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.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 153 other followers