Jewish man arrested over bomb threats

The Jew-haters were right, and not for the first time: A Jewish man has been identified as the source of a series of bomb threat directed at Jewish Community Centers. From Good Morning America:

A 19-year-old Jewish man who is an Israeli-American dual citizen was arrested early this morning in Israel in connection with a series of bomb threats made against Jewish community centers and Jewish schools in the United States and other countries, police and sources told ABC News.

The suspect’s father has also been arrested for the same charges, an Israeli government official said.

Police believe the man made fake bomb threats in New Zealand and Australia and against scores of Jewish institutions across the U.S.

He also allegedly called in fake bomb threats to two Delta flights at New York City’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2015, according to Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld.

It’s with great embarrassment and sadness that I acknowledge this. But also out of a sense of duty. Jews must come to terms with the bad apples in our midst. The suspect’s attorney claim that:

“This is a young man without a criminal record who suffers from serious medical problems from a young age. There is a concern that his medical condition affects his cognitive functions. In light of this, we asked the court to order the young man to undergo a medical examination. The court accepted our arguments and ordered the police to examine the young man’s medical condition.”

Par for the course, I suppose. Maybe he is mentally unstable, but this doesn’t excuse us from examining his motivations; even crazy people have reasons for doing what they do. Whatever his motivation, it couldn’t be wholesome.

If it were up to me, I’d strip him of his Jewishness and turn him into a goy.

 

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Religion versus ideology

In a recent op-ed piece on Massachusetts Live, Joseph Levine writes:

States that violate rights can be legitimately targeted by boycotts and sanctions, while ethnic/religious identities cannot. That was the principle underlying the BDS movement against apartheid South Africa, is the basis for the sanctions on Russia (whatever one thinks of the specific political situation there), and underlies the legitimacy of the BDS movement to defend Palestinians against the actions of the Israeli state.

One simple question comes to mind: If we cannot target/boycott religion entities, then why is it generally considered alright to do so to ideological entities?

Among the questions new immigrants were asked, upon their arrival at Ellis Island were “are you a polygamist?” and “are you an anarchist?” I  heard about an Arab who, upon his arrival in the U.S., was asked if he’s a polygamist. His answer was, “yes, I’m Muslim.” He was allowed in – which makes me wonder why they asked him in the first place. It could be that being Muslim is considered a valid excuse for being a polygamist, and, if not for that, he would have been denied entry.

Communism is an ideology that would have gotten you in a lot of trouble in America during the McCarthy Era. These days, it’s just another word for “Democrat.”

So it’s pretty clear that, historically, one’s ideology is not protected in America. But one’s religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution.

Dictionary.com defines “ideology” as:

Ideology

1.

the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

2.

such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation

“Religion” is defined as:

Religion

1.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

A religion doesn’t have to include a deity, nor must it involve rituals. In fact, definition #2 is not much different from the first definition of “ideology.”

The Church of Scientology has this to say:

Scientology certainly meets all three criteria generally used by religious scholars around the world to determine religiosity: (1) a belief in some Ultimate Reality, such as the Supreme or eternal truth that transcends the here and now of the secular world; (2) religious practices directed toward understanding, attaining or communing with this Ultimate Reality; and (3) a community of believers who join together in pursuing this Ultimate Reality.

If we accept this definition, then we should ask why this set of beliefs (and no others) should have special legal status in the United States. We should wonder why Pastafarians are a legally protected religion.

When the Constitution was written, religion played a much more prominent role in human affairs than it does today, at least in the Western world. Over time, ideology has eclipsed religion as the prime power behind human interactions and customs. Ideologies tend to adapt to scientific advances more readily than do religions. With the advances of Science, religion has been scaled back, and ideologies have taken its place. For many people, their ideology is their religion.

But there is no Constitutional amendment to reflect this; we still don’t have a legally recognized freedom to practice our ideologies unhindered and unmolested. While ideologies vary in the degree to which they’re bound to logic, it can be argued that, overall, they’re more rational than religion.

Personally, I think the real reason that religion has protected status, while ideologies do not, is that religion tends to be closely linked to ethnicity and nationality. Historically speaking, religion is tied to geography, as are race and language. Hence, to discriminate against a specific religion was tantamount to discriminating against an ethnic group.

But in an age of Scientology and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, perhaps it’s time to challenge old notions, and to recognize new realities.

If believing in a big man in the sky affords one special privileges, then why should a lesser status be the lot of an ideology based upon reflection and reason? This question is especially relevant to atheists.

One of my brothers is a vocal atheist, yet he goes out of his way to show how much he respects the religions beliefs of Muslims, and even Christians. To put it bluntly, neither of those two faiths make much sense – at least not to the casual observer. They involve a belief in miracles, Heaven and Hell, the suspension of the laws of Nature based on the whims of a supernatural being – and a rejection of solid scientific discoveries. I’m pretty sure my atheist brother understands how irrational these religions are.

Surely, they’re less rational than the beliefs held by the Alt-Right, even those held by neo-Nazi wannabe Alt-Rights.

It really shouldn’t matter how we define a set of beliefs or practices. The only reason it does matter is that governments have chosen to sanctify certain sets of beliefs as (protected) religion, while ignoring, or actively condemning other sets of beliefs as (non-protected) “hate” or “pseudoscience.”

In a perfect world, governments would extend their protection of religion to include all ideologies, as long as those ideologies don’t preach violence against others, and don’t infringe upon the rights of others. In this regard, many ideologies are superior to major religions.

In such a world, the measure of an ideology/religion would be its contributions to community, personal growth and well being.

I’ll conclude with a quote from the official site of Pastafarianism:

But nonbelievers are overreaching when they dismiss the phenomenon of religion as wrong and useless because it so often lacks a basis in evidence. The fact that millions of people get something positive out of a religion – even if it is based in superstition – *does* mean something. But that’s not to say it’s True, only that it has Value. For many people, religion is about being part of a community and being part of something bigger and more important than themselves. These transcendent experiences are something we want to emulate.

 

 

Posted in freedom of speech issues, libertarian thought | Tagged , , | 11 Comments

I finally watched Trump’s speech to Congress

It took me a few days, due to a heavy work schedule, but I finally got around to watching the entire speech. Overall, I was very impressed.

I was impressed because Trump struggles with the English language; he’s not alway the most eloquent of men, and people frequently misunderstand him. But this speech was delivered almost flawlessly. Even with a teleprompter (does he use one?), it would still take a lot of practice to pull off something like that.

It did bother me that he gave lip-service (at the very beginning of his speech, no less) to “Black History Month.” He also pandered to Hispanics at one point. However, I can forgive him for this, given that it might be a political necessity; it seems he really does want to win black support. Perhaps he’ll have limited success in this endeavor. We’ll see.

Trump brought up the fact that he’s continuing construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline, but failed to even acknowledge the rights of Native American tribes. Whether you believe that this pipeline presents a threat to tribal land-rights or not, enough people do to have warranted some sort of reassurance. Also, if blacks and Hispanics are deserving of special mention, then Native Americans certainly deserve such a courtesy. As for whites, I hope I live to see the day when the President of the United States can openly call for white rights. Apparently, there’s more work to be done in this regard.

I was pleased to see Trump highlight, once again, the great toll immigrant crime has taken on Americans. “Boos” from the Democrats only served to remind us how little they value the lives of American citizens.

Some of the things he called for, or aspires to, seem impossible. No, not “all Americans” can have high-paying jobs. Lowering the cost of currently ridiculously-priced drugs, and streamlining FDA approval of new drugs is definitely within reach. I hope he can do it.

Throughout it all, the look on Elena Kagan’s face spoke volumes. As I looked at her, I thought of all sorts of diseases that might strike her. Same with Sonia Sotomayor.

 

Posted in politics | 4 Comments

“White man exonerated”

“White man exonerated.” The corporate-owned media is loath to use these words, even when the news story itself cries out for such a headline.

A Yahoo Lifestyle headline reads:

The accompanying video explains how Brad Pitman’s 4 year-old daughter was repeatedly asked leading questions, by El Paso County social workers, back in 1997. Over the course of these interrogations, the youngster’s story changed from “a man with dark skin, like my dad, hurt me” to “my dad hurt me.” Her dad was tanned at the time, because he worked in construction.  After 20 years of being prohibited from having any contact with his children, it turns out that the real culprit was Joel Market, a black soldier stationed at a nearby army base.

Innocent dad:

brad-pitman

Actual child-rapist:

joelmarket654

In the Yahoo video, viewers are not shown an image of the actual rapist until 3 minutes and 46 seconds into the video.

According to “Journalist’s Resource,” the optimal length of a news video is just over 2 minutes. I’m fairly certain that a majority of viewers never viewed enough of the video to have seen the image of the real rapist. It’s clear, from the comments section, that most viewers aren’t aware of the role social services played in this miscarriage of justice, let alone the identity of the actual rapist. This is just another case of Yahoo pretending to report the news, while actually using trickery to hide the reality of black crime from its viewers.

A Fox News article is a bit better, showing photos of both the father and the actual rapist, but it’s still necessary to scroll almost three-quarters of the way down to view the small snapshot of the actual rapist.

The point of this post is not to claim that whites don’t rape kids, or to say that all blacks are evil. I’m simply pointing out that had it been a black man falsely accused of raping his daughter, and then it turned out that a white man actually did it, we would never hear the end of the racial aspect of this story; the headline would have read: “Black man exonerated in daughter’s rape. White man found guilty!!”

Posted in Africa and blacks, crime and violence, examples of propaganda, feminism and men's issues | 11 Comments

Al-Jazeera dances around white disenfranchisement

Sorry about not posting much lately. My excuse de jour? I’ve been working a lot, trying to get ahead financially – and then I was notified that they’ve set a date for this year’s American Renaissance conference. That’ll set me back a bit, but it’s okay; I’m sure it’ll be lots of fun. This time it’s at the end of July. Maybe I’ll bring a swimsuit, so that I can take a dip in the waters of Montgomery Bell State Park. If any of y’all are flying into Nashville for the conference on July 30th, let me know so that we can share a rental car.

Al-Jazeera just had an interesting article about Sudanese-Americans. According to the article, anybody whose native language is Arabic is classified as “white” by the US census department. The author, one Hind Makki, complains that this deprives her of being black.

One might think that such a matter is trivial – except that Hind works as an “interfaith and anti-racism educator.” So it must be part of her job to find racism in every nook and cranny, real or imagined. One might think that, since whites are (supposedly) privileged, she would be honored to be considered one of us. But no. Instead, she writes:

Identity erasure

My elementary school wanted to designate me as white because Arabic is my mother tongue, but no one was under any illusion that I actually was a white person. Rather, the question was: as an Afro-Arab, am I black enough to be considered racially black in America?

Sudanese Americans racial identities are often erased. Ahmed Mohamed, the so-called Clock Boy, was described as “brown” by many commentators as if he was South Asian.

Famously, Aziz Ansari, the Indian American actor, tweeted that he stands with Ahmed, “because I was once a brown kid in the south, too.”

I am a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf; I cannot point to an Afro to prove my blackness. Like Ahmed, my racial identity is often erased and transformed into an amorphous brown “other”.

Having your racial identity erased means hearing racial slurs against your community in your own language. It can also lead to absurdly ironic situations.

It may be that “Clock Boy’s” father is from Sudan, but he sure doesn’t look black to me. He’s clearly of largely Middle-Eastern blood, and he really IS brown. By implying that he’s black, Hind is “erasing HIS identity.” Admittedly, Clock Boy is black enough to play the “ghetto lottery.”

I have nothing against Sudan, or the Sudanese. In fact, I enjoy some of their music very much, and I’d love to visit Sudan some day. But if this young lady feels out of place, or confused, by American policies and history, then maybe she should consider returning to her ancestral home. I’m sure there’s plenty of racial/religious strife over there for her to alleviate.

 

Posted in Africa and blacks, immigration/ Hispanics | 11 Comments

A quick note on borders

After decades of encouraging its lower classes to illegally pour into the United States, the Mexican government is now upset that President Trump wants to actually enforce our border.

I couldn’t help but be reminded of the time I was taking a canopy tour of the rain forest in Brunei. From our high vantage point, we could easily see into neighboring Malaysia.

I asked our guide what would happen if somebody decided to walk across the border from Brunei into Malaysia. His answer was swift and unequivocal: That person would be shot on sight.

It’s worth noting that there’s no difference between the people of Brunei and the people of Malaysia. They speak the same language (Malay), practice the same religion (Islam) and are of the same race. They’re indistinguishable. And yet, the consequence of violating this purely political border is death. As far as I know, people don’t question this. I’m not aware of any international outrage over this policy. It’s just the way things are – except in historically white countries, where border violators are fed, sheltered and showered with sympathy.

I think President Trump understands that any meaningful policies that impact American demographics must be swift and forceful. Otherwise, his presidency will be a one-term one, and the backlash afterwards will be even worse than the Obama years.

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics, travel | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Africans in Mexico refuse to work

I found this YouTube video, where a Mexican complains about his government spending resources on African migrants while his own people suffer. If he thinks the only trouble with these migrants is their laziness, then he’s in for a surprise; it’s only a matter of time before those African migrants start to rape the locals.

Posted in immigration/ Hispanics | Tagged | 5 Comments