shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jabba the hutt

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

kohls1a

kohls2a

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

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

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

 

 

Y’all may be shocked, but I enjoy an occasional movie just like the rest of you mortals. Sometimes I like to escape the boring mundaneness of my life and make believe I’m travelling among the stars hundreds of years in the future, or that I’m reliving history in an era we like to imagine was more exciting than our own.

To fulfill these entertainment “needs,” I tap into the practically inexhaustible resources of Youtube, Hulu or similar sites. Generally speaking, I stick to pre-1965 shows. The reason is that I watch these shows in order to escape from reality, not to have the diversity agenda shoved into my face. I understand that each of us has our point of view, and that this includes writers and producers. That’s all fine and well, but just as I wouldn’t appreciate seeing a McDonalds or a Pepsi product strategically placed in a movie about Genghis  Khan, so too do I not appreciate having token blacks shoved in my face in Gladiator, Thor, The Hobbit and others too numerous to count. Before 1965 or so, movie producers could focus almost exclusively on the story. They weren’t bogged down by the dictates of the diversity cult.

With the exception of background characters (such as in The Hobbit), the token black’s role is carefully scripted. The producers don’t want to be too obviously Afro-centric, or they’ll pay the price at the box-office. But they must include at least one prominent black character – and he (it’s usually a man) must be portrayed in a positive light. Typically, we find him sacrificing himself to save the lives of others.

The 2003 movie Core is typical. In Core, Delroy Lindo plays Ed Brazzelton, in the end:

After some calculations, they decide that by splitting their nuclear weapons into the remaining compartments and jettisoning each at specific distances, they can create a “ripple effect“, where the power of each bomb will push against the blast of the next, generating the needed energy wave. However, because Virgil was not designed to jettison undamaged compartments, the plan requires someone to deactivate a safety switch that is in an area exposed to the extreme temperatures. Brazzelton volunteers and deactivates the switch, dying shortly afterwards.

There are exceptions to this rule. For example, in the movie Unbreakable, the villain is black, while the hero is white. It’s worth noting, however, that Unbreakable was “written, produced, and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.” Shyamalan also wrote, produced and directed The Village, which is clearly pro-white. Since Shyamalan himself is not white, but Indian, he can actually get away with producing an occasional pro-white film – though I’m fairly certain even he has taken some heat for it.

What kind of role will this black man have in Pompeii?

pompeii

He will speak of his family back in Africa. He will be a victim of oppression, probably having been captured as a slave or gladiator fighter. He’ll be a sympathetic character, providing wisdom to his white friends. In some way, he’ll probably end up a martyr.

Blacks were not unknown in ancient Rome. It would be perfectly acceptable to include one or two black faces in Pompeii, but against the backdrop of Hollywood’s predictable racial policies, the presence of such prominent characters is as distracting as if they’d had a Starbucks on every corner in Pompeii. It’s product-placement, and a stark reminder of TODAY’S politics. It should not be thrust upon us within the context of this historical drama. I wouldn’t be surprised if some black people feel the same way. They too want to experience the story of Pompeii, not to be reminded of racial quotas and the demands of the black lobby.

With the advance of video technology, it’s now possible to create entire movies without using actual human actors. More importantly, this technology is becoming increasingly available to those of us who are not wealthy and powerful. Hopefully, the ranks of those whose minds are free of the diversity cult will produce some talented animators. If so, we’ll be able to enjoy high-quality movies that are not beholden to the rigid racial rules of Hollywood. We can make our own Pompeii – or digitally remove the diversity from the current Pompeii and share it on our own “white market.” The authorities will fume, but there won’t be much they can do about it.

 

As a respected citizen of the Leftosphere, the Nature Conservancy supports the rights of indigenous peoples. Their website proclaims:

Empowering Indigenous peoples throughout the world.

The natural world is central to the human rights of Indigenous peoples, as well as their economic, spiritual, physical and cultural well- being. Complex challenges including the development of natural resources and climate change are threatening the environments on which their livelihoods and cultures depend.

The Nature Conservancy recognizes the significant contributions of Indigenous peoples to conservation and collaborates with them to foster our shared commitment to environmental stewardship. Our human rights-based approach to conservation incorporates traditional knowledge and cultural values and results in tangible benefits. We work as a partner, making sure that community needs and local priorities are identified and addressed.

Our programs target urgent threats, secure land tenure and access, support Indigenous rights and improved governance, and strengthen livelihoods. Our initiatives support the rights of Indigenous peoples to participate more fully in making the decisions that will shape their futures.

Indeed. We would expect such an organization to show respect toward the indigenous peoples of the past, and we would not expect to see it glorifying those who perpetrated genocide upon them.

How, then, would we reconcile the above statement with the following one?

Buffalo Soldiers in the U.S. Army were some of the first defenders of our national parks, serving as rangers in Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon. They were instrumental in fighting fires, cracking down on poachers and clearing roads. One of the most notable Buffalo Soldiers was Capt. Charles Young, the third African American to graduate from West Point and the first African-American superintendent of a national park. The legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers lives on through Yosemite ranger Shelton Johnson, who created a website to tell their story.

These Buffalo soldiers took part in the dispossession of the indigenous peoples of North America. The fact that they later received government jobs as caretakers at national parks does not negate this fact. While the conflict between settlers and Native Americans was an exceedingly complex one, with atrocities committed on all sides, the Leftosphere invariably sympathizes with the Native Americans. Apparently, an exception is made when the settlers are “people of color” themselves. While one might argue that the Nature Conservancy is only trying to give credit where credit is due, without negating any lurid past these soldiers might have had, I find such hair-splitting to be disingenuous. The South African government did many positive things during the years of apartheid, yet we never find the Leftosphere giving them credit.

Others have pointed out this hypocrisy. For example, a neo-Confederate group made the point back in 2005:

   On January 17th, Carrollton Georgia put on it’s Annual King Day parade. I attended this one with a special guest, as it took on a special meaning by some of the participants invited. I had read where a local amateur historian named Don North and his 6 member “Grierson’s Buffalo Soldiers Cavalry Association of Georgia” was invited to join, most likely at the behest of Carrollton’s only black councilman Gerald Byrd. Mr. Byrd had allowed Mr. North to speak to his youth class at Carrollton Middle School – and I read an article in the Carrollton paper about it…

  Well I am not the most educated person, but I do know that that whole Custer/Cavalry/Western time period meant lots of innocent Indians were being slaughtered, and the Buffalo Soldiers happily did their share of butchery. I sent out a call for help to stand against this kind of glorification, and got probably the most qualified spokesman to accomplish the task. My special guest was none other than that Native American activist, Gary Spottedwolf… who is a Lakota Sioux (I love his “Custer Got Siouxed” poster) and whose ancestors were targets of the Buffalo Soldiers ‘Ethnic Cleansing’…

  He wore his warrior outfit with US Cavalry jacket and 4 scalp swatches. He is one tough dude, as those outfits aren’t very warm, and it was about 30 with a strong wind. He also brought a picture that blew me away, but sent one of North’s boys into denial. It was a picture of a deep trench filled with dead Sioux, and a Buffalo Soldier standing next to them. When the young misled soldier wannabe was shown the picture, he said “naw, that ain’t no Buffalo Soldier”.   North stayed in the distance playing with his historically inaccurate 10th Cavalry flag that didn’t include crossed sabers…

  Initially some were heard to exclaim “he’s coming to be with us!”, but Spottedwolf cut that BS short. Another of the young actors walked up behind Gary and had the nerve to say “That sure is a nice jacket” and without missing a beat he retorted “It should be – I got it off a dead Buffalo Soldier. Spottedwolf then commenced to giving the group, approx 15 mounted riders that included North and 3 other actors (the others represented ???) a lecture about the real Buffalo Soldiers and their campaign of terrorism and genocide. Then a white woman started crying this was a day for unity, which came the reply that there can be no unity as long as his people were on reservations.  I told Unity lady that the Confederate Govt. was the only ‘White man’s Govt. that accepted the Indians. She looked bewildered…

The Buffalo soldiers were not only guilty of slaughtering Native Americans, according to some, they also took part in the senseless slaughter of the buffalo. According to Roy Cook:

The Kiowa have no love for the historic ‘Buffalo Soldiers’. They have not forgotten that because in those ‘Indian War’ times there was war between the Kiowa people and their main source of commissary the buffalo and the white men. The white men built forts in the Kiowa country, and the Negro soldiers (the Tenth Cavalry, made up of Negro troops) shot the buffalo as fast as they could, but the buffalo still kept coming on, coming on, even into the post cemetery at Fort Sill. Soldiers were not enough to hold them back.

If those who massacred innocent people, and mowed down countless buffalo, can be considered “conservation heroes” by taking government jobs at national parks, then the term has very little meaning. I would urge the Nature Conservancy to be more selective in who they consider “heroes.”

 

One month after the upcoming American Renaissance conference, which celebrates inclusiveness and serves as outreach for disadvantaged communities, there will be a conference in Nashville whose goal is to bolster the status-quo, and further marginalize white people wherever they are found. I thought I’d increase awareness by replicating their jargon in a diverse way – and providing equal opportunity to the underserved people at American Renaissance.

The American Renaissance Conference

We are an interdisciplinary consortium of experts who recognize global implications of race and education for minoritized white people, which is the only race to be currently minoritized in its own lands.

Through scholarship we identify and expose inequities for the ultimate eradication of black supremacy.

We counter and combat systemic and structural racial-egalitarian dogma with scholarship and praxis.

We recognize the multiple locations of oppression, including North America, Europe, South Africa and Australia, and the myriad manifestations and effects of their intersections – which include wholesale murder, rape and robbery of native white populations.

We co-construct liberating knowledge that facilitates collective agency to transform schools and communities. These schools and communities are currently subject to draconian “diversity” laws even to the point where white communities and schools are not even recognized as such, except as a flaw that needs to be remedied.

The significance of race-realism and Human Biodiversity Studies include examining the systemic roles of race across multiple areas of academic disciplines, especially between education and legal studies, and advancing racially conscious activism across all segments of human interactions. We seek proposals that provide transdisciplinary perspectives interrogating dynamic issues including race, gender, cultural/social/political dynamics, and economic inequality that influence education and the public good.

One proposal/praxis that comes to mind is for some of us to protest the “Critical Race Studies” conference in Nashville. Unfortunately, I can’t make it. But if a dozen or so pro-white people were to show up in front of their venue, beat some drums, carry some signs and shout some slogans, this would go a long way toward sending the message that white people also have rights. That there’s plenty to be critical of in “critical race studies.”

Mary Elizabeth Williams, of Salon, is upset because of a “sexist” handbook for the Oakland Raiders cheerleaders. Williams writes:

In a section of the book about fraternization, it acknowledges, “There have been a few relationships between the two groups that have resulted in a few happy marriages and lovely children,” but goes on to warn, “HOWEVER, we have also had more situations where, quite frankly, the Raider organization and the Raiderettes narrowly escaped ruined reputations.” It goes on to elaborate: “One such example concerns a player who gave Halloween parties every year and many of the Raiderettes attended. This same player was suspended from the team for drug use but also arrested for date rape. For you on the squad who have attended those parties, just think how narrowly you missed having your photo in all the local papers and/or being assaulted.” And/or. Whatever. But mostly, think upon how you might have sullied the team’s good name by getting in the papers. For being raped. Oh and by the way, the definition of date rape is rape. It’s even in the state penal code! 

But the handbook may be alluding to the late defensive tackle Darrell Russell, who in 2002 was accused, along with two other men, of drugging and raping a woman Russell had been “casually dating.” The case was eventually dropped because it couldn’t be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Here’s the accompanying photo of the cheerleaders:

raiders_cheerleaders-620x412

Needless to say, the team itself is heavily black (not that its white players are necessarily safe to be around either) and the cheerleaders predominantly white. With the mostly white Raiderettes, and the mostly black Raiders – and calls for the former to be wary of the latter, it’s a wonder Williams didn’t call the handbook “racist.”

As this handbook “scandal” has been making the rounds on the internet, I’m reminded of John Derbyshire’s talk that got him fired from the National Review. This author probably knew better than to mention anything about race; that way, if she found herself the subject of criticism, she could plead the lesser charge of sexism and keep her job.

I picked up a copy of “Oregon Jewish Life” magazine yesterday. It’s a free publication and it seems to be geared more toward Reform Jews. Naturally, it has a liberal bent. A recurring theme seems to be that traditional Judaism has always touted some of the values that today’s liberals support. For example, there’s an article about interfaith outreach to Muslims, a blurb about an “MLK Shabbat,” where “Beth Israel has collaborated with local African American communities… honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” and even a piece touting the virtues of “marriage freedom.” In this latter piece, a Portland teen (Duncan McAlpine Sennet) actually made the argument (in a “Torah” discourse no less) that since opponents of gay marriage cite the biblical definition of marriage “as the union between one man and one woman,” and yet we find Jacob marrying two women, therefore everybody should be able to marry whomsoever they love. Sennet was encouraged to share his flawed logic with the world and his video went viral.

It’s hard to decide whether to laugh or to cry. But two articles, in particular, caught my attention. One is titled “Should vegan be the new kosher?” In this column, Joseph Lieberman claims that:

A vegan lifestyle isn’t just a healthy choice for our bodies, it’s also an ethical choice that embodies the Jewish ideal of compassionately “healing the world” – tikkun olam.

For the record, “tikkun olam” does not mean “healing the world.” It means “fixing the world,” and refers to a totally different (kabbalistic) concept.

Lieberman goes on to claim that “eating vegan is like a mitzvah,” and he quotes the book “Judaism and Vegetarianism” by Richard Schwartz:

I think that eating meat or fish is a denial of all ideals, even of all religions. … How can we speak of right and justice if we take an innocent creature and shed its blood? Every kind of killing seems to me savage and I find no justification for it.

In all fairness, Lieberman does point out that traditional Judaism requires the use of certain animal products, that “blood sacrifices were a major part of the Temple rituals.” But he goes on to imply that, in light of current mistreatment of livestock, even livestock destined for kosher slaughter, it no longer makes sense to eat meat.

The second article is called “Tu B’Shevat: New Year of the Trees.” Here we find Rich Geller implying that the Jewish new year for trees, which goes back to the times of the Mishnah, is intricately connected to environmentalism. He writes:

Tu B’Shevat is also an opportunity to teach kids to reduce, reuse and recycle. Go green and start composting if you don’t already.

There’s nothing unusual, or objectionable, about tying in traditional Jewish concepts with contemporary issues; this is a long-standing tradition. But when a pattern emerges where all these issues are liberal pet causes, it gives the impression that the starting point is Liberalism, not Judaism.

Reading this magazine reminds me of an article about the pope, written by my friend at diversity chronicle. That article reported that the pope had declared “All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them.” But that article was satire. Unfortunately, this magazine is not.

I’d like to ask the editors of the Oregon Jewish Life magazine if there is any belief or practice at all, in traditional Judaism, that modern Liberalism would not agree with. Can they find even a single value, embraced by liberals today, that Judaism would frown upon? I think the answer would be “no.” In their minds, the Torah is but a tool for the advancement of whatever the liberal establishment deems worthy. For them, Judaism has been reduced to an “Amen machine.”

For what it’s worth, I agree with Duncan Sennet that gays should be allowed to pair off as they please, without interference from government. I agree with Joseph Lieberman that a vegan/vegetarian diet is a worthy goal (or at least that its adherents’ intentions are often noble), and that animals should not be made to needlessly suffer. I agree, overall, with the environmental goals of Rich Geller. What bothers me is how they slavishly follow every liberal cause, as if were the word of God – and how they try to force our ancestors to follow along as well. They rather remind me of the old Mormon practice of posthumous conversions.

It’s true that modern Liberalism was largely founded by Jews. It’s even possible that some of Liberalism’s tenets were based upon traditional Jewish ideas. But Liberalism soon took on a life of its own and became master – while Judaism became subordinate. If left-leaning organized Jewry has disdain for whites, it’s not due to any statement in the Talmud, rather it’s due to its slavish adherence to Liberalism (which preaches tolerance toward individual whites, but vile hatred toward whites as a group). Secular, and non-Orthodox observant Jews, give very little credence to Talmudic texts – unless they happen to agree with the Liberal narrative.

When a nation tries to embody everything that is good, then it ceases to be a nation. We don’t try to cook Italian cuisine so that it includes the flavors of Thai food, Japanese food and Polish food. We don’t try to encompass the qualities of rock, blues and country into our opera. We don’t attempt to incorporate the fashions of Shogun Japan, Renaissance Italy and late Czarist Russia into our tuxedos. So too should we not strive to claim that every contemporary popular idea is actually a part of Judaism.

The same is true of America. Politicians speak of “American values” – but I have yet to hear that term defined. I have not yet seen anybody give an example of an “American value” that is not also considered a universal one. For all these lofty words, shallowness and stupidity lay underneath.

The process of erasing all distinctions among subspecies is moving to its next logical phase: Breed-denial. The city of Medford Oregon is considering a ban on pit bulls and some people are in a tizzy over it.

A Medford woman, who has started a petition to prevent the ban, writes:

My pit bull, Smokey, is just like my son. So when the City Council of Medford, Oregon, proposed a ban on pit bulls on the grounds that they’re a dangerous breed, I started a petition asking Medford not to propose such an extreme measure. Prevent a discriminating ban against pit bulls in Medford OR. …

I’ve owned Smokey for the past five years. Pit bulls are truly loving and playful animals when they are raised right. When the Medford City Council recently proposed an outright ban on pit bulls and a measure requiring them to be sterilized, I had to take action.

I started a petition on Care2 asking the Medford City Council to do the right thing and call a halt to any plans to ban pit bulls. Click here to sign my petition.

According to the Medford police, there have been 89 dog attacks in the past few years with just about half involving pit bulls. Calling for a ban on one particular breed unfairly stereotypes them as violent and aggressive. Dogs like pit bulls and other “bully breeds” are no more vicious than any others.

When pit bulls act aggressively, the problem is that their owners have been irresponsible. There is actually proof that dogs are what their owners make them. In testing done by the American Temperament Test Society, the American Pit Bull Terrier scored 86.8% on their temperament rating scale, beating out the Golden Retriever, who scored an 85.2%. When a pit bull acts aggressively, it’s the owners who are responsible, not their animals.

The ban on pit bulls and other “bully breeds” proposed by the Medford City Council is discriminatory. It is simply a step in the wrong direction and will not prevent animal attacks. The real solution is to create measures under which owners would face stricter penalties, if their animals were involved in any incidents.

Notice her use of the words “discrimination” and “stereotyping.” She takes the typical liberal position (which might be true in this case) that a dog’s temperament is the result of nurture, not nature.

In other words, she’s treating Pit Bulls in much the same way the Establishment treats blacks. They’re not violent by nature; it’s environmental factors, such as racism and the legacy of slavery, that make them so.

I’m not an expert on dogs, but I do have a friend who owns a Pit Bull. In fact, he even wrote a post about them for this blog. When that dog was a puppy, it was the cutest thing in the world; absolutely adorable. Now that it’s grown, it’s frighteningly powerful. The dog never threatened me in any way; it can sense that I’m a friend. But I wouldn’t want to be the target of its aggression, if there were some sort of misunderstanding or unusual situation. Those jaws are capable of doing great damage.

It’s odd that, while Tyler Woodard (the author of the above petition) denies any genetic difference in violent proclivities among breeds, she does appear to recognize the American Temperament Test Society’s testing. Here’s what the society has to say about dog temperament:

What is temperament?

W. Handel, German Police Dog Trainer, in his article, “The Psychological Basis of Temperament Testing,” defines temperament as:

“the sum total of all inborn and acquired physical and mental traits and talents which determines, forms and regulates behavior in the environment”

The ATTS test focuses on and measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat. The test is designed for the betterment of all breeds of dogs and takes into consideration each breed’s inherent tendencies.

In other words, there are inherent differences in temperament between breeds. Glancing through the testing statistics, on the society’s website, I noticed that breeds that were tested only a few times seem to have erroneous scores. If a breed was tested only twice, and failed once, its score is only 50%, as is the case with the Alaskan Klee Kai. They should have omitted breeds that were tested less than 100 times or so.

Furthermore, the temperament test only measures the dog’s reaction to various scenarios. It does not measure the overall danger it poses to people. I may be wrong, but I doubt many breeds can match the American Pit Bull when it comes to sheer jaw power. Would readers who are dog experts please tell us if the Pit Bull’s more powerful jaws, and muscular frame, make it overall more dangerous than Golden Retrievers, even if both have about the same temperament?

On another note, though I’m an animal-lover, it bothers me to see people (mostly white people) treating their pets as if they’re their children. A pet is not a good substitute for your own flesh and blood. That Woodard can state that her dog is “just like her son” without raising eyebrows reveals the rot in our society. This is one reason the number of whites is declining in America: People are having pets instead of children. It’s pitiful.

 

Making my travel plans for the upcoming American Renaissance conference, it occurred to me that I might as well combine my customary tropical vacation with the conference trip. It would save me extra travel and expense. Being on a tight budget, I decided to spend a few days in the Mexican Riviera. I’d done so before, and it’s pretty darn close to paradise if you like beautiful beaches, warm weather, good food, history – and cheap accommodations.

Speaking of this last feature, I noticed that many Cancun hotels openly refuse to cater to single men (they have no problem with single women). I mentioned, to a dear family member, that nobody seems to care about discrimination against single men – unless said men are homosexual. She responded with something about gays in Africa, and how bad it is for them over there. At least in Mexico, there’s no government policy to hunt them down and imprison them or kill them.

She was referring to Uganda. I’ve written about anti-homosexuality in Uganda before, but I’ve been reading Empire by Niall Ferguson and I now have a slightly different angle on the issue.

Ferguson writes much about the exploits of the great explorer David Livingstone. Livingstone was only the most famous of a group of Brits who were willing to sacrifice everything in order to bring Christianity to the African savage. Many succumbed to disease, the elements or hostile natives. About these missionaries, Ferguson writes (pg. 100):

Converting the heathen was a dangerous enterprise. To succeed, the missionary movement needed an army of young men – idealistic, altruistic adventurers, willing to go to the ends of the earth to spread the Word. There could not be a greater contrast between the missionaries’ motives and those of previous generations of empire-builders, the swashbucklers, the slavers and the settlers.

Missionary work in Africa was a slow, painful process. It wasn’t always easy to persuade the natives to discard their animistic beliefs and practices. In Uganda, it would appear that homosexuality was incorporated into these practices. In fact, Christian opposition to homosexuality played a key role in the conversion of Uganda. According to the Dictionary of African Christian Biography:

In May and June 1886 a large massacre of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, took place. Many were executed at Namugongo, the traditional execution site also used for the Muslim martyrs of 1876. The immediate cause for the killings was the Kabaka’s anger at the disobedience of his Christian pages, in particular their refusal to indulge in homosexual practices. Charles Lwanga, the Catholic head of the pages in the king’s private apartments, had been particularly vigilant in protecting the Christian boys under his charge from the advances of the Kabaka and some of the chiefs…

Undoubtedly these Uganda martyrs (there were Bunyoro and Basoga as well as Baganda) died believing and trusting in Christ as their Savior. They sang hymns on the way to their deaths, preached to their persecutors, strongly believed in a life after death, and their courage and fortitude made a great impression on those who saw them die.

How might a modern Ugandan respond to recent demands that his country accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle? He might call such demands a continuation of colonialism, as Martin Ssempa did when confronted by a reporter (once available on YouTube, but now removed). He might object that Africans should not be expected to modify their beliefs in accordance with every new Western fad and fashion that happens to arise.

My dear relative referred to the acceptance of homosexuality as “progress” and, to a certain degree, I agree with her. But when such progress is imposed from afar, it looks a lot like coercion. It took over a hundred years for most of Uganda to become Christian. It might take decades more (if at all) for sexual minorities to be accepted as full citizens and human beings. This is unfortunate, but it looks a lot as if the West is  telling the rest of the world:

Yes, it’s true that we imposed Christianity upon you during colonial times. But now we have a new religion. It’s called Liberalism – and we expect you to discard our old religion in favor of our new one.

Every time the West meddles in the affairs of Africa (or anywhere else), it creates “refugees” – and these “refugees” end up fleeing their native countries in favor of our countries, in effect colonizing us. Isn’t it time to cease this cycle of mutual colonization?

 

I once had a boss who suffered from “tanorexia” (tanning addiction). Though red of hair, her face was dark and leathery; it was painful to behold, and people would make morbid fire-survivor jokes behind her back. Her tan never faded, even through the coldest and cloudiest winter months.

This boss was noticeably biased against the few naturally darker-skinned employees under her authority, and accusations of racism bubbled to the surface now and then. When I mentioned, to the affected coworkers, that what we have here is probably not “racism” but jealousy, laughter was the response. This had never occurred to them and they didn’t know what to make of it. We all knew she had a tanning problem, and we all knew she treated her darker employees as second-class citizens; she kept us (yes, in her eyes I was “dark” too) as far away from herself as possible. But nobody had put two and two together.

Is dark skin (I’m not necessarily including very dark skin here) considered more attractive among whites in America? A 2010 ABC article reports:

The Jersey Shore uber-tan aesthetic may not be for everyone, but it seems that even for non-Guidettes, having a tan makes them sexier, according to a study from Emory University.

Researchers used the popular attractiveness-rating website HotorNot.com to gauge whether “hotness” scores would change when the same woman was shown with her natural complexion and then with a tan.

Using Photoshop, 45 photos of women aged 21 to 35 were doctored to look tan. The original photos and the doctored versions were posted to the site at different times. The researchers found that the darker version was twice as likely to be rated as more attractive.

Of course, tan enthusiasts would say that you don’t need science to figure that one out.

“When I look in the mirror I feel more attractive when I’m darker, like my face is prettier. It’s 100 percent a confidence boost for me,” says Lauren Kafka, 31, of Miami, who uses a tanning bed three times a week to keep up her golden glow.

Are less attractive people jealous of more attractive people? At least among females, the answer is obviously “yes.” It’s not a stretch to say that some fair-skinned people are jealous of darker-skinned people – and that this jealousy can translate into perceived racism in a work environment.

If “racism” is at work here, then it might actually be the self-loathing that so many whites possess. They loath their white skin, they consider it ugly – and they envy those whose skin is a few shades darker. How ironic that the demonization of whites can lead to “racist” attitudes toward non-whites. How many “microaggressions” against non-whites can be laid at the feet of white guilt and white self-loathing?

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers