Some Oregonian tidbits

We can open any major newspaper, on any given day, and find examples of anti-white propaganda. I came across an Oregonian from January 10th and found these:

Alcohol, drugs not a factor in fatal stabbing

… The results show that Juventino Bermudez Arenas, 33, a tree farm worker never known to be violent, was not drunk or high when he walked into a convenience store and stabbed Parker Moore, 20, whom he’d never met.

The Nov. 15 stabbing has baffled investigators, who say they may never know why it happened. They say there was no confrontation between Moore and his killer…

Arenas was (he was killed by police) mestizo. Moore was white. The article never even brings up the possibility that this was a racially motivated killing.

The comic strip “Stone Soup” features an interracial marriage between, surprise surprise, a black man and a white woman. Don’t they ever get tired of pushing the same old thing over and over again? We get the impression that the author, Jan Eliot, believes this is some sort of ground-breaking, revolutionary, iconoclastic art statement. In fact, he is only rehashing the same meme we’ve had forced down our throats for decades – using every medium known to Mankind.

The opinion section includes a column, by Nicholas Kristof, titled “In the wake of a mindless attack, don’t give in to mindless Islamic caricaturing.” In this column, Kristof urges us to keep an open mind about Islam. After admitting that radical Islam is behind much of the violence, and intolerance, we see today, Kristof writes:

Terror incidents lead many Westerners to perceive Islam as inherently extremist, but I think that is too glib and simple-minded. Small numbers of terrorists make headlines, but they aren’t representative of a complex and diverse religion of 1.6 billion adherents. My Twitter feed Wednesday brimmed with Muslims denouncing the attack – and noting that fanatical Muslims damage the image of Muhammad far more than the most vituperative cartoons.

The vast majority of Muslims of course have nothing to do with the insanity of such attacks – except that they are disproportionately the victims of terrorists…

To a point, I agree. I recently posted a comment on Amren stating:

Most Muslims are peaceful (in that they won’t actually go out and murder people), but wherever there is a large population of Muslims, a certain proportion of them will be dangerously non-peaceful. There is no way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Peaceful Muslim parents may have dangerous offspring. Therefore, the only safe solution is for non-Muslim nations to see to it that large Muslim populations are not allowed to accumulate within their borders.

The vast majority of gun owners are also responsible, peace-loving, people. Yet Kristof is a proponent of gun-control. He is not against guns, much as I am not against Muslims. But just as he believes we should have laws to minimize the damage done by guns, in the hands of criminals, so do I believe we should have laws to minimize the dangers posed by Muslims – by carefully regulating (or stopping) the immigration of Muslims into Western countries. Can Kristof show us even one majority-Muslim country where civil liberties, including freedom of speech, are respected? Is it not obvious to him that large Muslim populations, in otherwise non-Muslim countries, tend to bring about an erosion of safety, well-being and liberty?

It’s a natural right to own guns; we all have the right to protect ourselves, our freedoms and those we love. But it is not a natural right for any particular religion, or ethnic group, to colonize the lands of others. Therefore, in the above analogy, Islam-control makes more sense than gun-control.

 

 

What can we be offended about today?

I remember, back in high school, being upset that a quiz question asked what date Christmas falls on. I didn’t know, and this hurt my score. As an adult, I view things differently; scoring a bit lower on a quiz is a small price to pay for the benefit of attending schools that are representative of a functional culture – even if it’s not exactly my own culture.

It would appear that some Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan feel imposed upon because their children received invitations to an Easter egg hunt at school. According to the Christian Post:

Some Muslim parents in Dearborn, Mich., are upset over an “Eggstravaganza” Easter egg hunt invitation their children received from teachers at school because the event is going to be held on the grounds of the Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church.

Attorney Majed Moughni, the father of two public school students, said his son was uncomfortable about receiving the flyer from the Presbyterian church for their event on April 12.

“It really bothered my two kids. My son was like, ‘Dad, I really don’t feel comfortable getting these flyers, telling me to go to church. I thought churches are not supposed to mix with schools,'” Moughni told The Detroit Free Press.

Moughni said he’s uncomfortable with publically paid school teachers passing “out these flyers that are being distributed by a church. I think that’s a serious violation of separation of church and state.”

While separation of church and state is a worthy goal, it shouldn’t render public schools culture-free zones. When we speak of “public institutions” we should not lose sight of the fact that they’re supposed to represent a specific public. If we were to somehow succeed in catering our schools to people in general, without deference to any particular culture, we would be robbing our children of both their heritage and their childhood.

If we were to take the separation of church and state to its extreme, public schools would be dry, depressing, places. There’s a large grey area in our culture that, while not overtly religious in nature, has its roots in what passes for Christianity. Easter egg hunts, Christmas, graduation caps and gowns and St. Patrick’s Day are good examples of this. They’re part of American culture, and I see no harm in allowing schools to recognize them – without shoving them in our faces of course.

To the offended Muslim parents I say, you (or your parents) came to this country of your own free will. You benefit from our functional society and liberal government – which are offshoots of our culture. When you came to this country, you agreed to put up with this culture and, if you don’t like it, you can return to whatever Muslim-dominated country you came from. You’ll probably find that there’s less separation of religion and state in that country than you enjoy here.

Meanwhile, black women in the military are upset that new hairstyle regulation adversely affect them. According to Yahoo News:

New Army regulations meant to help standardize and professionalize soldiers’ appearance are now coming under criticism by some black military women, who say changes in the hair requirement are racially biased.

The Army earlier this week issued new appearance standards, which included bans on most twists, dreadlocks and large cornrows, all styles used predominantly by African-American women with natural hairstyles. More than 11,000 people have signed a White House petition asking President Barack Obama, the commander in chief, to have the military review the regulations to allow for “neat and maintained natural hairstyles.”

Some black military women, who make up about a third of the women in the armed forces, feel they have been singled out with these new regulations.

“I think that it primarily targets black women, and I’m not in agreement with it,” said Patricia Jackson-Kelley of the National Association of Black Military Women. “I don’t see how a woman wearing three braids in her hair, how that affects her ability to perform her duty in the military.”

Yes, there’s actually an organization called the “National Association of Black Military Women.” Their website states their goal as:

“To seek out, record, maintain and tell the historyof every Black Military Women...”

My advice to them would be to brush up on their writing skills, or at least hire a good editor, before putting together a website. I couldn’t help but notice that their president, Kathaleen F. Harris, seems awfully young to be retired. She must have been paid very well while in the military; I’m sure being black, and a woman, didn’t hurt her career.

Yes, being black and female can do wonders for one’s career, especially if it’s in a government job. If griping about hairstyle regulations is what now occupies them, clearly there’s not much in the way of real oppression to burden them. Is there an organization that works specifically for the benefit of white women in the military? Don’t be silly!

Can white Christians also be offended? As a matter of fact they can. Some Idaho parents objected when their school district included, as part of their official curriculum, a book that ridiculed Christianity and includes vulgar language. According to Yahoo news:

The largest school district in Idaho has banned from its curriculum an award-winning book about the struggles of a Native American teenager after complaints by parents that the novel was rife with profanity, racial epithets and anti-Christian rhetoric….

The book is described by publisher Little, Brown as a “heartbreaking, funny and beautifully written” tale about the experiences of a young Native American who leaves his troubled school on an Indian reservation in Washington state to attend an all-white high school in a nearby farming community.

I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that the book also includes anti-white rhetoric – but it’s not politically acceptable to object to the persecution of whites, because unlike Muslims or blacks, whites truly are an oppressed group (unless they happen to be well-connected of course).

Of the three aggrieved groups I cited above, the only one I sympathize with is the white Christians of Idaho. Does this make me a white-supremacist? Hardly. The “plight” of Muslim immigrants, who would rob school children of their culture, does not move me. Neither do I worry much about the military hairesy against black women (though I do feel that black women should be happy with their natural hair). But the cause of parents fighting a school district’s attempt to disparage their traditions, in their own native lands, is a worthy one.

 

 

What would be the reaction in France?

I found this on alarabiya:

Ad depicting U.S. soldier and Muslim wife met with mixed reactions

Paul Crompton, Al Arabiya

An advertisement picturing a U.S. solider and a fully-veiled Muslim woman in an embrace has provoked mixed reactions on the internet.

The billboard promotes sleeping aid brand SnoreStop and aims to show how its medication can benefit couples by enabling them to have a tranquil, snore-free night’s sleep.

Muslims concerned that the ad promotes the message of a couple sleeping together outside of wedlock need not be worried – the ad shows the woman wearing a wedding ring…

Social media users responding to the ad’s twitter hashtag #betogether had mixed feelings about the billboard, with many praising its message of equality and diversity while retaining its shock value.

“What an amazing ad. I wish more companies represented couples like this,” wrote twitter user Hooverr1.

Another twitter user, @Shahkaal said that it was “great to see diversity in Ads” while @KarimiScreamy wrote that the ad was a “good sign of tolerance.”

However, some individuals felt that the ad was “bigot-baiting” and “ignorant.”

Facebook user Debbie Herrera wrote that she liked the ad’s “diversity but… I also think this is in poor taste… I would think this would be offensive to Muslim’s [sic].”

Twitter user @uncolonisedmind wrote that the ad’s usage of a niqabi (a women who wears a face-covering veil) was “ignorant and stereotypical.”

Muslims do not form a major power bloc in the Los Angeles area. At least they’re not powerful enough to demand that infidels stay away from their women, while they act with impunity toward non-Muslim women. But this is not the case in much of Western Europe. It seems to me that such a billboard, if erected in a place like France, for example, would elicit immediate negative reactions. It would be taken down within days.

Various reasons for the outrage would be given – but few would come out and state the real reason: Underdogs contribute the females, while overlords contribute the males. European Muslims feel entitled to native women because they are allowed to be the overlords while the native population is subjugated. A billboard such as this implies the opposite. As such, it would be considered offensive. In fact, it would probably even be illegal.

 

 

Vicarious submissiveness

Human Stupidity (he sends me a lot of stuff) recently sent me an article that deals with the frequent incompatibility between feminism, which asserts equality between the sexes, and human sexuality, which often favors inequality between the sexes. The Psychology Today article tells us:

Twice as many women as men report trouble getting turned on. Health professionals report that low desire is the most common sexual complaint they hear from women. Though several factors specific to the design of the female brain contribute to this problem, there is one important psychological factor that may be unique to modern democracies. This factor is one of the unmentionables of sexual science, but since our book is filled with unmentionables, we’ll whisper it here:

Gender equality inhibits arousal…

The majority of women have submission fantasies. From classic romance The Flame and The Flower to classic erotica The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty to Twilight BDSM fan fiction, submission themes are immensely popular in cross-cultural female erotica. The fact of the matter is that most heterosexual women are wired to find sexual submission arousing–and so are most female mammals…

Almost every quality of dominant males triggers arousal in the female brain: dominant scents, dominant gaits, deep voices, height, displays of wealth. Romance heroes are almost always high status alpha males—billionaires, barons, surgeons, sheriffs. Avon Books and Ellora’s Cave feature no heroes who are kindergarten teachers, accountants, or plumbers. Even though there’s been a trend away from the conspicuously rapey bodice-rippers of the seventies and eighties, women still want strong, dominant men.

“I think this is one of the problems we’re having in romance in general right now: our heroes have gotten a little too PC. We’re portraying men the way feminist ideals say they should be—respectful and consensus-building,” muses erotic romance (EroRom) author Angela Knight. “Yet women like bad boys. I suspect that’s because our inner cavewoman knows Doormat Man would become Sabertooth Tiger Lunch in short order. In fact, this may be one reason why EroRom is gaining popularity so fast–writers feel free to write dominant heroes with more of an edge.”

How many times have we wondered why liberals, who claim to support women’s rights, are so fond of Muslims and Africans? Both groups are well-known for their rape-cultures. For example, here and here. The facts are out there, and they’re not difficult to find – and yet a vast majority of the liberal establishment supports massive immigration from Muslim and African lands. No matter how many times we remind them that such immigration is bad for women’s rights (and gay rights), they pay no heed, their only response being yet more shrill cries of “racist!”

I believe that both liberal men and women are submissive. On a subconscious level, they actually WANT those rapes to occur. Just as so many women prefer a “bad-boy” over one who will treat them as ladies, so too do liberals prefer the bad-boy cultures of Islam and Africa. This is their way of living out their submissive fantasies – except that they don’t usually want the rapes to happen to them, or to their own daughters. Instead, they want them to happen to other people’s daughters. In this way, they can live out their fantasies in relative safety.

If we want to sway public opinion, and drive home the dangers of mass immigration from African and Muslim lands, we must learn to appeal to the emotional, subconscious, side of our audience. Reasoned arguments will have little effect, any more so than reasoned arguments will prevent a woman from preferring a bad-boy over a gentleman.  What they say and what they really want are two entirely different things. Like the old adage goes, “when she says ‘no’, she means ‘yes.'” When liberals say “No” to rape, what they really mean is “Yes.” We need to treat liberals as women, even the ones who are biologically men. Women respect assertiveness and force. In recent history, pro-white groups have displayed little of each. While the suit-and-tie pro-white activists may appeal to some, I don’t think their effect will be a large one. There’s something to be said of tattoos and belligerence – or better yet, act as the Muslims: Good cop, bad cop.

 

Muslim teaching his son paranoia

While in downtown Portland today, a man walked up to me and gave me a small flyer. This is what is says:

We are American citizens. The government is trying to kill us. We are being tortured, insulted, humiliated (e.g. physical injuries, death threats, property damage/ vandalism, government harassment including police stalking/ privacy invasion, traveling detention (airport interrogation, missed flight, denial of food service), verbal abuse (religious epithets, taunting, etc.). At work: monetary hardship, hostile work environment/harassment from management, co-workers, scare tactics and intimidation. For more info: youtube.com/heshamehussein

We are a Muslim family. Muslims are being attacked because of their beliefs. Muslims believe in obedience to the Creator. The Creator wants people to choose freedom (freedom from slavery to man (government, job, each other)), peace, security, human rights, justice and happiness in this life and in the hereafter (heaven). The Creator wants to protect us from His wrath (punishment in this life, hell). For more info: quran.com

I followed the youtube link and found several videos on Hussein’s channel, including this one:

Personally, I found it sickening and hard to watch. This man is teaching his child to be paranoid. To see bigotry and ominous threats in everyday incidents that all of us experience. I had a man cut me off today in traffic. It never occurred to me to suspect him of having done so deliberately because I look different than him.  Rather, I assumed he simply failed to see me. People are rude to me now and then. I assume they’re having a bad day, not that they have it in for me because I’m Jewish. I’ve been treated unfairly at work numerous times (who hasn’t?). I attribute it to bad management. Not to some sort of conspiracy against me. I shudder to think what sort of man this little boy will grow into. It wouldn’t surprise me if the rage inside him (planted there by his father) causes him to be a terrorist.

Jews, and other groups, are sometimes guilty of similar behavior, but since it was a Muslim who gave me the flyer, it’s Muslims I’m writing about today.

 

The gay pride parade in Portland

A buddy of mine called me and said, “Let’s go to the Thai parade Sunday.” I thought, “Oh cool! A Thai parade. There will be Thai dancers in exotic costumes, interesting music and food. Count me in!”

Except that my sense of hearing must be getting dull with age. He said “gay pride parade,” not “Thai parade.” So this is how I ended up at Portland’s gay pride parade, just as a spectator mind you.

Practically every corporation known to man had a presence at the parade. All sorts of banks, retail chains, schools and private organizations were represented. The mayor and his wife were there – along with tens of thousands of people, all cheering for love, tolerance, inclusion and gays.

Can an abomination and a denomination coexist? See for yourself:

Here’s the mayor and his wife:

There was no dissent. Nobody dared question the gay lifestyle, or the appropriateness of declaring one’s pride in what, arguably, should be a private matter. As men in leather had mock sex in the street, thousands of Portlanders cheered them on.

So it struck me as rather odd that a prevailing theme in the parade was that gays are persecuted. That they are marginalized in today’s society. Many wore buttons and t-shirts that said “legalize gay.” Seriously?

A young man approached me to sign a petition. He was outraged that, in some states, it’s legal to fire somebody for being homosexual. I told him it should be legal. That a private company should be allowed to hire, or fire, people as it sees fit and for any reason. That discrimination is perfectly acceptable. I told him that consumers would punish companies that made bad hiring decisions. I definitely got him thinking; he looked confused after that encounter.

Noticeably absent from the parade were Muslim groups of any kind. I didn’t see anybody holding signs that read “Allah loves gays too” or “Shiites for marriage equality.” Hmm… Must have been an oversight.

 

Who attacked Wilfred de Bruijn?

I happened to come across a Yahoo news piece concerning a gay couple that was beaten in Paris recently. Reading the article, one gets the impression that Wilfred de Bruijn was beaten by actual Frenchmen. There is no hint, in the article, that anybody but ethnic French – specifically French Catholics – are to blame. The article concludes with these words:

“We don’t want violence. We denounce this violence and these acts, we have nothing to do with (Catholic) fundamentalists or extremists,” she said.

Not so, for De Bruijn.

“It was not Frigide Barjot who was hitting my head, or the bishop of Avignon lurking in that street to attack us,” he said. “But they are responsible.”

But of course. It’s “Catholic extremists” who, it’s implied, committed the deed or were somehow responsible for it. When I saw this story I immediately suspected Muslims and sure enough, Opposing Views gives us more detail:

A graphic photo (below) of Wilfred de Bruijn, who claims he was assaulted in a Muslim part of Paris, has provoked shock and outrage.

It’s not much of a stretch to surmise that “in a Muslim part of Paris” means the attackers were, in fact, Muslim – or at least of Muslim background. It’s also not surprising that Yahoo blames not the mullahs but “Catholic extremists.”

I could sit here all day long and bash Muslims and white-hating organizations such as Yahoo, but this is not my purpose here. Rather I wanted to use this case to illustrate how the Left, though its policies, brings harm to those it professes to love – and then shamelessly uses this harm as an argument for more of its policies.

The European Left has been promoting massive Muslim/African immigration for decades. Now that those immigrants are attacking gays in the streets of Paris, it turns around and uses such incidents as propaganda to further its gay agenda. The Left pursues “gay rights” not so that gays may live in peace and undisturbed. Not at all! “Gay rights” is merely a vehicle to promote the effeminization of white men in general. If white men respect the gay lifestyle more, they’re more likely to become more effeminate (or so their thinking probably goes). Once they’re more effeminate, they’re less likely to oppose their replacement by sacred “people of color.”

The Left doesn’t want white men with guns. It wants white men dressed in pink and with flowers. White men who are pushovers. If I were gay, I’d be insulted that the Left uses my “rights” toward this end. I’d also make sure I own a gun. Gays have a lot more to fear from Muslims and their leftist enablers than from right-wing whites or “Catholic extremists.”