While visiting my friends in Kentucky recently, we spoke of local folklore. They told me of a “spook” who lived in a nearby town. This “spook” was not a ghost or any other type of supernatural being. In fact, he was just a man. A man who was in the habit of peering through windows at attractive young women. He was a peeping tom.

When I asked what they did with him after he was caught, I was told, matter-of-factly, that nothing was done with him; he “wasn’t right.” In other words, he wasn’t right in the head. He was mentally ill. The local folk realized, after a while, that he posed no threat and they chose to let him be. This is an example of what we may call “tolerance.”

Ask the Yankees, whose impressions of the Old South were shaped by television and public school propaganda, how a black cross-dresser might have fared during the days of jim crow in Lexington, Kentucky. “Are you kidding?! He would have been taken out and lynched!!” This is the sort of reaction you’d probably get. After all, we all “know” that black men were lynched for even the slightest offenses, right?

But consider the case of Sweet Evening Breeze. I read about him while perusing a book called “Weird Kentucky.” According to Art Beat Lexington:

Yep, this little Southern town of ours has a drag grandmommy who played a huge role in building tolerance and encouraging self-expression that set the stage for the experience being presented at Buster’s this weekend.

James “Sweet Evening Breeze” Herndon was born in 1892 in Scott Co., suffered an eye injury as a boy that brought him to Good Samaritan Hospital, and was abandoned by his family the next day…

The charm of one of Lexington’s most colorful characters won over a wealthy white benefactor of the hospital, and Sweets was given a room to live in and a job handing out mail to patients and entertaining them with his ukelele. His unique styling evolved out of these creative exchanges and soon he was adorning men’s clothing with women’s accessories. A broach, makeup, dresses… all were part of Sweets’ design, and on Halloween, the one day it was legal for me(n) to dress as women, he’d grace the public in full drag…

Jeff Jones, an assistant professor at UK’s College of Public Health, wrote an article about Sweets in Chevy Chaser Magazine‘s September 2002 edition that explains other roles that endeared this gender-bending black man to his Southern society:

Having never learned to drive, Sweets would regularly wave down or call the police for a lift. He hated birds, and once a year, the local firemen would come and wash down his roof to remove any bird droppings. During the doctors-versus-nurses basketball games at Good Sam, Sweets filled the role of cheerleader…

Every fall he would buy shoes and leave them on the doorsteps for needy Pralltown children. When a neighborhood family or friend was having financial difficulty, he would buy food and have it delivered anonymously by taxi. Sweets also would report any neighborhood drug dealers to the police and helped put a young girl he liked through college.

By all accounts, Sweets was an excellent cook, sharing famed pastries all over town, and his parties with their fine china and silver were legendary.

Picklesimer, who now lives in Los Angeles and does parties for Elton John among others, drew inspiration and courage from his friendship with Sweets, who Bradley remembers would redo his house with the changing seasons.

Sweets considered himself the epitome of Southern grace and those who knew him say he never would have proclaimed himself a drag queen. But the courage of his expression and the stewardship that he demonstrated to his community established a foundation for the drag culture that exists today.

The story of Sweets is usually told in such a way as to draw attention to his courage. But it can just as easily be used to illustrate the tolerance Kentuckians had toward those who were different.

 

In an official statement, Starbucks president Cliff Burrows wrote:

The goals of the Diversity and Inclusion team include building a diverse workforce, increasing cultural competencies, shaping a culture of inclusion and developing a diverse network of suppliers.

Indeed, back in 2012, Starbucks showed its commitment to affirmative action by supporting the University of Texas at Austin against a lawsuit that challenged its racial policies. According to colorlines:

Basketball Coaches and Starbucks Push For Affirmative Action

They may be strange bedfellows, but there is one issue of national import that the National Association of Basketball Coaches, the Obama administration and Starbucks have come together to support: affirmative action.

This goal, along with fiscal considerations, have motivated Starbucks’ board of directors to oust CEO Howard Schultz and to replace him with an undocumented alien from Mexico named Pedro. In a statement that shocked many, managing director William Bradley explained:

True diversity must start at the top. Starbucks is sincerely committed to diversity and, frankly, as long as the public face of our company is that of a white male, this goal cannot be realized. It is time to replace the old with the new, the worn-out with the vibrant, the past with the future. Mr. Schultz represents an oppressive past. In the new America, there is no justification for white males to rule over an increasingly diverse workforce.

Furthermore, Mr. Schultz has cost us $28.9 million dollars this past year alone. We, as board of directors, must answer to our shareholders. I am proud to announce that we have found a better candidate for this job: Pedro. Pedro, as an undocumented alien, will earn minimum wage and no more. He will not have special stock options or private security. Pedro will also be responsible for clearing the leaves from our corporate park.

So far, there has been no public reaction from Mr. Schultz. However, sources have indicated that President Obama has invited him for a beer.

 

 

 

 

We read about it almost every month. A celebrity lets his guard down and allows some political incorrectness to escape through his lips. Before you can say “heresy,” he’s grovelling and apologizing. From James Watson to Mark Cuban, the routine grows tiresome. Each time this happens we say to ourselves, “wouldn’t it be refreshing if one of them would actually stick to his guns and refuse to back down?”

But there is a man who stood up to the powers of political correctness – and has suffered the consequences: Frank Borzellieri (pronounced Borza-lerry). In his book Crucified by the Catholic Church, Borzellieri recounts the gross injustices visited upon him by the Catholic Church and the New York Daily News.

I first met Frank Borzellieri at the 2012 Amren conference. He struck me as a man who had suffered much. I gave him a modest donation and got on his mailing list. I don’t make much money myself, so after receiving a couple of donation solicitations by mail, I began to ask myself, “why doesn’t this man just find a new line of work? The Catholic Church has betrayed him, so let him find a new employer.” At the most recent Amren conference, I met him again, and I gave him another small donation. This time I got a copy of his book and, soon thereafter, got to reading it.

If there’s one lesson I’ve learned over and over again in my life, it’s to refrain from being quick to judge others. It’s easy to say, “go out and find another job” if you’re not standing in Borzellieri’s shoes. The man spent years of his life earning degrees that are useful only within the framework of the Catholic Church. The actions of the Archdiocese of New York left him, in midlife, with heavy debt (from his student loans), with no livelihood and with no health insurance; Mr. Borzellieri suffers from several serious health conditions that require expensive treatment.

To summarize this sad series of events I’ll quote from the back cover of the book:

In August 2011, Frank Borzellieri was fired as a school principal by the Archdiocese of New York because of a libelous newspaper article in the New York Daily News. What is most disturbing, as the quote above reveals, is that the very writing that Frank was fired for were writings that the Catholic Church had reviewed and approved years earlier. In Fact, after reviewing Frank’s writings, the Archdiocese promoted him three times! Only after the corrupt Daily News reporter published her dishonest and defamatory article about Frank Borzellieri, did the Archdiocese  cave in to political correctness in the most craven and cowardly manner – firing Frank within 24 hours of the article’s publication. As further proof of the despicable cowardice  of the Archdiocese of New York, the Church then tried to suppress the very fact that they previously knew and approved of Frank’s writings on race and immigration. Now, with the release of this book, they are exposed.

For further reading, click here, here, here and here.

Among the villains, in this ugly saga, are:

Timothy McNiff, superintendent of schools for the Archdiocese

Corinne Lestch, the reporter who wrote the libelous, and misleading, article against Borzellieri

Eric Rapaglia, Borzellieri’s boss. He reneged on his repeated assurances that Borzellieri’s job was secure. He also lied about having previously read Borzellieri’s writings and having given them his blessings. Rapaglia tried to withhold Borzellieri’s final paycheck in order to use it as leverage to keep him from speaking out and defending himself.

Cardinal Dolan. This man answers only to the pope, and could have easily prevented the entire shameful event. When Borzellieri sent him an impassioned letter, pleaded his case, Dolan duly ignored him. Borzellieri had confirmed that Dolan received the letter.

The SPLC. Borzellieri does a good job of documenting the true nature of this bogus organization.

Among the heroes are:

Borzellieri’s former students at  St. Barnabas High School in the Bronx. They signed petitions and gave Borzellieri much needed moral support during his darkest hours. All of them are black or Hispanic.

Monsignor Edward Barry of St. Barnabas was the one who promoted Borzellieri twice after reading his books. He provided ongoing support after the firing.

Roy Innis, National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. Innis wrote an eloquent letter praising, and defending Borzellieri. Corinne Lestch refused to cite it in her article.

Jared Taylor and American Renaissance have continued to publicize Borzellieri’s plight, giving him a platform to appeal for assistance, and even giving him the podium for this purpose. This sets a fine example of how we must help each other and support, each to the best of his ability, our own people.

As to the quality of the book, I think it’s well written overall. It is a bit repetitive at times, but I attribute this to the dual purpose this book seems to serve: A compendium of evidence and material that Borzellieri might use for his pending lawsuit and a means to educate the public.

In conclusion, I’ll quote from the book’s conclusion:

There is currently a libel defamation lawsuit filed against the Daily News, Corinne Lestch, Ann Marie Zagaglia, and Connie Anestis…

The guilty ones at the Archdiocese cannot dispute the facts in this book. That is why they tried so hard to keep me from telling the story. That is why they will never debate or submit to lie detector tests. I expect them to retaliate against me for writing this book. They may think they have the money and power to do so… I may have no money, no job and no health insurance, but thanks to two ideologically conservative law firms, I do have unlimited legal assistance, to either sue or to defend against being sued. So to the cowards at the Archdiocese, bring it on. I will continue to expose everything you do to me, and if you continue your ungodly attempts to defame me and to prevent me from making a living, you will be next on my lawsuit list.

Have these cowards found some success in silencing Mr. Borzellieri? Perhaps; the book doesn’t seem to be available anywhere online. Amazon carried it until recently. But anybody who donates can request a copy from the author and one will be sent.

Donations can be made to Borzellieri via paypal: frbz@verizon.net

or by mail:

Frank Borzellieri

P.O. Box 780142

Maspeth, New York 11378

Disclaimer: I did not personally witness any of the events described in this article, nor have I seen any firsthand evidence of it. All the above is according to the book “Crucified by the Catholic Church” and should be understood within this context.

Back in 1996, 35 people were gunned down in Tasmania. As a result of this tragedy, the Australian government instituted new gun-control laws. Among them was a compulsory buyback program. Since then there has been much debate over how this affected violent crime rates in Australia.

Gun rights advocates have, for the most part, been claiming that violent crime actually increased after the buyback. Anti-gun advocates argue that such claims are flawed, and that violent crime went down after the buyback. Each side accuses the other of using flawed, or meaningless, statistics.

If we are to address the issue of post buyback crime rates at all, the burden of proof must fall on the anti-gun crowd. Regardless of what the Australian Constitution says, or does not say, about gun ownership, people have a natural right to defend themselves. Our natural rights are not contingent upon any government-issued piece of paper. The right to defend oneself against violence is primal. Therefore, if we are to argue that the Australian government was justified in its theft of its citizens’ firearms, the burden of proof is on us to show that such a measure is necessary and effective.

But we cannot simply point to a decrease in violent crime and assume that it’s due to the buyback. Correlation does not equal causation. Similarly, we cannot assume that an increase in violent crime is due to the buyback. There are many, constantly changing, factors that influence crime rates. I would argue that the very complexity of the issue renders such claims (on either side) practically meaningless.

I would also argue that, even if it could be shown that gun confiscation does decrease violent crime, this still does not give people the right to steal guns from other people.

Consider the case of motorcycles. Why not make recreational motorcycle riding illegal? Such a law would certainly save lives; there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that the person most at risk, with motorcycles, is the rider himself, the same could be said about guns. Suicide rates are much higher than homicide rates.

Most people understand that we must accept certain risks if our lives are to worth living at all. If it’s worth risking our lives for fun, how much more so for self-defense.

My brother just got back from a prolonged trip to Australia. He tells me that the Australians he spoke to were very pleased with their strict gun laws. There seems to be an assumption that living in Australia makes one an expert on Australian crime and gun laws. Thinking back on my own visit there, I don’t think this is the case. My impression is that many, if not most, Australians are heavily indoctrinated by their left-leaning government and press – the same as Americans and Europeans.

I recently overheard a conversation between two of my friends. They were talking about the recent shooting in Troutdale, Oregon. I’m familiar with Troutdale, since I often visit that area during the summer. It’s only about 45 minutes from my house. My friends were citing this incident as justification for gun-control. It’s funny because Troutdale was also the scene of a “wilding” a couple of years ago. Here’s a video of the incident:

 

… but I don’t remember calls for diversity-control after that. Perhaps this is because of selective reporting by the corporate-owned media. People hear about lone gunmen, but they’re less likely to hear about black mob violence. I would wager that the average American is much more likely to become a victim of black violence than he is to become a victim of a lone white gunman – but the powers that be, in order to serve their own political agenda, aggressively publicize white gunmen (even if they’re only part white) while ignoring black violence as much as possible.

Ethnic diversity leads to a degradation of our culture. Hence, even when the culprit is a white high school student, some of the blame can be laid at the feet of “diversity.” What we need is diversity-control, not gun-control.

In South Africa they all it “black empowerment,” and it appears that this policy has been yielding its natural outcome: Death.

If it were only white babies who were dying, it might be seen as a benefit. But apparently black babies are dying too, and some are people are not pleased. According to Yahoo news:

Cape Town (AFP) – South Africa’s policy of race-based affirmative action is “killing babies” and must be scrapped, the country’s Institute of Race Relations said Friday.

The institute, which spoke out against racial discrimination under apartheid, said black empowerment policies had seen unqualified people appointed to positions where their incompetence hit poor and vulnerable communities.

It pointed to the deaths of three babies aged between seven and 13 months in Bloemhof in North West province this week, apparently caused by drinking contaminated tap water. Scores of others were also hospitalised.

“The Bloemhof municipality ‘lost its capacity’ to maintain the sewer plant,” the independent think-tank said in a statement quoting its Chief Executive Frans Cronje that accompanied its paper entitled “Killing Babies”.

“There is no doubt that the officials responsible for these deaths were appointed, at least in part, on grounds of race-based affirmative action and that a direct causal link therefore exists between the policy and the deaths.”

black baby

That racial preferences would lead to such results is obvious. There’s no telling how many people have died or been injured due to affirmative action over the course of the several decades it’s been in place. There’s no way to know how many innocent people sit in prison due to incompetent lawyers, how many wrong medications were prescribed, how many operations were less successful, how many businesses failed – because competence took a back seat to “diversity.”

While it’s encouraging that such concerns are now being aired publicly, I doubt they will lead to meaningful change. Instead, the powers that be will, at best, try to replace the least competent affirmative action hires with slightly less incompetent ones.

A recent article, in American Renaissance, makes me question any future travel plans I might have:

Thousands of potential FAA air traffic control trainees, with College Initiative Training (CTI) degrees or previous military experience, have been told by the federal agency they are no longer eligible for job interviews. Instead, the FAA has decided to accept less qualified applicants, apparently to satisfy concerns that the agency needs a more diverse workforce…

The initial hurdle for all applicants was based solely on a new, online biographical questionnaire that gave test takers instant results.

“It didn’t ask me anything about my college experience, my grades, my scores, (and) my ability for the actual job. It asked me what sports I played in high school. What was my least favorite subject in high school. Nothing related to aviation,” remembered Meryhew.

“I get a big red ‘X’ when I applied saying I’m not qualified, but no reason why,” explained Annie Keinholz. “Biographically ineligible.”…

“I believe that the FAA’s motivation is to gain more diversity in the hiring pool,” said Kuhlmann. “But they won’t say it in that way. They will not say it. Even on the teleconference. They’ll just say, ‘We’ve engineered the biographical questionnaire in a way that we think will promote diversity.’”

How can we fight this? I’d like to suggest a course of action. We need to make sure that every flight in the U.S. has at least one black baby on board. That way, when the inevitable midair crash occurs, we can point to the dead black babies and say: “Affirmative action kills babies!” and we can include photos of those babies for added effect.

 

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, upon hearing of the recent killings in California, shook his head and stated:

What a waste! If Mr. Rodger had come to Nigeria, he would have made an excellent Islamic soldier – and he would have no problem finding a wife; he would simply kidnap one!

Recent conflicts with government forces, and vigilante groups, have left Boko Haram short on soldiers. Shekau had already contemplated tapping into the vast pool of frustrated white and Asian males in America. In a recent video, he had mentioned that it would be a win-win situation. Boko Haram would gain much-needed extra troops, and frustrated American men would have access to Nigerian women.

In an appeal to America’s lonely, desperate, men, Shekau pointed out that:

Islam is today’s dominant religion. If you attach yourself to Islam, and swear allegiance to Allah and his prophet Muhammad, you will no longer have to sit at the feet of more fortunate males, waiting for some crumbs to fall your way. The power of Allah, and his word, the Holy Qur’an, will infuse you with the authority and strength that women respect. And if they fail to respect you of their own free will, it is not a problem; you will take what you want.

Regardless of your color, we in Nigeria will welcome you with open arms. We shall show you the path to true manhood. If you fight for us, we shall fight for you!

There is no denying that this offer resonates with many American men – and U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have voiced concern that Shekau’s appeal may strike fertile ground. Some fear that Boko Haram may even develop an American chapter.

Abubakar Shekau

Abubakar enticing lonely American men with sweet promises

I spent a few days in Miami recently, and chose to use the bus service from the airport to my hostel. As I got to the bus platform, I saw that my bus was there and ready to go. As I ascending the steps, the black bus driver gruffly told me I needed exact change. Unfortunately, all I had was a $20 bill. I was directed to the ticket-selling machine a few yards away. It took me only a couple of minutes to get my ticket – but the driver left without me.

I sat down to wait for the next bus. It ended up being a half-hour wait. Over the course of that half-hour, numerous buses passed by, and several stopped for passengers. I couldn’t help but notice that every single bus driver was black.

According to Wikipedia, Miami is only 22.7% black. I have been unable to find any online resources that address the apparent discrepancy between Miami’s overall black population and their apparent dominance of the bus system. There don’t seem to be any statistics that break down Miami’s public employees by race or ethnicity. However, if Miami follows the trend in other places, such as Washington DC, then blacks are grossly overrepresented in government jobs, especially transit jobs.

Eventually my bus did arrive, and the black female driver was polite. This is what I saw next to the front seat:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I have submitted a request, to the Miami-Dade transit authority, to provide me with racial statistics of their employees. I’ll let y’all know if they respond.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers