University of Washington to require diversity course for graduation

The Seattle Times recently reported:

Saying it has an obligation to prepare students for a more global society, the University of Washington will require undergrads to complete a course in some area of diversity — economic, cultural or political — before they can graduate.

The new policy, initiated by a group of mostly minority students, followed three failed attempts over the past 22 years to introduce changes meant to ensure that all graduating students know a little more about other cultures and people who differ from them than they did when they first arrived.

It’s sad when an official cult spreads its tentacles around the globe, eating up precious resources and ruining lives in the process. But it’s even more sad when young people buy into the propaganda and become pawns for the rich and powerful.

Not that I feel sorry for the “mostly minority students” who spearheaded the drive to require diversity training for graduation at their university. It’s a feather in their hats that they’re sure to profit from for decades. Call me naive, but I can’t help feeling that some of them, maybe most, actually believe they’re doing a good turn for the world. But within their lifetimes, “diversity training” will mean little more than an official cry of “Can’t we all just get along?” This cry will likely fall on deaf ears as a multitude of interest groups, ethnic, racial and religious, vie for their share of an ever-shrinking pie.

If we all were to suddenly get along, it would not bode well for the top diversicrats who pull the strings. It would be bad news for organizations such as the SPLC or the ADL. Their livelihoods depend on manufactured “hate.” They thrive on fear and their witch hunts for “racists”, “homophobes” or “Islamophobes” never cease. “Diversity” is an industry and, just like big tobacco (allegedly) or McDonalds, it feeds on our impressionable young.

When a young person first gets tangled up in the lies of the diversity cult, he is a victim. But as he grows older, in ever darker shades of an evil continuum, he becomes a perpetrator. As in the movie The Body Snatchers, innocent people are transformed into soulless aliens.

I love children. I take great pleasure in their innocent laughter and play. It pains me to ponder them being reduced to little more than units of production to be fed into the insatiable maw of the diversity industry.

 

Quechua and Aymara in Peru

Some Americans are under the impression that there are vast regions, in Peru, where Spanish is not spoken. Where indigenous languages reign supreme. From what I’ve seen, this is not the case.

While in Cusco, in the heart of the so-called Quechua speaking region, what I saw was a dying language. Only the older people speak it on a regular basis. My queries confirmed that they generally make little or no attempt to teach it to the younger generation. When I asked a street vendor if he spoke Quechua, he replied “yes” and agreed to speak some in front of my camera. What I got was a mixture of maybe 70% Spanish and 30% Quechua. I may post it on YouTube and let viewers decide. A young lady, who works at the hostel I stayed at, invited myself and another man to her home for lunch. She knew I might buy an alpaca sweater from her (I did). She told me that she understands some Quechua; her parents used it mainly to keep secrets from her, much as older Jewish immigrants used Yiddish for subjects they didn’t want their kids to understand. Her older brother did speak it, but he admitted that he makes no effort to teach it to his own daughter. Getting the father to speak Quechua for my camera was like pulling teeth. He simply could not fathom why I would want him to do so if I didn’t understand it. I asked him if he enjoys American music and he said “yes.” I asked him how he could possibly appreciate it if he couldn’t understand the words. In the end, he acquiesced.

When I brought up the obvious fact that such a generational disconnect means their language, an important part of their heritage, was dying, I got the standard answer: Out in the country, everybody speaks it – even children. You’ll get the same answer everywhere a language is disappearing. As a matter of fact, I was out in the country (somewhere in the Sacred Valley) shortly thereafter. A young girl, dressed in traditional garb, stood with her sheep in order to get money from tourists. I asked her if she spoke Quechua and she replied “no.”

While in Mollendo, a teenage boy approached me and asked where I was from. Then he asked which languages I spoke and told me he speaks Spanish and Quechua. So young speakers are out there and there is still some hope for Quechua. Several indigenous languages, included Quechua and Aymara, are considered official languages in Peru. Officially, the government is concerned about their preservation. It recognizes them as important parts of Peruvian heritage. Toward this end, they are taught in schools. But experience has shown that teaching a language in schools will not save it from extinction. Look at Gaelic in Ireland. They teach it in schools there – but how many Irish actually speak it? My guess is that teaching it in schools can be counterproductive; it makes kids look at it as more of a burden than a treasure. If the government were serious about protecting Quechua, the children would be actually taught in it, not just about it. Street signs would have Quechua alongside Spanish. Sort of like they do in Wales with Welch.

Some Peruvian parents give their children Quechua names. Some musicians sing in Quechua. I bought a couple of cds that consist of such songs. But all you hear on the radio is Spanish. I’m sure they have programs in native languages, but you have to know how to find them and they don’t seem to be very popular.

I was going to visit Puno, where Aymara is supposedly widely spoken. Illness prevented me from doing so. But I did hear Aymara spoken while on the bus from Tacna to Arica, Chile. Some middle-aged women were speaking it right beside me. I get the impression that quite a few people still speak it here in the far south, probably due to the relative isolation.

There are many small villages in the Amazon jungle outside Iquitos. I stayed in one called Mishana. I also passed through a couple more. Each time I asked the locals if they spoke any language other than Spanish. The answer was along the lines of: “We’re mestizos here and we speak only Spanish. To hear native languages, you must travel very far out.” It was interesting that even the local guides did not know this; they’d never even bothered to ask.

I met a young Chilean man at my hostel here in Tacna. He’s an anthropologist who specializes in indigenous cultures. He tells me there’s an upsurge in native identity, and that young people are more interested in their roots. That’s all fine and good – except that human sacrifice has continued to be a problem in one or two places, and the authorities had to arrest a shaman. Can indigenous peoples maintain their identities in a positive way? Should they even try? I think they should. If they don’t, they’ll default to “brown nigger” status and become just another blight upon humanity. But ultimately the choice is their’s.

 

Super Bowl: Exemplifying “American virtues”

I came across an article* by Jay Ambrose in today’s Columbian newspaper titled “Super Bowl exemplifies some vital American virtues”. I happened to be with a Filipino friend and wondered out loud which virtues Ambrose would list that are specifically American.

The article describes the game thusly:

In fact, I think the whole affair – patriotic prelude, the football game itself, crowd fervor, technological wizardry, an advertising onslaught, the halftime extravaganza and more – speaks to a remarkable American energy, even a certain joyfulness…

And the frivolity did have touches of unifying seriousness, the most moving of which was the wondrous singing of “America the Beautiful” by a chorus of 26 children from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn…

Football… (is) a game of psychological ups and downs that make a difference, of skill and character and, believe it or not, of intellect and must consider strategies, counter-strategies and ingenious tactics…

He goes on to mention the power outage, Beyonce’s performance, the fact that the opposing coaches were brothers. But, as I read each “American virtue,” I said to my Filipino friend, “surely they don’t possess that particular virtue in the Philippines, do they?”  He shocked me by revealing that all these virtues exist in the Philippines as well.  So I wondered if the Filipinos learned patriotism, musical talent, technology and togetherness from the Americans. I became confused trying to fathom how new immigrants, from all corners of the world, magically acquire these virtues upon arrival in America. I marvel at the thought that, had those immigrants ended up in other lands instead, they would have had to make due with whatever second-rate virtues they have in those lands.

I’d always wondered why it is that national governments are so eager to conquer new lands (and hold on to land they’ve already got). Now I know: It’s to spread their virtues. As land falls under their sway, their special virtues are bestowed upon that land. These virtues are then, by some unknown mechanism, transferred to those who live on that land. Amazing!

I almost asked my Filipino friend why his people were so determined to free themselves from American rule. Think of all the virtue they gave up on by pursuing independence. They could have become like Puerto Rico; all its citizens are Americans. As such, they share our virtues.

I feel so fortunate to have been born in the United States of America. Had I been born just a couple hundred miles south, in Mexico, I would have had to cross the Rio Grande to get my virtues.

On second thought, maybe I would have been better off in Mexico. Mexico has the virtue of maintaining its own specific culture while the U.S. has been busy taking a little from here and a little from there, haphazardly mixing them together and hoping for the best. I remember, as a child, concocting my own cereal like that. It was so bad even the dog wouldn’t eat it.

*Currently the article seems to appear only in the printed version.

 

Mass murders in the West; what has changed?

In the aftermath of the horrific murders in Newtown, Connecticut, a lot of questions are being asked. Here are some pointed questions that deserve attention:

1)  Have mass-murders becoming more frequent in recent years?

The general consensus seems to be “yes”. According to Psychology Today:

According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that’s very good news, there’s a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

If such killings have become more common, we should be asking: What has changed over the last few decades? We’ll deal with this later.

The same article states, “As for demographics, the mass murderer is typically a white male.” And this brings us to our next question.

2) Are most mass-murderers, in the U.S., white males?

The above Psychology Today article links to another article from goodmenproject. In that article, Christian Piatt quotes David Lohr:

Typical mass murderers are usually conservative, middle-aged, white males from relatively stable, lower-to-middle-class backgrounds.

Piatt goes on to consider factors that could cause white males to be more  inclined to this kind of violence. He lists: “Hate group” propaganda, role models such as Hitler and Stalin, Isolation, access to weapons, shock and awe and hopelessness. I’ll leave it for others to debate the details of his claims, but I will point out that “hate group propaganda” is extremely hard to come by except on the internet, and even there anti-white hate groups predominate. Furthermore, if any sort of pro-white literature were behind the shootings, how do we explain that the vast majority of victims are white? As for role models, I’ll point out that for every negative white male role model, there are dozens of positive ones. If anybody has easier access to weapons, it’s ghetto blacks and Hispanics.

But to the question, are most American mass murderers white males? Apparently so – but so are most American males in general. The trend is to take a quick look at mass murderers, conclude that most of them are white males, and then assume that this means white males are more likely to be mass murderers. This is faulty thinking.

Motherjones has a comprehensive analysis of the mass murders that have occurred in the U.S. since 1982. They consider a total of 62 mass murders in their analysis and write:

The killers: Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, government buildings, and military bases. Forty four of the killers were white males. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) The average age of the killers was 35, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old.

That comes out to about 71% of them being white males. Assuming that the male proclivity for violence is universal across races, this figure is roughly what we would expect if whites were as likely to be mass murderers as any other race. In other words, white males are no more likely to be mass murderers than other males. So all of the soul-searching about white males supposed higher risk for such crimes is for naught. Well… almost for naught. Whites are less likely to commit violent crimes than blacks or Hispanics – but, when it comes to mass killings, they are just as likely. So it’s all relative; compared to overall rates of murder, assault and rape, whites are more likely to be the culprits. But, outside of this context, no more so than anybody else.

3)  Can we honestly blame the proliferation of guns?

In a nutshell, the answer is “no”. Attempts have been made, and debunked, to claim that guns were uncommon in early America. As a matter of fact, guns have always been an important part of American culture. A glance at a “homicide by firearm versus gun ownership” table at wikipedia doesn’t seem to show much correlation between gun ownership and homicide. Even if it did, the argument can be made that more dangerous environments prompt more people to own firearms for protection. I think it’s more likely that the main contributors to such violence are 1) Ethnic diversity and the conflict it entails 2) Political factors such as the War on Drugs 3) Cultural factors such as alcohol us and religion and 4) Racial composition of the population in question.

Each time there is a mass shooting, the reaction is predictable. “Gun-control” advocates demand more “common-sense” gun laws and gun rights advocates respond that, had a responsible person been present at the time of the shooting, he could have saved many lives. Gun control advocates seem to believe that there should be an inverse relationship between the number of people killed by firearms and the gun rights we enjoy. According to them, the more gun murders there are, the more laws should be passed to restrict the ownership of guns. This is like saying, “The more dangerous your neighborhood is, the less right you have to defend yourself and your loved ones.”

There is little doubt that politicians will feel the pressure to “do something”. Obama will take advantage of the recent mass murder and advance his anti-gun agenda. It almost makes me wonder if Adam Lanza was working for Obama. It’s almost too convenient. Then again, it was only a matter of time before a tragedy like this happened.

4) In what ways has America changed, since 1982, that might have brought about the increase in mass killings?

How has America changed? Let’s list the ways:

a) Technology has advanced. We now have cell phones, flat-screen T.V.s, personal computers and digital cameras. According to the Motherjones article cited above, 1982 was the “magic year” when mass killing really took off. Getting back to Christian Piatt’s list of why white men are more likely to be mass killers, one of the items was “isolation” and, to be fair, 1982 was the year that the internet protocol, TCP-IP was standardized. While there can be little doubt that the internet has contributed to social isolation for some people, it didn’t really take off until the late 1980′s and early 1990′s. I doubt there were any young white men wasting away on the internet in their mother’s basements in 1982.

Can a society advance technologically without experiencing an increase in violent crime? If Japan can do it, why can’t we? I think that, while technological advancement may contribute to violent crime, we cannot honestly point to it as playing the decisive role.

b) Our population has vastly increased. Obviously, the population of the U.S. has been increasing every year for a long time. This increase has strained our infrastructure, altered our way of life and put pressure on ecosystems. But there was no spike in population increase in the early 1980′s. Our population was steadily increasing at about two million per year. While it’s possible that we reached some sort of threshold in those years, where something in the human brain snaps and human life loses some of its value, I’m not aware of any such theory. Two of the most densely populated regions of the world are relatively safe: Hong Kong and Malta. Japan is another example.

c) We have become more “diverse.” A USAToday article sums it up:

The number of nearly all-white communities has plummeted since 1980, dramatic evidence that the nation’s growing racial and ethnic diversity has spread far beyond large metropolitan centers into smaller towns and rural parts of the heartland, new research shows.

Communities where whites are the majority are still the norm (82.6%), but those where they dominate are gradually disappearing, according to an analysis of Census data by Penn State‘s Population Research Institute. In 1980, about two-thirds of all places were at least 90% white. By 2010, only a third were. The number of places where no group is a majority has more than quintupled.

“This trend is pretty geographically pervasive, and even residents of small towns and rural areas are encountering diversity face to face,” says Barrett Lee, Penn State sociologist and demographer and lead author of the study released today. “It’s not something they just read about in the newspapers anymore.”

Indeed, the increase in the non-white population is probably the most visible difference between the America of 1980 and the America of today. This is a direct result of the 1965 immigration act and lax border control. It was whites who created this country, and it had belonged to whites, for the most part, until the great push for “diversity”, which defined itself early on with forced busing. We read, in Wikipedia:

In the 1970s and 1980s, under federal court supervision, many school districts implemented mandatory busing plans within their district. A few of these plans are still in use today…

I was a victim of forced busing back in the late 1970′s. I wrote about my experiences here. Even for those white youngsters who didn’t experience the horrors of forced busing directly, the cultural impact was immense. Just as Native American children were taken from their native culture, and introduced to an alien culture, so too were white children forced into close proximity with inner-city blacks. The difference being that there was little protection, for the white children, from the brutality of the black ghetto. Safety was not a priority. “Diversity” was the priority.

The loss of one’s culture has many ramifications. Among them are a loss of self-esteem, higher rates of suicide and higher rates of substance abuse (including alcohol and tobacco). Whites suffer from all these at higher rates. It’s not much of a stretch to view the increasing incidence of mass murders as a symptom of a wider mental/social illness. It’s not far-fetched to say that the sense of loss, persecution and alienation that accompanies the overwhelming drive for “diversity” (AKA “fewer white males”) can trigger violent reactions in a few. These violent reactions do not make white males more dangerous than non-white males, but they may make them as dangerous in some circumstances.

 

Being “anti-Santa”

Somehow I got signed up for the “Opposing Views” newsletter. I don’t know how; it just happened. “Opposing Views” appears to have a leftist bias, but they do have interesting articles once in a while, so I never unsubscribed.

Here’s a tidbit from the latest Opposing Views newsletter:

Kindergarten isn’t the place parents assume their kids will get their first reality check. It’s usually where kids can believe in magic and Santa and his elves and reindeer — where imagination is fostered and encouraged.

This wasn’t so for a Texas kindergarten teacher, whose only “dashing through the snow” this year was dashing the hopes and breaking the hearts of her 5-year-old students by telling them Santa isn’t real.

The parents of a 5-year-old girl received the unexpected news when their daughter came home from school one day and asked if Santa is real. (If any kids are reading this, it’s a dumb question. Of course, he is.)…

The mother, Susan Tietz Gammage, said she emailed the principal of the school to complain about the incident, who responded that he was “horrified” about the anti-Santa statements and that the teacher has been reprimanded and “given tools” to deal with the situation for following years.

So, if a teacher was reprimanded for telling her students (they are students, aren’t they?) the truth about Santa Claus, does this mean she’s not supposed to teach them the truth? Aren’t those kids at school (kindergarten is school, isn’t it?) to learn? Let me hastily add that I don’t believe it’s good form for a teacher to go out of her way to destroy his student’s religious faith, whatever it may be. There must be a list of topics the teacher is supposed to teach his students – and the myth of Santa Claus surely isn’t on that list. But if the subject just happens to come up, and if one of the children happens to ask about it, then I would expect the teacher to tell him the truth. Education is about the truth.

Those parents who feel strongly about their children believing in Santa Claus should send them to a religious school.

I couldn’t help but notice the phrase “anti-Santa”. When we promote race-realist concepts, concepts that are strongly supported by the latest science, we are accused of being “anti-black” or “anti people-of-color.” Stating a fact does not make somebody anti anything. I will qualify this by stating that if the teacher went out of her way to destroy the children’s belief in Santa, then this would mean she’s against the playful, and innocent, childhood concept of Santa Claus. In the same way, if I went door to door in a Mormon neighborhood and argued against the Book of Mormon, this would probably mean I’m anti-Mormon. But if the subject came up and I stated the truth about it, then all it means is I’m stating the truth.

Childhood innocence is up to parents to protect and gradually replace with wisdom and responsibility. Discovering the truth about Santa Claus is a lot like finding out about sex. If the parents introduce it with a smile, a hug, playfulness and love, then there is nothing traumatic about it at all – even if the child has already had his eyes opened by another and approaches his parents with questions (as in the above article). If the parents laugh a silly laugh, give the child an affectionate pinch on the cheek, and explain it in terms he can understand, then all is well. But if the parents show anger or stress, the child will pick up on this and become traumatized. There is very little a teacher can do, short of actual abuse, that a parent can’t make right. In fact, a teacher’s mistakes are often great parenting opportunities.

It’s a pity so many children attend kindergarten. Because of kindergarten, the most formative years are taken from the parents and given to strangers. It’s a pity because a parent’s main priority in life should be to raise his own child. It appears that public education has caused too many parents to forget the skill of parenting, as we can see from the parental reactions in the above story.

Truth be told, in many cases both parents are forced to work so that they can afford a house in a safe neighborhood. With both parents working, they have little choice but to avail themselves of public schools. It’s a cruel irony that they are forced to send their children to schools where the “wonders of diversity” are pounded into their heads – the same diversity that forced both parents to work in order to escape it, thus rendering them unable to home-school and making it more difficult to teach their children the dangers of diversity. At the same time, a big chunk of their earnings is expropriated in order to perpetuate, and expand, this diversity. It’s diabolical.

 

Cross-pollination or cross-contamination?

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?

 

“French group” threatens lawsuit over anti-Semitic twitter posts

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.

 

Do buildings define a culture?

Most advocates for “Diversity” don’t give much thought to what they espouse. A lot of them tout the virtues of “Diversity” simply because they have no other choice if they wish to keep their jobs, friends and even family.

But the few who do start asking serious questions may find themselves wondering what, exactly, constitutes a community. After all, if a population is multicultural, multiracial, multilingual etc. then what unifying feature can be said to define them as a community as opposed to a collection of individuals?

Beaverton, Oregon councilwoman Betty Bode asked this question. This is what she wrote (typos and all) in the September/October issue of “Your City”, an official publication of the Beaverton municipality (pg. 4):

Beaverton’s Changing Face

Beaverton has some big questions to answer. We have to decide as a community where we will be investing in our future.

“The word citizen has to do with cities, and the ideal city is organized around citizenship – around participation in public life.” (Solnit, Wanterlust: A History of Walking)

Our city will be 120 years old next year we have never built a City Hall. Over the last twenty years Beaverton’s population has grown, city services have been added; we have become culturally diverse, maintain quality public safety for the entire community supported by a budget that gets the job done…

The only building we have built – the Beaverton City Library – today serves as the heart of our city. Why is that? Is it the beautiful fountain and Park next door? Is it the welcoming and distinctive library building itself? Is it the Beaverton Farmers Market? It is all of those things. Civic buildings bring life to our city and define our character…

Civic buildings are landmarks, I returned to the town I grew up in the Midwest. It had been over thirty years. I felt reconnected when I saw City Hall, the City Park which still has the hill I use to sled down thinking it was really steep, city library, and the Church I went to with my family. The rest had changed, the drug store was gone, movie theater closed, gas station replaced by a high rise. What I realized was that the civic buildings, landmarks of the City were the enduring icons. What had changed were economic forces that torn down out of date businesses added new improved regional centers, shops, and eateries…

What will a new City Hall look like? Will we move in the direction of a Civic Center? Does City Hall need to be dependent upon light rail?… Answers to these questions need to be consistent with our values and character of our community…

I agree that civic/historic buildings are an important part of  a community. Historic cities all over Europe have striven to maintain their character by enforcing strict building codes. The government of Jerusalem, Israel has insisted that all its buildings have stone facades. This gives Jerusalem a unique character.

But buildings are expressions of a culture. They are not the culture itself. Councilwoman Bode writes that any proposed Beaverton city hall should be consistent with “our values and character of our community“, but if it’s the buildings that define the character then this would be a circular argument; however the building is designed, the community will be defined by it. She writes of “our values” but does not explain how there can be one set of values in a multicultural environment. Doesn’t each culture have its own values? If she is implying that Beaverton has its own dominant culture and values, then perhaps she should be concerned about what will become of this culture when the city is 80% Mexican. Bode obviously places some priority on the preservation of our “values and character” but, by stressing the importance of architecture instead of demographics, she is like a physician whose only treatment for a dying patient is to record his last words.

 

Cock fights in Puerto Rico and PETA

Cock fighting is perfectly legal, and encouraged in Puerto Rico. Government fees have forced much of it underground, but few are calling for a crackdown, except for organizations such as PETA. According to Yahoo news:

In fact, the territory’s government is battling to keep the blood sport thriving, as many matches go underground to avoid fees and admission charges levied by official clubs. Although long in place, those costs have since become overly burdensome for some as the island endures a fifth year of economic crisis.

The business once generated $100 million a year in revenue for government-owned clubs across the U.S. territory, among the few places in the world where such fights remain legal. Recent figures are unavailable, but many say revenue at such clubs has plummeted…

Nowhere else is cockfighting allowed on U.S. territory, although many matches still take place in secret. Terry Mills, who investigates blood sports for the New York-based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said the group opposes all cockfights regardless of whether they are held in legal or illegal venues.

To be sure, there are people all over the world who oppose unnecessary cruelty to animals. But, for the most part, this sentiment is part of the modern Western Civilization package* – that also includes concern for the rights of homosexuals, women, children, the environment and the darker races.

Though they do not know it, supporters of PETA are touting the superiority of modern Western (white) civilization over others. For them to champion the rights of animals and, at the same time, be supporters of multiculturalism/mass immigration, is a gross contradiction. My guess is that most of them simply do not think these matters through.

I was curious about PETA’s stance on immigration, so I checked out their website (not really expecting to find anything on immigration). In all honesty, I fully agree with a lot of what they say (crazy as they are when it comes to certain issues) and I give them credit for taking the high moral ground. This is from the FAQ section:

If having superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human for his or her purposes, why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans?

There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability, for example. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights? Nineteenth-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?” The measure of who deserves protection is not intelligence, it is the capacity to feel pain.

It’s a good point, though my position is a bit different. But I do wonder about their position on insects. They make it perfectly clear that we should avoid lethal measures to control them, but it is not, as far as I know, clear that insects experience pain and suffering. Perhaps somebody can correct me on this. I found it interesting that they include, in their FAQ’s, section called What about insects and other “pests”? but they don’t seem to assign any rights to creatures so small the human eye cannot see them. In other words, if humans can see you, you have rights. Otherwise, you’re out of luck! How do they reconcile the rights of diarrhea bacteria with the rights of blacks in Africa? Sure, blacks are smarter – but what if it turns out microbes can suffer?

Also in their FAQ section”Wasn’t Hitler in favor of animal rights?”

However, even if this weren’t the case, the merits of an idea cannot be determined by the character of its proponents. If Hitler believed in the theory of relativity, does that mean we should not believe in it? What if Gandhi also believed in the theory of relativity—how would we reconcile the two? An idea must be judged on its own merits.

Of course. Now let’s apply this principle to more controversial matters, such as racial and ethnic differences. It will be a cold day in Hell when PETA does this. Still, it seems to me that PETA is more rational than many other leftist organizations. We can learn from their tactics. For example, they refuse to take a stance on gun-control except where it pertains to hunting animals. Otherwise, they’re neutral. That’s exactly the position pro-whites should take on issues such as homosexuality. They use imaginative tactics, such as nudity, in their campaigns to draw attention to their message. Imagine the publicity we could get if hundreds of pro-whites marched nude with signs proclaiming how happy they are with their white skin, and that “hate” is not part of their philosophy.

But back to multiculturalism. PETA actually does take a stance on this. There’s a question, in the FAQ called “What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that depend on using animals?”:

The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated job retraining and restructuring. This is simply an ingredient in all social progress—not a reason to deter progress.

In other words, they admit that not all cultures are equal. It’s a start.

* It’s possible that Iberia was culturally damaged from its long Moor occupation. The same might be said of Russia from its Mongol occupation.

 

My response to “Yew Among You”

This is in response to a recent comment made by  “Yew Among You“, who I’m guessing also uses other names for himself. Here’s the text of the comment with my responses in bold:

Jew Among You! Are you the guy who posted a video at YOUTUBE putting 3 different types of ice cream in a blender and saying that’s what “liberals” want to do to all the various entho-cultures, amalgamate them in the name of “multi-culturalism”? And that you prefer enjoying each ice cream separate in its own unique flavor?

Yes, that was me.

Actually its the opposite, at least here in USA (don’t know where you are writing from). Here the “conservatives” want people to “assimilate” into one homogenous mass and even convert to Christianity! The liberals and multi-culturalists on the other hand like freedom and diversity of religions and cultures.

The “conservatives” you speak of are not conservatives; they’re slow liberals. Their racial/cultural attitudes are indistinguishable from those of other liberals, except that they are a bit slower to adopt them. John Derbishire has already explained this on various occasions. It’s true that there are Christian fundamentalists who call themselves “conservative”, and who do want the entire world to convert to Christianity, but when it comes to racial matters (and my ice cream video was targeted mainly at advocates of race-mixing), most of them are entirely within the leftist camp. It was the Left that agitated for school integration, the Left that pushed massive third-world immigration on the West and the Left that forbade neighborhood associations, landlords and real-estate agents to discriminate on the basis of race. All the above inevitably lead to race-mixing (ice cream in the blender). All of the above were, in turn, adopted by so-called “conservatives”. Any “conservative” who favors any of the above is not a true conservative; he is a slow liberal. While the Left claims to be in favor of “diversity”, what they are really working toward is destruction of diversity.

As far as Asians emulating “European culture” some do. However a very large % want to avoid all your divorce, promiscuous sex, disrespect for elders, obnoxious teenage rebellion, single parenting, single parent dating, etc. For the most part Asians take pride in their various ethno-cultural traditions, philosophies, religions and family values.

This could be the case; I don’t claim to know what percentage of Asians answer a higher moral calling. From what I’ve read, the Indian sub-continent leaves much to be desired in the way of morality and respect. Of course, Yew could be referring specifically to East Asians.

As for the West being morally bankrupt, the disappearance of Church authority and, to a large extent, Christianity, left a vast void. As a result, many whites were left with no moral compass when it came to the matters you describe. Societies change. Cultures evolve and one religion fades into another. I don’t think there has been a time, prior to the modern era, when a religion disappeared and was not replaced with another. Leftism has sought to replace Christianity, but it lacks the history, ritual and spirituality of other religions. This is why many Europeans are embracing Islam instead. It’s a pity that the spiritual needs of the masses cannot be met without lying to them. It’s a shame the so many must fear the hand of heaven to abstain from sin.

Yes, it’s probably healthier for Asian societies to continue their ancestral traditions, flaws and all, rather than embrace the empty pop culture that now passes for “Western” culture. As for the West, I hope it can find its way without destroying itself.

Those Indians may get off the plane and start littering and talking loud once in India but they will not date, have promiscuous sex, smartass back talk their parents, divorce, talk trash about their families, religion or traditions once in India because “sssshhhh, the Indians are watching”.

I don’t think I’m qualified to speak to this; I’ll leave it to Indian readers. But it certainly does appear that many more Indians would rather live in Europe and America than in India. You imply that it’s not just the trashy Indians who move abroad. So, if India is so great, why do so many Indians leave?

While Germans may come down hard on people who throw candy wrappers out the window, they are perfectly comfortable with promiscious sex, divorce, obnoxious teenage disrespect of elders, single parenting, single parent dating, and all manner of other uncivilized behaviour that is rampant (and indeed the universal hallmark of) Western so-called “civilization”.

Not to mention the fact that they have so little respect for their own German heritage that they tolerate their daughters marrying Africans and Muslims. It would be nice if Europe could re-learn some things from the Asians, over whom they ruled not so long ago.