in 1665. The network shortcut in this case was a link between the village tailor, George Viccars, and his London supplier, who sent Viccars a bundle of flea-infested cloth. The fleas were vectors for the Black Death, and Viccars was dead within a week.

In the meantime, though, he had acted as a hub to spread the disease to many others in the village. The village itself could have acted as a hub to spread the disease to surrounding villages were it not for the leadership of the rector and the minister, who persuaded the villagers to quarantine the entire village, allowing no one in or out. Around 540 of the village population of 800 died, but the surrounding villages were unaffected.

Shortly thereafter (also on pg. 125, 126), Fisher tells us of an incident in Africa:

Removing the hubs of sexually transmitted diseases is a much more difficult affair, impinging as it does on the balance of human rights between the infector and his or her partners/victims, and also on the difficulty of identifying the hubs. Education is certainly part of the answer, although it can sometimes go awry, as a colleague of my wife found out when she gave a talk on venereal disease to some children in an African school. She showed a film to demonstrate the chain of events that take place when one person gives the disease to another. At the end of the film one of the children asked, “If I give it to someone else, does that mean that I won’t then have it myself?”

It turned out that every child in the room thought the same thing: that you got rid of a sexually transmitted disease by passing it on. A friend who is an aid worker in Africa tells me that this is also a common misconception in the adult population, and that people who suffer from AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases often believe that they can get rid of the diseases by passing them on.

Reader of this blog are probably already aware of the ugly ramifications of that last paragraph. But I have not heard of any place on Earth, other than Africa, where such simplistic beliefs are common today. All primitive societies have blamed evil spirits, the gods or witchcraft for the spread of disease – but these primitive societies did not have the benefit of modern education, medicine and hygiene. Modern Africa has had these benefits for quite a few years now. At what point will the Western world collectively tell Africa that it is time for it to solve its own problems? Until it does so, perhaps it should be treated like the village of Eyam.

A friend sent me an article from Ynetnews where Rabbi Baruch Efrati explains his support for the Islamification of Europe.

Efrati wrote in response that the Islamization of Europe was better than a Christian Europe for ethical and theological reasons – as a punishment against Christians for persecuting the Jews and the fact that Christianity, as opposed to Islam, is considered “idolatry” from a halachic point of view.

“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there,” the rabbi explained as the ethical reason for favoring Muslims, quoting shocking descriptions from the Rishonim literature (written by leading rabbis who lived during the 11th to 15th centuries) about pogroms and mass murders committed by Christians against Jews.

While it’s true that Christianity is considered idolatry, while Islam is not, this does not apply to all forms of Christianity. Some forms of Protestantism are not considered idolatry by Jewish law. Furthermore, any validity Efrati’s arguments have might hold true in a test-tube society. Reality is more complex. Due to the State of Israel, Muslims are less tolerant of Jews now than during many other periods. Muslim attitudes toward Jews have varied wildly. But total acceptance and respect is not the norm. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that Christianity will return to the days of inquisitions, pogroms and crusades. Those days are over and we should view Christian Europe as it is today, not as it was a thousand years ago. Unfortunately, most people who call themselves “Christians” are hostile toward whites (as a group) but friendly toward Jews. So, from a Jewish point of view, it’s foolish to support the demise of one’s allies and then pray for tolerance from one’s enemies. From a white point of view, Christianity needs to be either repackaged or replaced, in favor of something more ethnocentric.

Regarding Efrati’s other point, that Christians have blood on their hands from centuries ago, it reminds me of the Christian belief that Jews have blood on their hands for the murder of Jesus. To hold current generations responsible for the actions of their distant ancestors is a recipe for genocide. This mentality serves as justification for the current persecution of whites in America. It makes no sense unless your goal is to dehumanize your victims.

If Rabbi Efrati is so fond of Islam, he should try living in Saudi Arabia for a while – but he’s not allowed there because he’s Jewish.

Advocates for multiculturalism are quick to tout the wonderful virtues of diversity – without actually listing any. Pro-whites are quick to point out that racial displacement is only taking place in historically white homelands. This is, of course, mostly true. But cultural displacement appears to flow mainly from white societies to non-white ones. Jeans and t-shirts, McDonald’s and English (if we use the term loosely) have taken over large swaths of the globe.

I don’t believe the numbers of African returnees will ever come close to the numbers of emigres, but it doesn’t take many to have a huge cultural impact on their homelands when they return.

An alarabiya article reports:

Two years ago, fashion designer Ayan Hussein left the high-end stores of Britain’s capital for a stab at promoting fashion that was in line with Muslim tradition in her Somali homeland.

But she and her family, along with thousands of other Somalis who have returned in the hope of drumming up business or out of nostalgia, often find themselves facing culture shock.

“It is not the same as in London… not the slightest,” says Hussein’s 18-year-old son Guled, who does not speak a word of Somali.

“There is dust everywhere. You can’t skate here,” he says in impeccable English.

It is Somaliland, an autonomous territory of around four million people in the north of Somalia along the Gulf of Aden, which has played host to many returnees in recent years.

The region, which declared self-rule in 1991, has provided a haven of relative peace and stability in a land otherwise known for decades of brutal war.

Ayan Hussein was only a young woman when she left Mogadishu in 1997. Now in her late thirties, she decided to return to the land of her birth in 2010 to look after her ailing mother as well as to venture into business…

“We have to convince our clients that they are not obligated to be in all black,” she explains to AFP recently, her hair neatly tucked under a flaming red head scarf.

Not surprisingly, returnees to Africa bring some of the West back with them. Though the article doesn’t say so, it’s a fair bet that some returnees consider themselves superior to natives who have never known life outside Africa. It’s also a fair bet that many young Africans will mimic the newcomers’ ways in a crude effort to be just like them.

This cultural clash is sure to have repercussions, not all of them pleasant. As the article goes on to say:

“It is like we have two different societies here,” explains one returnee from Britain, who came back to work at a recently opened soft drinks plant.

“Because we are Somali, they expect us to be like them,” adds another young woman on condition of anonymity. “This poses some difficulties.”

But the above returnee is not terribly concerned. Why?

“Of course there is always a bit of a clash, the locals fear they (diaspora members) are taking over… they feel threatened,” says Ayan Rabi, who is in charge of the program, backed by the International Organization for Migration.

But they are all Somalis and after a while, all this goes away,” Rabi adds (emphasis mine).

What would the prognosis be if they were not all Somalis? If they practiced multi-racialism as they do in the Western world? Perhaps then, it would not “all go away.” How many of the European elite even consider the fact that, as long as there are distinct populations, cultural/ethnic rivalries can never go away? The Somalis understand this. Why is it so difficult for Western whites, who have consistently voted for political parties whose platforms call for their own extinction?

I encountered two SPLC activists today in Portland. Each was soliciting donations from passers by near the university. I stood and watched for a while. They didn’t seem to be having any success as they asked “do you want to fight hate crimes and bullying?” or “we’re fighting bigotry and bullying”. So I meandered up to the lady, not bothering to remove my Confederate hat, and announced that I had been a victim of hate crime and bigotry for four years. She took on a somewhat exaggerated look of concern as I told her bits and pieces of my story. How I, and thousands of others were tormented by intolerant blacks because of forced busing. Apparently, she had never heard of forced busing. I told her that the media will not publish our stories, nor will organizations such as SPLC take our cause seriously. She excused herself and walked away.

The man didn’t wait for me to approach him. He saw me passing by and said “nice hat you’ve got there”. We had a friendly conversation, in which I told him that the SPLC needs to take attacks against whites seriously if it wants to have any credibility. He told me my hat was “gutsy” and was clearly meant to make a statement. My response was that Southerners are often targets of stereotypes and that they are people too, with a heritage and a right to feel good about themselves. He appeared to agree – then excused himself to try to get some donations.

I think it’s encouraging that even in a leftopia such as Portland, even near the university, nobody was paying attention to these people. Apathy has its merits.

Thanks to Portland Realist for bringing my attention to an article in the Portland Tribune that masquerades as “news” when, in fact, it’s propaganda. When the corporate-controlled media accepts dogma as truth, it is bound to confuse the boundaries between “news” and “editorial.” At the very beginning of the article, accompanying a provocative photo, we read:

Defining hate speech may be more difficult than passing a law restricting it, yet most western democracies outside the U.S. have attempted to do both.

The unspoken, and underlying, assumption here is that there is a need to make a distinction between free speech and hate speech. In a bona fide news piece, the writer would present the case for making such a distinction (and for not making it), and then go about explaining how it might be done. But since no such argument is made (at least not at the beginning of the article), but rather it’s assumed, this falls into the realm of propaganda. In every country where hate speech laws are in effect, they are selectively enforced to the detriment of whites, males, Christians and heterosexuals. Rarely are they enforced against non-whites who speak hatefully against whites, or against Muslims who speak hatefully against Christians. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” It is evident that hate speech laws are merely tools of oppression to be used against select groups.

Korn treats us with yet more assumptions in the second paragraph of his article.

Blevins is TriMet’s director of marketing, the guy who deals with the ads. During the past two months, he has accepted – because TriMet attorneys said he had to – two controversial ads that Blevins recognizes aren’t hate speech but are moving in that direction.

One ad asked for public support for Israel and the defeat of jihad and “savages.” The other, which was pro-Palestinian, headlined “Palestinian Loss of Land.”

Why are they “moving in that direction” and who gets to determine when they cross the line into “hate speech”? It would appear that the first ad is objectionable because it attacks jihad and “savages”. If jihad is a call for war against infidels – and the Quran requires it – then wouldn’t the Quran be “hate speech”? How can objecting to a call for war be “hate speech”? Was it “hate speech” when people protested against the Vietnam war or the war on Iraq? Furthermore, is it not accurate to describe people who commit “honor killings” and acid attacks as “savages”? If the problem is the implication that all Muslims are savages, because they believe in jihad, then we should be asking ourselves honest questions about Islam and the definition of “savage.”

Here’s a proposal. Make it a requirement that anybody who wishes to reside in the U.S. must swear, and sign, that he disavows any sort of violent jihad. He would have to explicitly repudiate all passages, in the Quran and the Hadeeth, that call for war against infidels. If such a proposal were seriously suggested, there would be an outcry from the Muslim community. Of course, some would lie to gain residency, but it would keep some of the worst elements out.

I have more difficulty understanding why the pro-Palestinian ad is problematic. Had the ad decried the theft of land from native Americans, would it still be considered problematic? Apparently Korn (Jewish?) believes that a pro-Palestinian positions must be anti-Israel, and that anti-Israel = anti-Semitic.

Korn goes on…

In August, Ellis Bradley discovered that somebody overnight had spray-painted swastikas and racial slurs on his North Mississippi Avenue food cart and on the Sons of Haiti Masonic Lodge next door.

If Bradley’s food cart or the Masonic Temple had been in Canada, France, Germany or just about any other western democracy, the people who spray-painted their messages, if caught, might face punishments much harsher than they could get for mere vandalism.

Does Korn really think that the culprit, if caught, would not face charges of ethnic intimidation or worse? When a white person calls a black a nigger, he practically loses his rights in the eyes of the law. But, as mentioned, blacks can call whites “white boy”, “cracker” or “racist” with impunity.  Hate speech laws are ridiculously biased against whites in Canada, France and Germany. If Korn wants the U.S. to be like those countries, it must be because he shares their anti-white, anti-Christian, bias.

Not surprisingly, Bradly (who is black) favors the implementation of hate speech laws:

Bradley, a 41-year-old black man who grew up in Northeast Portland but lives in Vancouver, Wash., says he would favor a law against hate speech.

“I wish there was a law so when you do something like that, especially when I have my child with me, there would be some kind of sanction, someone I can call and say, ‘Hey, look, this is wrong.’ “

It’s obvious from the article that Korn also favors hate speech laws. I wonder if Korn and Bradley would support locking up rap artists for their hateful lyrics. Would they hold Islamic writings to the same standards as Christian preachers who condemn homosexuality from the pulpit? The Bible contains “hate speech” as well. Would Christianity and Judaism then be illegal? I don’t expect the average citizen, especially blacks ones, to comprehend the importance of freedom of speech. But a journalist, of all people, should know better.

The article is a fairly long one, and Korn makes it abundantly clear that hate speech laws are not intended to protect whites. He writes, for example:

Waldron would try to narrowly define hate speech in any legislation. Words that offend would not be enough, he says. They would have to attack fundamental dignity. And they couldn’t be simply hateful on a personal level, but would have to attack the dignity of an entire class of people such as blacks or gays.

“Such as” here clearly means “exclusive of whites or heterosexuals”. I would say “majority groups” – except that whites are a minority in many places, yet they are never given minority status. Neither Detroit nor South Africa recognizes whites as a protected minority. There are countless examples of anti-white speech, many of them from the pages of the Portland Tribune, that Korn could have cited. Yet he saw fit to ignore them completely and focus exclusively on white on non-white offenses.

To be sure, Korn does present the case against hate speech laws in his article – but only toward the end of the article, where most readers do not venture. As in the beginning of the article, the end also supports the enactment of hate speech laws:

Clackamas County attorney Ed Trompke, who is writing a book about the Oregon Constitution and characterizes himself as extremely liberal, says he’s coming around to the idea that maybe we should at attempt to address hate speech.

Trompke suggests legislation that would make public hate speech a low-level offense, like a traffic ticket. It could be a violation, Trompke says, not a criminal charge, but enough to let offenders know society doesn’t approve.

“There’s a very fine line between what is merely offensive and what is so offensive as to attack a person’s dignity as a human being,” Trompke says. “But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. We have to trust our judges to do the right thing. That’s what it comes down to.”…

The Portland Tribune is preparing the groundwork for the abolition of the First Amendment. It’s warming the public to the idea that hate speech legislation is a progressive idea whose time has come. Look for referenda in the near future to outlaw such speech. When they ultimately pass, bolstered by black, Hispanic and Asian voters, who will have the wherewithal to challenge them in court? Making them a “low-level offense” is a sneaky way to discourage people from challenging such laws in court. Stocking the courts with hyphenated Americans will assure that even if such cases make it to court, those laws will be found “constitutional.” At that point, the only means left to us to defend the First Amendment will be to exercise the Second Amendment.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers