No, I didn’t fight in the War Between the States; I’m not that old. But I did purchase a nice hat, while visiting the South, that features the battle flag.

I wore it for a while, until the novelty wore off, and then I shelved it away – for no particular reason. But now that the various propaganda mills, which pass themselves off as “news outlets,” are bombarding us with negative messages about the Confederate flag, I feel that this is a good time to take a stand and wear it proudly.

Not that I’m a Southerner, or even a neo-Confederate, but I do cherish my freedom of speech. Of this I’m proud. Also, I see the ongoing repression of all things Southern as the persecution of a people. It’s cultural genocide, and good people all over should raise their voices against it.

If the Confederate flag is banned from major retail, and online, outlets, then this forbidden fruit is all the more sweet for my palate.

I went shopping this evening (wearing my hat), and after checkout, the young woman across from me looked straight at me and announced:

How rude!

I was certain she was talking about my hat, but then she continued…

I’ve never seen such a rude checkout woman!

I said she was probably just having a bad day. We must always be kind and civil when wearing a Confederate emblem.

Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of complaining about the Leftist Narrative, and much of it has been from yours truly. It’s easy to attack the Leftist Narrative – because it flies in the face of the reality we experience every day. It’s so preposterous that it offends our sensibilities. Here’s a comment I found on Yahoo that sums up the Leftist Narrative:

There is a war on women, black people are oppressed, the economy is fine, global warming is your fault and now you’re going to pay for it, Obama can do no wrong, big government is the answer to everything, there is no God, homosexuality is just as normal or even superior to heterosexuality, illegal immigrants have just as many rights as a U.S. citizen, only whites can be racist and they owe every other race, men are inferior to women, strict gun control, feelings are more important than the truth, moral relativism (nothing is right or wrong,) socialism is better than freedom, multiculturalism and diversity are somehow good for society, every culture is equal to every other culture, gender is a social construct, and to hate everything else about America

I think that, for the most part, the commenter is right. As for individual leftists, they may subscribe to half of the above list, give or take.

But the pro-white crowd has its own Narrative. It can be summed up as follows:

There is a war on white men. Black people have never created, or invented, anything of value. Blacks never invented their own system of writing. Miscegenation, involving whites, is always bad. Muslims are evil, and always in the wrong. Islam is responsible for Female Genital Mutilation and honor killings. Only white, or Asian, societies can be truly civilized and safe. Only whites are targeted for genocide through mass immigration.

Pro-whites are human, and like other humans, we sometimes view life too simplistically. The truth is usually less clear-cut.

Yes, there is a war against white men, but the enemies of white men are typically other white men.

Yes, black societies tend to be backward, and the inventions of blacks are either exaggerated or conjured up out of thin air. But there actually is a native black African form of writing. Nsibidi was invented in Nigeria and, though somewhat crude, does seem to qualify as an actual form of writing. Furthermore, Nigeria was home to ancient cultures that produced some impressive artwork.

As for black societies always being dangerous and crime-ridden, one must take other factors into consideration. Specifically, whether the society is culturally intact and how large it is. Island communities, or tight-knit communities, tend to be safer. As for my own experience, I never felt seriously threatened in Ethiopia or in Madagascar.

I have already presented my take on miscegenation here.

I am no fan of Islam, but I’ve known some very decent people who are Muslim. I’ve visited two Muslim countries (Egypt and Brunei) and found both places welcoming and hospitable. Crime wasn’t a concern in either place.

The Chinese government has been persecuting the Uighurs, who are mainly Muslim, and trying to force them to give up their religion. Though the origins of the Uighurs are unclear, for all practical purposes, they are now the native inhabitants of some parts of western China. China has been importing millions of ethnic Han Chinese (the majority ethnic group in China) into these regions – with the clear intent of rendering the Uighurs a minority in their own lands.

I’m no expert on this matter. In fact, I’ve never even met a Uighur. But it appears to me that their faith is crucial to their identity, much as Judaism is crucial (in the long run) to Jewish identity. So, for all the anti-Muslim rhetoric we’re used to from the Right, I do tend to sympathize with the Uighurs in this conflict.

The Uighurs, though partly Indo-European, are not white – and yet they’re being dispossessed of their native lands through mass immigration. The same is true of the Tibetans.

Regarding Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), it’s not specifically a Muslim practice. Many non-Muslim Africans do it. The Mursi tribe in Ethiopia, which I visited, practice it, and they’re animists. But since there are some Muslim countries where it’s widespread, some people mistakenly attribute it to Islam. This does not seem to be accurate.

The areas that now comprise the Muslim world held many ancient traditions, some of them barbaric. Of these barbaric traditions, some were codified into Islam – such as wife-beating. Others continued alongside Islam, while others became less popular. According to Islamic tradition, female infanticide is one example of the latter.

It’s not my intention to destroy the beliefs of pro-whites here, only to fine-tune them so that they correspond more closely with reality. We should be careful of statements that are absolute – generally speaking of course.

There are lots of ways to advocate for white people. You can educate friends and family, hand out flyers, post comments online, attend conferences, choose who we do business with and give our wireless networks provocative names.

But shooting up worshipers in a church does not advance our cause. It’s true that blacks victimize us on a regular basis, but probably not the sort of blacks who were worshiping at the Emanuel African American Episcopal Church on that fateful day. If any of their survivors are reading this, I extend my condolences.

Somebody pointed out that when a black man murdered eight white coworkers in 2010, in a crime that was clearly racially motivated, the media never called it a hate crime. Nobody demanded that the flag be lowered to half mast, and In fact, some news reports were actually sympathetic to the shooter. For example, an NBC article reads, in part:

“Everybody’s got a breaking point,” Joanne Hannah said.

“This is a disgruntled employee who shot a bunch of people,” Teamsters official Christopher Roos said.

Thornton was not a problem employee and had not had any previous disciplinary issues, said Gregg Adler, a lawyer for the Teamsters Local 1035. He said he was not aware of how much beer Thornton was alleged to have stolen.

Kristi Hannah had been with him Monday night and had no indication he was planning anything violent, her mother said.

Joanne Hannah described Thornton as an easygoing guy who liked to play sports and video games. She said he had a pistol permit and had planned to teach her daughter how to use a gun.

It’s true. Everybody does have a breaking point, and for unbalanced people, such as Dylann Roof, that breaking point is more easily reached.

We can view an individual like Roof as a pressure cooker. Perhaps he was bullied by blacks at a young age. This would have served as kindling for a flame under the pressure cooker. Awareness of black-on-white crime ignited the flame. He saw numerous white women, his age, dating black men – but he couldn’t even get a date. The flame intensified. He noticed the media constantly glorifying blacks, covering up black-on-white crime, while giving the impression that blacks are under siege by white racists. The intensity of the heat inched up. He wanted to speak out publicly about the gross injustices, and media misrepresentation of them – but doing so would only marginalize him further, and label him a “racist.” The pressure in the pressure cooker climbed. The fire under the pressure cooker was now relentless, but there were few outlets to let off excess steam. Eventually, the pressure cooker exploded, and nine innocent people are dead.

In a country of some 350 million people, there are bound to be some as unbalanced as Dylann Roof. I hold the media responsible for setting them off. Yahoo, MSN and CNN might as well have been firing the gun. Their censorship of black-on-white violence, along with the grotesquely biased reporting of what they do report, amount to “fighting words.”

For news organizations to consistently report white-on-black crimes (real or perceived) as national news, while reporting black-on-white crimes only locally (if at all) amounts to incitement. The shooting of criminal Michael Brown, killed while attacking a police officer, was “national news.” But the 2009 black attacks on innocent whites in downtown Denver were practically ignored at the national level. One had to read either local, or specifically pro-white websites, to learn about them. When a white person commits a “bias crime,” we are constantly reminded of his race. But when the perpetrator is black, we are left to figure it out on our own if there is no accompanying photo.

Such lopsided reporting breeds resentment both among blacks, who honestly believe they are under siege from whites, and from some whites, who become angered by the vast disconnect between what they know and what is reported. Corporate media outlets are messing with our minds, and it’s a dangerous game they play.

In this game, it’s the corporate media that holds all the cards. They’re going to use the Charleston shooting as a tool to call for anti- “hate-speech” laws. They’ll discover that Dylann Roof visited pro-white websites, perhaps even this one, and they’ll call for the banning of blogs such as this one. If they are successful, it will inevitably lead to even more bloodshed. We can safely assume that this is what they want. After all, it’s good for business.

I recently reblogged an excellent piece by Kakistocracy. I hope Porter doesn’t mind if I add a sequel. While Porter focuses on statistics and surveys, I’ll focus on specific tactics and examples of these tactics. Firstly, a recent incident that illustrates how third-worlders, once settled in the US, promote the destruction of our most cherished right.

Changing the demographics of America through mass third-world immigration

A North Miami high school principal was recently removed from his position due to a Facebook post. He had defended the Texas police officer caught on video responding to a group of unruly “teens.” From Fox News:

A Florida high school principal, who defended the Texas police officer at the center of that infamous pool melee, has become the latest victim of radical speech police hell-bent on trying to silence public discourse.

Alberto Iber lost his job as the principal at North Miami Senior High School after he wrote a comment about the McKinney, Texas incident on the Miami Herald’s website.

“He did nothing wrong,” Iber wrote. “He was afraid for his life. I commend him for his actions.”

Three sentences. Sixteen words. Sixty-two characters.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools released a statement on June 10 announcing that Mr. Iber had been removed from his position at the high school and reassigned to an administrative position.

The district said they require their employees to conduct themselves “in a manner that represents the school district’s core values.”…

He did not retract what he wrote nor did he apologize for what he wrote.

Local news organizations suggested the reason Iber’s opinion became newsworthy is because North Miami is a “diverse” neighborhood – meaning most of the residents are black.

“If you’re running a majority black school and you say a remark such as that people will not respect you,” a student told NBC News in Miami.

Councilman Alix Desulme, who identifies himself as a Haitian-American, was among those who condemned the former principal – and said he was “appalled.”

“For him to make such a comment is insensitive to the community,” he told the Miami Herald.

Are the councilman and the superintendent suggesting the principal had an obligation to condemn the Texas police officer? Would the principal still have a job had he done so?

Was Mr. Iber removed from his job because he defended a police officer or was he removed because he defended a white police officer?

While many leftists do, at least in theory, support freedom of speech, the third-world hordes they so gleefully import lack a solid understanding of “freedom of speech.” Their understanding of this concept is typically rudimentary and primitive. Unfortunately, these third-worlders are set to become a majority in America in the near future – and they already hold many positions of power.

The actions of Miami Dade superintendent Alberto Carvalho, a Latino, and councilman Alix Desulme, a Haitian, were instrumental in denying Mr. Iber (apparently also Latino) his freedom of expression. This is how things are done in the third world, in places like Latin America and Africa (Haiti being an extension of Africa). Due process is sporadic at best. Constitutional rights exist only on paper – unless you’re wealthy or famous.

Simply ignoring the Constitution, and acting above the Law

Many of us are still accustomed to our First World way of thinking, that if something is illegal or unconstitutional, surely we can successfully combat it. That justice will usually prevail, and that public servants are beholden to the law. But reality was driven home to us in 2011, when we struggled to hold the American Renaissance conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. A certain city councilman, by the name of Patrick Cannon, used his official position to intimidate hotels in order to deny us a venue in that city. Read my email to him here. What he did was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment – and yet there was no outcry from the ACLU or from any government organization. Years later, that same Patrick Cannon, then mayor of Charlotte, was arrested for corruption and sent to jail.

Of course, the previously cited case, where Principle Iber was dismissed from his position, is also a good example of government bureaucrats acting above the law, and with little accountability.

Chipping away at the First Amendment through the courts and backdoor legislation

Powerful forces are chipping away at this precious right through sneaky legislation and novel interpretations of existing law. Thus we find an actual “hate speech” prosecution in Montana:

The prosecutor’s office in Flathead County, Montana (where Kalispell is located) is arguing that speech that exposes Jews — or other religious, racial, and other groups — “to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace” is criminally punishable, unless it consists of true factual statements. As the Montana criminal defamation statute is worded, this means that hatred-inducing opinions are criminally punishable, too. Yes, this is that extraordinarily rare thing: an American prosecution for “hate speech” (State v. Lenio). The First Amendment doesn’t allow that.

Selective enforcement of existing law is a similar tactic. When neo-Nazis left fliers at residences, and in mailboxes, authorities sought a way to prosecute them. They chose to use anti-littering laws, and laws against the use of mailboxes for anything but stamped mail, as tools to pursue them:

Peter Roberts found the flyers and their message abhorrent.

“I’m against everything that it says,” Roberts said.  “I don’t know how you can keep them from doing it, though. It’s freedom of the press, freedom of speech,” Roberts added, calling the flyers and their bigoted message part of the territory in a “free” country.

CBS4 News reached “Commander” Edward McBride of the white supremacist group at a telephone number with a Delaware prefix.

“We’re just basically trying to wake up the people to the problems that are happening in the country,” McBride said.

Groups such as his are among the problems happening in the country, according to the Anti-Defamation League of Florida.

“They are a small, white supremist group,” said the ADL’s Florida Region Director Hava Holzhauer.  Holzhauer said the Oklahoma-based organization was a relatively inactive outfit, but added that bigotry must be exposed and challenged wherever it appears.

“We need to speak out when there’s a message of hate,” Haolzhauer said.  “Whether it be through an education program in a school, writing a letter, or responding to a flyer that’s left in somebody’s driveway.”

In November, 2011, the same group apparently papered the same neighborhood with virtually identical flyers.  In the previous episode, the papers were left on driveways and front stoops.  Miami-Dade police said that because the flyers contained no threats, the most the distributors were guilty of was “littering.”  The investigation went nowhere.

This time could be different.

U.S. Postal Service Inspector Bladimir Rojo confirmed to CBS4 News that some of the flyers deposited last week were left in mailboxes.  By law, only stamped U.S. mail may be placed in a mailbox.  To put anything else in a mailbox is a Federal offense, punishable by fines.

Rojo declined to say how many mailboxes had been violated or how many complaints authorities received.  Rojo said the case may yet end up at the United States Attorney’s office and that prosecutors would not want details of the investigation disclosed prematurely.

I’m not a sympathizer with neo-Nazis, but they should enjoy the same freedom of speech that everyone else enjoys. Since their message was unpopular, they were targeted for an “investigation.” Authorities had them in their cross-hairs even before they had figured out what to charge them with. This is not how things should work in a free country. In a free country, it should be fairly obvious that an actual crime was committed before the perpetrator is investigated (with certain exceptions, such as suspicious deaths, of course).

Social media bullying and the loss of one’s job

Like so many societies before us, we live by the “Golden Rule:” He who has the gold makes the rules. Most of us need to work in order to survive. Therefore, any threat to our livelihoods is enough to cow us into compliance with the dictates of political correctness – which are written by those with a lot of money and power.

Wealthy special interest groups have made voicing politically incorrect opinions dangerous to one’s career. These groups (and their sympathizers) have been known to cause non-conformists to lose their jobs. For example, Carlos La Roche tweeted that Oakland “protestors” should be shot with real bullets:

On at least two other occasions, La Roche tweeted similar disdain for violent demonstrators in Oakland. Earlier this month, he directed a message to Oakland police asking if it could “be open season on the protesters.” Last November, he suggested that members of the embattled Ferguson, Missouri police department be recruited to “put down those animals in Oakland seeing as OPD seems to be taking the week off.”

But it was his tweet on Saturday that prompted an outcry from activists. Many flooded the station’s Twitter and Facebook pages with criticism; others encouraged followers to call the station’s newsroom hotline to express their contempt for La Roche’s tweets…

KGO-TV released a statement via a series of tweets on Sunday saying La Roche, whom they did not identify by name, had been fired for publishing “inappropriate tweets from his personal account that in no way reflect the views of” the station.

Then there’s the case of Karen Fitzgibbons:

A teacher at an elementary school near Lubbock has been fired after writing she was “almost to the point” of supporting racial segregation following a controversial police incident in McKinney.

Frenship Independent School District officials fired Karen Fitzgibbons, a fourth-grade teacher at Bennett Elementary School in Wolfforth, for making the controversial post, the district announced in a statement Thursday.

In the since-deleted post, Fitzgibbons decried the Tuesday resignation of McKinney Police Cpl. David Eric Casebolt, shown on video pointing his gun at two unarmed black teenagers and pinning a 15-year-old black girl clad in a swimsuit to the ground outside of a neighborhood pool in McKinney.

“I’m just going to just go ahead and say it…the blacks are the ones causing the problems and this ‘racial tension,'” Fitzgibbons wrote in the Facebook post. “I guess that’s what happens when you flunk out of school and have no education. I’m sure their parents are just as guilty for not knowing what their kids were doing; or knew and didn’t care.”

The elementary school teacher continued, “I’m almost to the point of wanting them all segregated on one side of town so they can hurt each other and leave the innocent people alone. Maybe the 50s and 60s were really on to [sic] something. Now, let the bashing of my true and honest opinion begin…

The case of Justine Saccos practically defines cyber bullying:

One of the most infamous examples of this is 30-year-old Justine Saccos’ tweets she made during her journey from New York to South Africa. She was the senior director of corporate communications at IAC. During her layover at Heathrow Airport, she tweeted: “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” She had only 170 Twitter followers at the time. During her 11-hour flight, Justine’s tweet went viral. By the time she landed she became the No. 1 worldwide trend on Twitter. The twitter-sphere became her judge, jury, and executioner:

“In light of @Justine-Sacco disgusting racist tweet, I’m donating to @care today”
“How did @JustineSacco get a PR job?! Her level of racist ignorance belongs on Fox News. #AIDS can affect anyone!”
“I’m an IAC employee and I don’t want @JustineSacco doing any communications on our behalf ever again. Ever.”
“All I want for Christmas is to see @JustineSacco’s face when her plane lands and she checks her inbox/voicemail”
“Oh man, @JustineSacco is going to have the most painful phone-turning-on moment ever when her plane lands”
“We are about to watch this @JustineSacco bitch get fired. In REAL time. Before she even KNOWS she’s getting fired.”

Her employer, IAC, the corporate owner of The Daily Beast, OKCupid and Vimeo tweeted: “This is an outrageous, offensive comment. Employee in question currently unreachable on an intl flight.” A Twitter user summed up the inescapable truth: “Sorry @JustineSacco, your tweet lives on forever.”

Justine was fired from her dream job and and in recent interview said she is still battling the backlash of her public shaming that occurred two years ago. A google search of Justine’s name will return thousands of articles about her. Her tweet will indeed live on forever.

Powerful special interest groups don’t even need to be directly involved in order to ruin somebody’s life; the lies and misconceptions they spread have taken on a life of their own – and the gullible sheeple do the dirty work for them.

Personally, I believe that private employers should be allowed to hire, or fire, anybody they please, and for any reason. But what if the private employer is subject to pressure, and threats, from forces much more powerful than themselves? In such a situation, the firing might be a result of coercion. What if the employer is left-leaning to begin with, such as KGO-TV? Government employers, such as schools, should never be allowed to dismiss an employee due to his political views. But sometimes the line between a private, and public, employer is fuzzy. This is a complex subject, worthy of a separate post.

What can we do to protect our First Amendment rights?

In theory there’s the option of a lawsuit, but not everybody has the resources for a lawsuit. As for petitions, they don’t garner enough signatures when the victim is a white advocate; most people are ignorant, and many of those who know better fear becoming victims themselves if their name turns up in support of such a pariah.

Since we don’t have the tools to take over the system, the best we can do right now is try to educate as many people as possible. It’s not difficult to explain the real meaning of freedom of speech, and even some third-worlders will embrace the concept once they learn what it means.

It would be nice if we could find some sort of common ground with the Left. Sometimes even leftists get in trouble for their views. A Muslim might get fired from his job for supporting Jihad by quoting verses from the Quran. An environmentalist might get canned for criticizing his employer’s use of GMO’s or toxic waste.

A law protecting employees from termination based on political/controversial views might help protect our freedom of speech – albeit at a cost to employer rights.

Summer has started early here in Oregon, and I’ve wasted no time exploring some of the beautiful places within driving/riding distance from my home. This is the time to hop on my scooter and spend time outdoors.

It’s also the time to sweat. I’ve noticed people around me suffering immensely from the heat, even when it’s not very hot. While I’m comfortable with temperatures in the mid 80s (Fahrenheit, not Celsius), those around me seem to constantly complain. Having spent much of my life in hot climates, I’ve tended to attribute this to what one is accustomed to. Either that or some sort of genetic predisposition.

But recently I’ve considered another possibility: The regular use of antiperspirants. Since the early 20th century, Americans have been bombarded with propaganda (from the antiperspirant/deodorant industry) that body odor is evil, that we must wage relentless war against it, and that anybody who doesn’t use the marketed products is a savage. An unclean, unkempt, inconsiderate social misfit. It’s marketing by shaming. Americans, and many others, have come to believe that antiperspirant use is as important as bathing or brushing one’s teeth.

I readily admit that the judicious use of such products is important in certain circumstances: When one is in regular close contact with others or when one actually has a body odor problem. But current public opinion is more akin to a phobia than a concern for the comfort of others. As a society, we’ve crossed the line from concern about genuine hygiene to absurd fastidiousness.

Like so many other issues, there are extremists on both sides. There are those who claim that antiperspirants are dangerous, that their ingredients are toxic. Defenders of the current status quo sometimes use the “Loose Change” tactic, whereby they latch onto conspiracy theories, almost as a straw-man argument, in order to defend their worldview. Thus we find articles such as this one, which address only the toxic ingredient angle of antiperspirant use, while ignoring the fact that blocking a natural function of our bodies, sweating, is likely to have consequences. I’ll quote Dr. Mercola:

Why Sweating Is Important

You have two different types of sweat glands: eccrine sweat glands, which are distributed over your entire body, and apocrine sweat glands, located on your scalp, armpits, and genital area.

While abhorred by many, sweating actually has numerous health- and beauty-related benefits. Your skin is the largest organ of your body, and serves important roles just like any other bodily organ. For example, sweating helps your body:

  • Maintain proper temperature and keep you from overheating
  • Expel toxins, which supports proper immune function and helps prevent diseases related to toxic overload
  • Kill viruses and bacteria that cannot survive in temperatures above 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit
  • Clean the pores, which will help eliminate blackheads and acne

Interestingly, you’re born with anywhere between 2 million and 4 million sweat glands, and the number of such glands you have will determine, in part, how much you sweat. While women generally have more sweat glands than men, men’s glands tend to be more active and produce more sweat.2

As your body temperature rises, your body will automatically perspire to release salty liquid from your sweat glands to help cool you down.

This is controlled by your autonomic nervous system, which you cannot consciously control. However, certain emotions, such as anxiety, anger, embarrassment, or fear, can prompt you to sweat more.

Since exercise raises your body temperature, sweating associated with exercise is a sign that you’re exerting yourself and gaining the many benefits that exercise has to offer. However, sweating in and of itself may also be beneficial.

Sweating May Fight Skin Infections Via Antimicrobial Properties and Reduce Kidney Stones

Dermcidin is an antimicrobial peptide with a broad spectrum of activity that is expressed in eccrine sweat glands and secreted into sweat. In the average healthy person, research shows that sweating leads to a reduction of viable bacteria on your skin surface, which may lower your risk of skin infections.

In fact, one study suggested that people with atopic dermatitis, who have recurrent bacterial or viral skin infections, may be lacking dermcidin in their sweat, which may impair the innate defense system in human skin.3

Research has also shown that people who exercise, and therefore sweat more, have a lower risk of kidney stones. One reason for this may be because they sweat out more salt, rather than having it go into the kidneys where it may contribute to stone formation. People who sweat more also tend to drink more water, which is another way to lower your risk of kidney stones.

The propaganda campaign against body odor has rendered a large segment of America’s population hateful of their own bodies. Our bodies are wonderful machines. In their healthy state, we should appreciate their appearance, their sounds, their functions – and yes, even their odor. As long as it’s not excessive, body odor should be accepted as part of being human.

I suppose this is part of the natural progression of civilization. First, we learned to feel ashamed of the sight of our bodies, so we began to wear clothing to cover our nakedness. Then we began to consider any sound our bodies might make, with the exception of speech, to be vulgar. Finally, even the smell of our own bodies became “unacceptable.”

The global antiperspirant business is now estimated to be an 18 billion dollar industry. Some people are making a fortune off of the odor-phobia they have manufactured.

Personally, I think deodorants and antiperspirants are useful products, but too many people consider them a daily necessity when they’re not, and people who resist the propaganda juggernaut should not be shamed for doing so.

… but that post didn’t work out, so I’m writing about homosexuals instead.

It seems an athlete named Steward Butler has been accused of attacking two men who were kissing each other. Butler is being charged with a hate-crime.

This got me thinking. We sometimes read about attacks on homosexuals, by heterosexuals, but rarely do we read about instances where homosexuals attack heterosexuals – and I’m beginning to appreciate why people use the terms “gay” and “straight”; “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are long words, and they’re cumbersome. So “gay” and “straight” it will be!

For the record, I’m very much straight – but I sometimes wish I were gay; life would be so much easier. Companionship would come easy. For most of my adult life, until I started getting visibly old, gay men have found me very attractive. This attraction sometimes manifested itself in weird and scary ways.

I was once attacked by a gay kid, who was a bit older than me, in school. I didn’t understand his motivations at the time, and there was no nudity or obvious molestation. But thinking back, it’s now obvious what was driving him.

Then there was the time, in my earlier childhood, when a couple of gay neighbor kids tried to get myself, and my brothers, naked for them. If anything is “creepy,” that was it.

I almost hit a guy on a beach in Israel, when he ogled me, and stalked me, a bit too aggressively. He actually followed me around in the water, staring at me with those wide, sickening, eyes. Disgusting.

A few years ago, I was showering at a gym (in one of those private stalls that have textured glass dividing it from the other stalls), when the guy in the neighboring stall, stuck his face right up against the glass, at a “strategic height,” and wouldn’t take his eyes off me as I showered. Then one of his friends actually opened the door to my stall and entered it with me still in it! I was out of there in a flash. I complained to management, but there was nothing they could do about it.

A lot of guys, had they had the same experiences I did, would definitely have violent impulses toward gays. It makes me wonder how many perpetrators of anti-gay attacks, instead of being “closet gays,” as the Left would have us believe, are actually experiencing some sort of post traumatic stress syndrome, whereby gay activity reminds them of abuses they had suffered (from gays) in the past.

Why don’t we read about such attacks in the press? I’m sure that part of it is media bias in favor of gays. But another factor may be the hesitation most straight men have about telling others how they were victimized by gays. It’s a humiliating experience, and it’s hard to talk about. Perhaps even harder to write about it on a blog for all the world to see.

So here’s my message to the Press: Don’t be so quick to use the term “homophobic.” A “phobia” is an unreasonable fear, and there’s nothing unreasonable about not wanting to be a target of gay aggressiveness.

There are enough real instances of Jews publicly calling for the destruction of Western civilization, and the eradication of the white race, that we don’t need fake ones. This latest diatribe, attributed to a professor named “Emily Goldstein,” smacks of trolling or, at best, satire. Here’s the first part of the opinion piece, which appears on a blog called “thoughtcatalog.com“:

One of the more common memes that I’ve seen white supremacists spread around recently has been “diversity is a code word for white genocide”. The concept here is that diversity is only promoted in white nations, and that the end goal is to eliminate white people altogether by flooding all white countries with non-white people until there are no white people left. Well, guess what, white supremacists? That’s exactly right. Diversity IS about getting rid of white people, and that’s a good thing.

First off, I am a white person myself, so allow me to get that out of the way. I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too. White people do not have a right to exist. Period. That may sound like a bold statement, but it’s entirely true. Any white person with even the faintest knowledge of history should curse themselves every single day for being white. Throughout all of recorded history, whites have engaged in oppression, genocide, colonialism, imperialism, and just plain evil on a massive scale. White people have denied every other race the right to exist, and have – at some point in history – oppressed every single race on the planet.

Why, then, should whites now be allowed to live in peace when whites have historically been the world’s #1 source of conflict and oppression? Whiteness is racism. Period. Whiteness is the source of all oppression in the world. Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism. Eliminate whiteness and you eliminate every single form of oppression that the world currently faces. No white people means no oppression. White people are like a cancer and oppression is a symptom of the cancer. Cut out the cancer altogether – with the cancer being white people – and you get rid of all of the oppression which white people cause.

I have dedicated my life to fighting racism, and I have determined – based on all available evidence – that the only way to really eliminate racism is to eliminate whiteness. Whiteness is the ocean from which racism flows. Get rid of whiteness and you get rid of racism. Despite what white supremacists often claim, white people do not have a “culture”. White “culture” consists of nothing more than oppression, genocide, and the disenfranchisement of minorities. White “culture” is racism and nothing more. When white supremacists talk about “white culture”, what they’re really talking about is racism. Over the course of history, white people have built a massive empire based entirely on the hard work of oppressed and disenfranchised minority groups. But guess what, white people? That empire is finally coming to an end now, and its demise is music to my hears. To quote the great anti-racist activist Tim Wise: “Do you hear it? The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently? Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

Of course, this piece does express what many leftists actually think. But, from my own personal experience with leftists, I don’t think most of them actually want the complete extermination of whites – though their policies obviously will lead to this, I guess it’s not obvious to them. Maybe I’m being too generous toward them.

Looking through the comments, it seems that most readers actually believe it’s authentic. Maybe it is, but my internet searches didn’t turn up any professors, by that name, who are likely authors of the article. There are no links, on the page, to any other articles by this author, nor does it state which institution she teaches at, or what her specialty is. So I’m calling this one a hoax, satire or trolling.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers