Q. Why Does Adam Sandler Still Have a Movie Career?

Steve Sailer writes: A. I don’t have anything against Sandler since I mostly just avoid his movies (although I can think of three I enjoyed). But he’s the bane of people whose job requires them to see every movie that comes out and write 800 words about his latest extrusion. Although American critics have long looked forward to the end of Adam Sandler movies, his secret weapon appears to be that Hispanics identify with him…

The movie tastes of Latin Americans, there and here, are pretty much terra incognita for American cultural commentators.

You might think that they would be a question of some relevance, what with the immigration demographic tidal wave and all that, but the vast majority of white American film critics don’t appear to have ever even considered that Hispanics have likes and dislikes.

COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:

* Shouldn’t that be reason enough to restrict immigration?

* It’s impossible to believe people who get paid to watch tv/film have never tuned into Univision even for a few minutes. Thirty seconds of Sabado Gigante! in its primetime slot would clue even the dimmest observer into the fact that Latinos’ viewing preferences are vastly different from Americans’. This is another instance of refusal to notice. Noticing Latino TV seems to be written for five year olds is badthinking although I suspect it’s ok to notice Japanese TV appears to have the same childish bent.

* I used to work at a company with an all Mexican factory work force and the TV shows they had on in the break room during lunch were eye-opening. The favorite seemed to be a comedy variety show that was vaguely reminiscent to me of the old Hee Haw show, in that it featured an all White cast most of whom were in costumes, and the women’s tended to be scanty. The main difference between the two shows was that in terms of comedic sophistication, and musical quality the Mexican show made Hee Haw look like The Marriage of Figaro.

Posted in Latino | Comments Off on Q. Why Does Adam Sandler Still Have a Movie Career?

Help The Smart Kids

The dumb kids aren’t going to help us much. So we might as well concentrate our resources on the smart kids.

National Geographic reports:

Why This 14-Year-Old Kid Built a Nuclear Reactor

In his quest to better the world,Taylor Wilson captured the interest of Homeland Security and ended up with radioactive pants.

Posted in Education | Comments Off on Help The Smart Kids

Prelude To Sandra Bland’s Texas Death

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The Eye of Sauron has now turned to Prairie View, Texas:

Texas County’s Racial Past Is Seen as Prelude to Sandra Bland’s Death

Prairie View was so racist in the past that their government funded a college for black people there 140 years ago, but never mind. In other countries with oppressed minorities, the government funds colleges for them also – there is the University of Gypsies in Romania, Rohingya U. in Burma, etc.

Apparently, white people harm black bodies even when said black bodies string themselves up – a virtual lynching for a virtual age.

If you listen to the tape, the traffic stop goes reasonably well until the trooper asks Bland to put out her cigarette and she refuses. You would think by now that all black parents have had The Talk with their kids and that part of the Talk is that if a cop makes a reasonable request that you do not invite trouble on your head by disobeying him. Failing to do so displays a lack of common sense. Maybe Sandra Bland wasn’t the sharpest tack in the box, but I think this goes beyond that – there is some sort of willful desire to push the limits to see how much you can get away with due to your “racial immunity” and sometimes the racial immunity fails and you reap the whirlwind. All she needed to do was put out the cigarette and 5 minutes later she would have been on her way but she couldn’t bring herself to do that much.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Prelude To Sandra Bland’s Texas Death

Wesley Clark Wants To Put Dissidents Into Re-Education Camps

Comments to Jared Taylor:

* A prominent Democrat, retired four star General Wesley Clark, thinks the FBI should identify “radicalized” Americans and toss them in re-education camps just like the communists. He said this on national television but no one was outraged. If an American seems upset by the loss of a girlfriend or can’t get a job and may do something violent, lock them up says the General.

* On the weekend in Chicago, 32 people were shot, of whom 6 died. Country not shaken. Fortunately, Blacks in Chicago live in their own neighborhoods and don’t fraternize with others, so it’s all intraracial and not cause for concern.

* Of course Jared is correct in these observations. The shame is that the national media outlets with their ability to shape public opinion on a large scale could reduce the occurrence of black-on-white crime and the faux black victimology meme by simply exposing the truth and starting a national discussion on real interracial crime.

Instead, they studiously hide the truth and reinforce the white man as devil delusion. More people lashing out in Roof fashion seems likely.

Posted in Blacks, Race, Whites | Comments Off on Wesley Clark Wants To Put Dissidents Into Re-Education Camps

How Can We Prevent Future Dylann Roofs?

Jared Taylor writes:

The massacre at the Emanuel AME Church has shaken our country more than any event since the attacks of September 11. And like those attacks, it has prompted an outpouring of emotion and a strong desire to take action.

Within just ten days of the killings, Amazon, eBay, Sears, Walmart, Google Shopping, the Apple app store, and the gift shops at Fort Sumter and the Gettysburg battlefield announced they would no longer sell Confederate-flag merchandise. The Alabama State Capitol and the chapel at the Citadel took down battle flags they had displayed for years. Many have called for a renewed emphasis on America’s past sins of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow, as a way to combat hate.

These actions express the shock and outrage that Americans rightly feel, but I do not believe they will help prevent future racial violence. I think they will make it more likely.

I have never met Dylann Roof. He is reported to have been a high school dropout and drug taker, who expressed confused and even incoherent opinions about race. He is also a mass murderer. However, for professional reasons, I am acquainted with a large number of young white men—and some women—who share enough of his views to give me what I believe is a good sense of his motives.

If we want to prevent more Dylann Roofs, we should try to understand him. This may seem futile and even immoral. Some would say that pure evil cannot be understood, and that trying to understand Roof is tantamount to excusing him. These objections are understandable but misplaced. First, some of his views are spreading. They should be grappled with, not simply condemned. Second, by understanding what drove Roof to mass murder we may be able to make mass murder less likely. If we examine the anxieties, vulnerabilities, and resentments behind his views—and those of other young whites—it may be possible to palliate them in ways that do not violate our values and that could prevent future violence.

The press routinely describes Roof and others like him as “white supremacists,” but this is not a useful term. It implies a desire to rule over or dominate other races, and there is no evidence Roof wanted that. Roof, and the many people I know who think to some degree as he does, are profoundly disaffected from American society. The ones I know are unlike Roof in that they are educated, sophisticated, attractive professionals, but like Roof, they reject and even despise conventional attitudes about race. Their thinking is not, however, a modern-day survival of the slave-holder or segregationist mentality. It has similarities, but it is rooted in current circumstances. It is a new way for whites to think about race. “White supremacist” is an outmoded expression that does not cast light on today’s realities.

To understand Dylann Roof, we must set aside much of the framework that shapes the way we think about race. One difficult concept to grasp is that although everyone, beginning with Barack Obama, has agonized over the “hatred” that led to the church killings, Roof did not hate black people in any conventional sense…

Roof wrote that the Martin/Zimmerman case was the spark but that the real tipping point was the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens, where he found many reports of black-on-white murders. How could this have so affected him that he has “never been the same since that day”? The answer requires an examination of the nature and extent of interracial crime, and how society views it.

The website of the C of CC, as the council calls itself, is a lurid chronicle of black-on-white (and sometimes Hispanic-on-white) crime. Its typical posting includes a photo of an attractive young white woman alongside a photo of the black boyfriend or mugger who killed and/or raped her.

The website does not pretend to be balanced. It covers other subjects, but its main mission seems to be to find and memorialize every white victim of interracial violence. It never mentions white perpetrators. In that sense, it is pure propaganda, and most people would call it hateful propaganda. However, the C of CC does not make these stories up. It finds crimes that are reported locally, lists them, and argues that if the races were reversed, at least some of them would be headline news.

Roof “was in disbelief” that the press, which made a national racial scandal over George Zimmerman’s self-defense killing, completely ignored so many black-on-white murders, some of them barbaric, some of them racially motivated. The C of CC’s propaganda may be shocking and deplorable, but it contains more than a grain of truth. Disaffected whites take it as a truism that the press underreports black-on-white violence, and there is reason to think they are right.

Every year, in what is called the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Justice Department gathers detailed victim reports—including race of attacker—from a sample of more than 100,000 Americans. Survey data offer a clearer picture of interracial crime than counting arrest records because it eliminates any possibility of police bias. The latest figures for 2012 and 2013 show that of the nearly 600,000 crimes of interracial violence involving blacks and whites committed each year, blacks were the attackers 84.5 percent of the time. The proportions have been about the same for decades.

This is a huge, black-on-white imbalance. Some would argue that this is because there are five times as many whites as blacks, so black criminals are simply more likely to encounter white victims. However, in the case of interracial crime involving blacks and Hispanics, the proportions are similar: Blacks were attackers 82.5 percent of the time, despite the fact that there are only about 30 percent more Hispanics than blacks.

There may therefore be some justification for the view among disaffected whites that blacks deliberately target people of other races. Violent “flash mobs” are almost always made up of young blacks who mainly rob and beat whites. The “knock out game,” in which someone tries to knock out a victim with a single punch, has also been called “polar bear hunting” because the perpetrators are almost always black and the victims are almost always white.

The victimization survey bears this out. When whites commit violence they chose blacks as victims only 3.6 percent of the time, whereas violent blacks chose whites as victims almost as often as they chose blacks (38.6 percent vs. 40.9 percent, while 14.5 percent of their victims were Hispanic). To express the figures differently, although the individual likelihood was extremely low, a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa…

There have been black-on-white crimes of such brutality and drama that disaffected whites may be justified in thinking that if whites had done equally horrible things to blacks there would have been widespread outrage.

In 2000, two black brothers, Reginald and Jonathan Carr, broke into a Wichita home in which three white men and two white women, all in their 20s, were spending the night. The Carrs stripped and bound all five, and over the course of several hours beat the men and repeatedly raped the women. They forced both the men and the women at gun point to commit sex acts on each other. They took each individually to ATM machines and forced them to withdraw money. They then drove the victims—three stuffed into the trunk of a car, the men naked and the women naked from the waist down—to a remote soccer field, where they forced them to kneel in the snow, shot them all execution style, and ran them over with a truck. One woman miraculously survived, and walked nearly a mile in sub-freezing weather to report the crimes.

In 2007 in Knoxville, three blacks hijacked Christopher Newsom and his girlfriend, Channon Christian. They bound and gagged Newsome, raped him anally with an object, walked him barefoot to train tracks, where they shot and killed him. His attackers then set fire to his body. Christian was repeatedly raped orally and vaginally over a period of several hours, and her vaginal area was beaten to a pulp. Her attackers sprayed bleach down her throat. They then tied her up, wrapped her in garbage bags, and stuffed into a garbage can where she suffocated to death. Neither of these incidents gained much national attention, and in neither case did authorities make any attempt to determine if the criminals had a racial motive.

It is hard to find crimes of such brutality by whites against blacks, but when they occur they become well known. Many people have heard of James Byrd. In 1998, three white men beat him savagely, urinated on him, chained him to the back of a pickup and dragged him to death. The two men most responsible for the crime, Lawrence Brewer and John King were described as white supremacists. During previous jail sentences they had joined a white prison gang in order to seek protection; King said he had been gang-raped in prison by blacks. Byrd’s name is now on both Texas state and federal hate crime laws, and the crime has been made into a feature-length documentary.

This case gained notoriety in part because it was seen as a racially motivated murder. Racially motivated murder of whites by blacks does not get the same attention. John Mohammad and Lee Malvo terrorized the entire Washington DC area during a 2002 shooting spree. Their crimes were world news—yet how many people heard that John Mohammad carried out the crimes because he believed that “the white man is the devil,” and that he planned to kill six white people a day for 30 days?

Other explicitly racial killings attract little attention. In Wilkinsburg, near Philadelphia, 39-year-old Ronald Taylor killed three men and wounded two others in a 2000 rampage, in which he targeted whites. At one point, he pushed a black woman out of his way, saying “Not you, sister. . . . I’m just out to kill all white people.” [1]

Also in 2000, Obie Weathers of San Antonio, Texas, attacked but did not manage to kill two elderly white men. Later that day, he found 82-year-old Norma Petrash in her home and beat her to death. “I hate all white people,” he explained to a detective.[2]

In 2005, Philip Grant stabbed Concetta Russo-Carriero to death in a parking lot in White Plains, New York. In a video-taped confession, he explained, “I was thinking that the first person I see this morning that looks white, I’m killing them. I have no remorse whatsoever because she was white.” [3]

In 2007, Steven Johnson was sentenced to 240 years in prison for shooting and wounding three white people and spraying kerosene on several others while he shouted that “white people are going to burn tonight.” He told police he was seeking revenge for the mistreatment of blacks.[4]

In 2008, a white woman wept on the witness stand as she described her rape at the hands of a black man who broke into her apartment in Raleigh, North Carolina. He told her he was punishing her for the historic crimes of whites.[5]

In 2009, Los Angeles police arrested a black man, John Floyd Thomas, Jr., thought to have been the most prolific serial killer in the city’s history. Over a period of more than a decade he raped and killed an estimated 30 older women. All were white.[6]

In 2010, a black man, Omar Thornton, was caught on video stealing beer from the Connecticut distributor where he worked. Offered a choice between resigning and being fired, he shot eight white co-workers to death and wounded two more. Before shooting himself, Thornton phoned his mother and claimed the killings were retaliation for workplace racism. Other minority employees said his claims of racism were unfounded.

None of these crimes—and there are more with a clear racial motive—got national attention the way the Byrd killing and the Charleston shootings did.

In a way, the legal system recognizes the seriousness of all interracial crimes—not just white-on-black crimes—by designating some as hate crimes. The latest FBI hate crimes report includes 2,919 crimes motivated “on whole or in part” by race. Whites committed 52.4 percent of all bias crimes and blacks committed 24.3 percent (strangely, Hispanics are a victim category but not a perpetrator category and are grouped with whites). This means blacks were 2.89 times more likely than whites (including Hispanics) to commit hate crimes. The greater likelihood of blacks to commit bias crimes is well known by disaffected whites but rarely reported otherwise.

Hate criminals are eligible for enhanced penalties because bias is thought to be particularly damaging to society. However, which did more harm to race relations: the 2,919 crimes officially designated as racial hate crimes in 2013 or the nearly 600,000 black/white violent crimes (and the 950,000 crimes involving other racial combinations) that were not so designated? Interracial violence can leave deep scars; it is little comfort to the victim that the rapist or mugger did not happen say “ni**er” or “spic” or “white motherfu**er.” In an era of what may be increasing racial tension it would make sense to consider adding enhanced penalties to all violence that crosses racial lines…

There were other reasons for Dylann Roof’s disaffection, and his rambling manifesto hints at some of them: Blacks are encouraged to be preoccupied with race and to advance their interests while whites are told they have no legitimate interests; immigration and demographic trends are reducing whites to a minority; the national enthusiasm for diversity means valuing every other group over white men; whites are treated as the villains of history and rarely credited for their contributions; there is strong evidence that races are different and unequal but scientists who study race risk their careers…

In 2009, Eric Holder called America a “nation of cowards,” because it refuses to talk about race. Five years later he repeated the charge. I suspect that Eric Holder would not consider anything in Dylann Roof’s manifesto a legitimate subject of conversation. I suspect he would be indignant at the idea that whites could have legitimate grievances. I’m sure many whites would agree. But if white grievance is ever laid to rest, it will be only through honest debate of the kind we do not have.

Rightly or wrongly, those grievances are spreading. Dismissing them as ignorance and silencing those who express them only drives them underground, where they feed bitterness and disaffection. It is my fervent desire that white grievance—real or imagined—never again erupt into murderous violence. But I fear that, though they may have good intentions, many of our political and media leaders are following a course that makes it more likely.

Posted in Blacks, Crime, Nationalism, Race, Whites | Comments Off on How Can We Prevent Future Dylann Roofs?

The Clash Between Orthodox Judaism’s Theory & Practice

Comments on Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites its History by Marc B. Shapiro (Oxford – Portland, OR: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2015).

Bar Ilan professor Aryeh A. Frimer writes:

But what I found particularly troubling with Changing the Immutable was the last chapter, which deals with lying in pesak. After going through the many examples Shapiro cites, the reader is left with one clear impression. One sometimes needs to be careful about trusting a Posek, since he may well be misrepresenting something in his ruling. It could be the source and authority of the prohibition. For example, is the prohibition based on a biblical commandment (positive or negative), rabbinic edict, custom or mere public policy (slippery slope) considerations? Alternatively, the expressed reason may not be the real grounds for the prohibition. In addition, the application may be much broader than halakhically permitted. To my mind these are shocking revelations: these are not sins of omission but commission; the perpetrators are scholars and religious leaders; and these deviations constitute intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

Our author is not insensitive to this dissonance. In an attempt to explain how these scholars justify not being fully honest in pesak, Shapiro writes in the last two pages of the book (pp. 284-285) about “redefining truth.” He indicates that these decisors see nothing wrong in what they are doing, since their ultimate goal is the “higher good”. As they see it, they have ultimately prevented their respective communities and congregants from sinning and deviating from the proper path of shemirat mitsvot. The fact that these scholars have bent the truth, and distorted Jewish law in the process, is of lesser importance. The ends in these cases, justify the means.

It is with these jarring observations that the book comes to an abrupt end, without any further comment or soul-searching. This is despite the fact that on page 239ff, Shapiro brings one citation from Hazal after another about the centrality of truth, and the seriousness of the sin of lying. After all, the Torah itself commands us: “mi-Devar sheker tirhak” – “From untruthfulness, distance thyself” (Exodus 23:7). If what the author writes in the last chapter is true, then Hazal’s eloquent statements about the importance of honesty have become nothing but a mockery. It raises serious moral questions with insufficient and unsatisfying answers. How are we now supposed to educate our children and talmidim as to the cardinal nature of truth and truthfulness?! How are we to live with such a clash between theory and practice?

Marc B. Shapiro responds:

I understand why Professor Frimer is troubled by what I wrote, and to a large extent my conclusions diverge from his own. All I would say is that the matter is complex, and rather than attempt to simplify matters, as I feel Frimer has done, we must attempt to understand how the same Sages who spoke about the importance of truth could at times countenance departure from it. This is a challenge that requires sensitivity and nuance, and appreciation of changing times and values. When Frimer sees a text that permits false attribution, he sees prevarication and hypocrisy. But a historically attuned outlook would seek to understand rather than condemn. Ironically, it is Frimer who is judging the Sages and decisors, because if their ideas do not conform to his understanding then these ideas are regarded by him as problematic.

Thus, Frimer cites the famous 1865 pesak din of Michalowce and tells us that R. Moses Schick and R. Esriel Hildesheimer opposed it since they saw it as departing from the truth. While their position is certainly significant, what about the fact that among Hungarian rabbis they were a minority, and most of the leading Hungarian rabbis supported the pesak? How is my argument refuted by citing Rabbis Schick and Hildesheimer if they were opposed by most of their colleagues? Doesn’t the fact that most of the Hungarian rabbis opposed Rabbis Schick and Hildesheimer support my position?

As for the various rabbinic opinions cited by Frimer, I don’t deny that these opinions exist, and in my book I refer to Frimer’s famous article on women’s prayer groups in which he cites these opinions. But I also make the point that there is an alternative tradition which allows much more leeway for authorities to at times diverge from the truth. I also believe, contrary to Frimer, that this is a mainstream position. Since this position is held by R. Ovadiah Yosef and R. Hayyim Kanievsky, I don’t see how it is possible for one to state that it is not a mainstream position.

The point of the chapter, however, was not to advocate for one position or the other, but to focus on the alternative tradition, the existence of which is more or less suppressed today. I was explicit that my aim was to show how far some were willing to go in sanctioning deviations from the truth, and I indicate that there are views in opposition to these. However, my intent was to study the views of those with a “liberal” perspective on the importance of truth. It is this tradition that I wished to explore, and to rescue it, as it were, from the well-intentioned apologetics. I never state that this is the only authentic position. On the contrary, one can find the opposite perspective presented in numerous articles. This is why I thought it was important to present alternative views, from the Talmud until the present, views which I think show that there is a rabbinic conception of the Noble Lie…

To Frimer, and others like him who have the same reaction after reading chapter 7, I can only say that modern views of how to understand texts, and what we today regard as truth, cannot be used as a measure with which to judge people who lived in a very different time and had a very different understanding of these sorts of matters. It is their understanding that I seek to explore, rather than foisting my own value judgments upon them. Unlike Frimer, who is involved in halakhic writing and attempting to influence the community in religious matters, I write from a more “objective” perspective, without such concerns. As such, while Frimer wishes to “uproot” what he regards as unacceptable views of certain poskim. I seek to understand the phenomenon and to describe it.

When, on p. 284, I speak about redefining truth, I am not speaking about poskim per se but about how to understand the entire phenomenon that I have documented in the book. The question is how does the importance of truth coexist with what we have seen, and it is in this context that I discuss how truth need not be seen as equivalent to factual or historical truth.

I agree with Frimer that none of the great poskim supported lying in pesak as a normative option on a regular basis. Yet as I have already indicated, I believe that there is a tradition that allows for not being frank at certain times, when it is thought that other values are at stake. In the book I state that we should understand this position in a sympathetic fashion even if it is at odds with how today we generally approach matters.

Frimer asks how are we supposed to educate our children and students as to the importance of truth and truthfulness if what I say is correct. This is a good question with which educators need to struggle, but it is not a refutation of what I have written. If my position is correct, the world will not collapse. It will just be one more Torah matter, alongside Amalek, yefat toar, slavery, homosexuality, etc., that at certain times is not in line with contemporary values.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on The Clash Between Orthodox Judaism’s Theory & Practice

At Anti-Bullying Conference, Middle Schoolers Learn About Lesbian Strap-On Anal Sex, Fake Testicles

Daily Caller:

In rural, small-town Iowa, a group of parents and community leaders is seeking to prevent students from the local taxpayer-funded middle school and high school from attending future versions of an anti–bullying conference for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens.

The last one — in April — left many of the denizens of Humboldt, Iowa up in arms, reports Des Moines NBC affiliate WHO-TV.

Iowa Safe Schools, an activist group out of Des Moines, hosted the conference.

It was quite something.

Among the nearly two dozen speakers, “only two” addressed bullying, one attendee estimated, according to EAGnews.org.

The rest of the sessions involved issues such as “how to pleasure their gay partners.”

Middle school girls from Humboldt (pop.: 4,690) had the opportunity to learn “how to sew fake testicles into their underwear in order to pass themselves off as boys.”

One speaker wore a dress made out of condoms to which could be “used as needed.” . . .

Nate Monson, executive director of Iowa Safe Schools, said parents who worry about middle school kids hearing about anal sex with strap-ons and analingus are “disgusting.”

“It’s incredibly frustrating that adults are being the problem and being the bully,” Monson told the Des Moines NBC affiliate.”

Here is the gay agenda:

My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this: since everyone is naturally gay, it is the straight establishment that makes everyone hung up and therefore limited. Sex early will make people willing to have sex with everyone, which will bring about the utopia while eliminating homophobia and helping people become “who they really are.” It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.” If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish. As sex is integrated as a natural part of every single relationship, the barriers between people will vanish, and the utopia will appear, as “straight culture” goes the way of the dinosaur. As my mother used to say: “Children are brainwashed into believing they don’t want sex.”

I know, I know. The stupidity of that particular thesis is boundless, and the actual consequence is forty-year-olds in therapy for sexual abuse, many, many suicides, and ruined lives for just about EVERYONE. But someone needed to say it. Will anyone hear it? There were six Johnny Does at my father’s trial, who would not testify, and two victims, who did. One of the victims I am in touch with. He was silenced so fiercely by fans of my mother years ago that he is not able to talk about it to this day. I don’t know the fate of all the Johnny Does, but I do know one of them is dead in his forties from an eating disorder, never having been able to talk about what happened, and I know at least one of the people on the list of 22 names I gave the cops as a potential abuse victim died from suicide last year. I also know a number of victims of my father who would not testify because they love him. As a personal note, I can understand why: of my parents, he was by far the kinder one. After all, he was only a serial rapist. My mother was an icy, violent monster whose voice twisted up my stomach.

A very brief note on my “stepmother:” she now denies ever having been gay, after 22 years with my mother, and she has married a man. So what was was she “born”? Was she born gay, and is now living in “denial” of her “true nature” as the gays would have it, or was she besotted in a childish way with my mother, who did what celebrities do, and took advantage of her innocence and emotional infantility? She was 26 when she got involved with my mother, and told me later she felt she had been “molested” by my mother. I can’t use that word for her: she was 26. But she DID call my mother “mommy” and most of the emotional content of their relationship was an attempt to prove that she was a “better daughter” than I was: a competition that for me, was over before it began. I am my mother’s daughter. It is a biological reality. Giving my mother orgasms does not make my stepmother a better daughter, simply a fool. And as it can be noted now, she MUST be the “better daughter” because I blew the whistle. I don’t speak to her.

This March I met Katy Faust online: one of the six children of gays who filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing gay marriage. We corresponded, and I left CA. I am still reeling from the death of my last bits of denial. It IS the homosexuality that is the problem. It IS the belief that all sex all the time will somehow cure problems instead of creating them that is the problem.

So I have begun to speak out against gay marriage, and in doing so, I have alienated most of even my strongest supporters. After all, they need to see my parents as wacky sex criminals, not as homosexuals following their deeply held ethical positions and trying to create a utopia according to a rather silly fantasy. They do not have the willingness to accept the possibility that homosexuality might actually have the result of destroying children and even destroying the adults who insist on remaining in its thrall.

Now for all well-meaning people who believe I am extrapolating from my experience to the wider gay community, I would like to explain why I believe this is so: From my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that EVERYONE is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy.

If you doubt me, research “age of consent” “Twinks,” “ageism” and the writings of the NUMEROUS authors on the Left who believe that early sexuality is somehow “beneficial” for children.

Due to my long experience with the BSDM community (bondage/discipline, Sado-Masochism) it is my belief that homosexuality is a matter of IMPRINTING, in the same way that BDSM fantasies are. To the BDSM’er, continued practice of the fantasy is sexually exciting. To the gay person, naturally, the same. However, from what I have seen, neither one creates healing. My mother became a lesbian because she was raped by her father. My father was molested by a priest–and regarded it as being the only love he had ever experienced. There are a vanishingly few people who are exclusively gay, but far more who have relationships with people of BOTH genders, as my parents and other relatives did.

What sets gay culture apart from straight culture is the belief that early sex is good and beneficial, and the sure knowledge (don’t think for a second that they DON’T know) that the only way to produce another homosexual is to provide a boy with sexual experiences BEFORE he can be “ruined” by attraction to a girl.

If you’re OK with that, and you might not be, it is worth your consideration. If you think I am wrong, that is your privilege, but watch out for the VAST number of stories of sexual abuse AND transgenderism that will come about from these gay “marriages.” Already the statistics for sexual abuse of children of gays are astronomically high compared to that suffered by the children of straights.

Naturally my perspective is very uncomfortable to the liberal people I was raised with: I am “allowed” to be a victim of molestation by both parents, and “allowed” to be a victim of rather hideous violence. I am, incredibly, NOT ALLOWED to blame their homosexuality for their absolute willingness to accept all sex at all times between all people.

But that is not going to slow me down one bit. I am going to keep right on speaking out. I have been silent for entirely too long. Gay “marriage” is nothing but a way to make children over in the image of their “parents” and in ten to thirty years, the survivors will speak out.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off on At Anti-Bullying Conference, Middle Schoolers Learn About Lesbian Strap-On Anal Sex, Fake Testicles

A day in the life of the newest leader of white nationalists

Vegas Tenold writes:

He became known in 2012 when he founded the White Student Union, a white pride organization that patrolled the Towson University campus in Maryland to protect students from a perceived wave of black-on-white crime. Since then, he has proved adept at angering anti-racists and racists equally. At an annual conference for Stormfront, one of the world’s largest white nationalist online forums, in November last year, he managed to get himself barred from all future Stormfront events by giving a speech titled “Death to America,” in which he called for nothing short of the complete dismantling of the United States.

“I support white power, black power, brown power and yellow power,” Heimbach says. “All races should be the dominant political force in their region. That is why America needs to be divided into smaller, ethnically and culturally homogenous states. In countries where races are mixed, one race will always dominate the others. That is why we need separation. Not because the white race is better than the black race. We need to stop the hate and separate.”

Still, for all his talk about respect for other races, his politics, like most others on the far right, has a prominent streak of anti-Semitism. He firmly believes that the Jews are working diligently behind the scenes to eradicate the white race, faith and culture. “We can’t win against them by arguing,” he said at the Stormfront conference. “You can’t out-Jew the Jew. It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, eventually someone’s going to knock the board over and poop on it. Let’s stop worrying about out-Jewing them or outsmarting them. Let’s just stand for what we believe in, which is faith, family and folk — the three things that make us a nation.”

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Nationalism, Whites | Comments Off on A day in the life of the newest leader of white nationalists

The Benefits Of Private Health Insurance

An Australian politician visits the Gladstone, Australia hospital. He visits various wards such as cardiac, cancer, children etc before finally going through a door marked “DSB”. In that room, he sees a bunch of men tossing themselves off.
Politician: “What’s going on here?”
Hospital official: “These men have Dangerous Sperm Buildup and so they have to release the sperm.”
The politician goes to the next room where he sees a man getting head from a blonde nurse.
Politician: “What’s going on here?”
Official: “This man has private health insurance.”

Posted in Australia, Health | Comments Off on The Benefits Of Private Health Insurance

A Jewish Push To Restrict Speech Down Under

Goyim should know that most Jews don’t give a toss about negative statements about Indians, blacks, homosexuals and the like, but elite Jews and Jewish organizations believe that Jews will be safer in a country that forbids criticism of Jews, and to ensure that, Jewish organizations routinely seek to combat “prejudice” and “bigotry” aka noticing patterns.

There’s no Jewish law against racism, bigotry and prejudice. No gadol (great Orthodox rabbi) has ever written a book against racism. The whole notion of racism (and sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, ageism, lookism) are modern inventions that were unknown as sins prior to the 20th Century, there is no religious or philosophical tradition prior to the 20th Century that condemns these sins. The more Jewish the Jew, the more traditional and Orthodox the Jew, the more likely he will feel comfortable expressing negative views of other races aka notice reality and name reality (such as that blacks don’t tend to have the work ethic, in general of whites, who in turn don’t have the work ethic, in general of east asians). You’ll find plenty of anti-black remarks in the texts of the Jewish tradition. So you won’t find any support for this modern Jewish push for censorship of the goyim from the mesora (Jewish tradition).

It is shocking what some Jews have done in Australia to end the White Australia policy and to limit freedom of speech through racial vilification laws.

Vic Alhadeff is chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. He writes for The Australian newspaper (and his words find no support in Jewish law, they are just left-wing drivel that make all Jews look bad):

There’s a phenomenon afoot called casual racism. Seemingly less malevolent than intentional racism, it’s a careless and often subliminal form of abuse whose danger lies in the fact it normalises prejudice, perpetuates stereotypes and gives licence to bigotry.

It is evident in offhand remarks, social media and pointed jokes, invariably on the basis of race or religion.

Australia recently was described as “comfortably racist” by an observer. Offensive gibes enter the conversation too easily, he noted, such as a media personality suggesting that footballer Adam Goodes — who is indigenous — promote King Kong, while a television anchor asked Indian cricket fans who would run the 7-Eleven stores while India was competing in the World Cup.

Intentionally racist? Probably not. Casually racist? Without doubt. A dictionary defined it as “the art of being slightly racist in a casual fashion. When one doesn’t really hate people of another colour”, yet jokes at their expense. Overt racism is easily recognisable, casual racism less so.

Examples abound. Seinfeld used the pejorative term “Indian giver”, meaning to give a gift and then demand it back — an indictment of Native Americans. A “Scotch call” implies Scots are stingy, referring to hanging up before the other person has answered the phone. “Going Dutch” means each party pays for himself because Dutch are stingy. “Don’t be a Jew” says Jews are stingy. “Gypped” — being cheated — ascribes dishonesty to gypsies. And “Beware the Greeks bearing gifts” alludes to the wooden horse the Greeks used to enter Troy.

The issue here is not political correctness; it is the impact of such remarks, which can range from hurt and denigration to exclusion and social malaise. Whether any is intended is entirely irrelevant.

The racist tweets recently directed at Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg fall into that category. Frydenberg had expressed support for a reduction in commissions paid to life insurance agents; a finance adviser took exception and lashed out with a series of crass tweets against the politician, who is Jewish. He described Frydenberg as a “tinkering Jew”, a “central planning Jew” and a “slap­stick comedy Jew”, with ugly epithets thrown in for good measure.

Challenged by critics, the finance adviser initially refused to retract, defending his right to “free speech”.

But after his remarks were roundly condemned, he insisted they were “inadvertently taken as antisemitism”, adding “I am honestly very sorry if anyone in the Jewish community was offended. I am certainly not antisemitic. I have many Jewish friends and just 12 months ago I attended a Jewish funeral of a very dear friend.”

As vile as his tweets were, his contrition appeared genuine, even though it defied belief that he hadn’t expected to cause offence.

But then a tweet surfaced that he had posted three months prior. Referring to a blaze that destroyed a model dinosaur at a Coolum resort, he tweeted “Jewish stocktake?” — a disparaging stereotype alleging that Jews ­orchestrate such events to claim insurance.

Where now his claim that he was misunderstood, that no bigotry was intended? Was his defence a function of casual racism — loaded words that impute negative characteristics to a particular group without necessarily intending to offend? Our country’s social cohesion is being tested in ways we haven’t experienced for some time, extremists exploiting global tensions to indulge in attacks on minorities. Casual racism is different, less obvious, and therefore slips too easily below the radar.

The good news is we hear of greater willingness by onlookers to get involved. A woman on a Sydney train recently confronted a passenger abusing a Muslim couple, while a man on a Melbourne train intervened when women wearing Islamic headscarfs were vilified.

But it’s not good enough that almost one in five Australians experienced racial or religious slurs in the past 12 months or that a significant percentage of indigenous Australians suffer discrimination. Or that a television host referred to New Zealand sports fans as a “dole-bludger army”.

Human rights agencies, sports organisations and corporate bodies are getting on board in anti-rac­ism activism, but ordinary Australians need to do so too.

We can’t afford to shrug our shoulders at offensive tweets, at comments that denigrate, at rebukes that remonstrate with others to “go back to where you came from”.

Whether or not abuse is intended, casual racism can be as hurtful and harmful as the other form.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Australia, Blacks, Jews | Comments Off on A Jewish Push To Restrict Speech Down Under