Day By Day by The Great Chris Muir

Monday, April 24, 2017

Netanyahu denies the Holocaust


Netanyahu denies the Holocaust


Apparently it is now only FOUR million, according to the Prime Minister of Israel:

“If the powers in 1942 had acted against the death camps — and all that was needed was repeated bombing of the camps — had they acted then, they could have saved four million Jews and millions of other people,” he said at the official state Yom HaShoah ceremony at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem. “When terrible crimes were being committed against the Jews, when our brothers and sisters were being sent to the furnaces,” he said, “the powers knew and did not act.”
Since, as we all know, casting any doubt on the sacred SIX MILLION number that has been popping up in the New York Times alone since 1869, is considered DENYING THE HOLOCAUST and merits criminal charges, I can only conclude it is necessary to denounce Mr. Netanyahu as a Holocaust-denier and demand his resignation as Prime Minister of Israel.

Also, as someone who has paid a considerable amount of attention to the effects of the bombing campaign on German industrial production - the number of German aircraft produced rose 70 percent from 1943 to 1944 despite all the bombing - I can testify that Netanyahu has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. First, the Allies could not easily reach Eastern Europe from their bases in England. Second, since all the bombing of the German industry didn't even slow down their industrial production, which grew until it finally collapsed due to the loss of materials and manpower in 1945, it's absurd to think that even a single individual in any of the concentration camps could have been saved by Allied bombing.

And third, if the labor in the labor camps had been somehow disrupted by a bombing campaign, the Germans might have simply executed all of those being held there and the death toll might have been even greater than four million. I mean, of course, SIX MILLION.

From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread.

These children, these men and women are our fellow-members of the human family, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter’s cold, the same propensity to death before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers.

In the face of death, in the throes of starvation there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differentiations of race. In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand.

Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood.

In this threatened holocaust of human life, forgotten are the niceties of philosophical distinction, forgotten are the differences of historical interpretation; and the determination to help the helpless, to shelter the homeless, to clothe the naked and to feed the hungry becomes a religion at whose altar men of every race can worship and women of every creed can kneel. 
- "The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop", Martin Glynn, 31 October 1919

Political Correctness - Communist Propaganda


“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Theodore Dalrymple

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Gun Control Firearm Ignorance

Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.
This article explains why the price of repeating arms declined so steeply. Then it describes some of the repeating arms that were already in use when the Second Amendment was ratified, including the 22-shot rifle that was later carried on the Lewis and Clark expedition.
One of the men to credit for why repeating arms became much less expensive during the 19th century is James Madison, author of the Second Amendment. During Madison’s presidency (1809-17), Secretary of War James Monroe (who would succeed Madison as president), successfully promoted legislation to foster the development of firearms technology. In particular, the federal armories at Springfield, Mass., and Harpers Ferry, Va., were ordered to invent the means of producing firearms with interchangeable parts.
To function reliably, repeating firearms must have internal components that fit together very precisely — much more precisely than is necessary for single-shot firearms. Before President Madison and Secretary Monroe started the manufacturing revolution, firearms were built one at a time by craftsmen. Making a repeating arm required much more time and expertise than making a single-shot firearm. How to make repeating arms was well-known, but making them at a labor cost the average person could afford was impossible.
Thanks to the technology innovation labs created at Springfield and Harpers Ferry, inventors found ways to manufacture firearms components at a higher rate, and with more consistency for each part. Instead of every part being made by hand, parts were manufactured with machine tools (tools that make other tools). For example, the wooden stocks for rifles could be repetitively manufactured with such precision that any stock from a factory would fit any rifle from the factory, with no need for craftsmen to shave or adjust the stock.
In New England, the Springfield Armory worked with emerging machinists for other consumer products; the exchange of information in this technology network led directly to the Connecticut River Valley becoming a center of American consumer firearms manufacture, and to rapid improvements in the manufacture of many other consumer durables. The story is told in: Ross Thomson, Structures of Change in the Mechanical Age: Technological Innovation in the United States 1790-1865 (2009); Alexander Rose, American Rifle: A Biography (2008); David R. Meyer, Networked Machinists: High-Technology Industries in Antebellum America (2006); David A. Hounshell, From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932 (1985);  Merritt Roe Smith, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change (1977); Felicia Johnson Deyrup, Arms Makers of the Connecticut Valley: A Regional Study of the Economic Development of the Small Arms Industry, 1798-1870 (1948). By the 1830s, manufacturing uniformity was sufficiently advanced that repeating arms were becoming widely affordable, and no longer just for the wealthy.

What kind of repeating arms were available before 1815, when the Madison-Monroe mass production innovation program began? The state of the art was the Girandoni air rifle, invented around 1779 for Austrian army sharpshooters. Lewis and Clark would carry a Girandoni on their famous expedition, during the Jefferson administration. The Girandoni could shoot 21 or 22 bullets in .46 or .49 caliber without reloading. Ballistically equal to a firearm, a single shot from the Girandoni could penetrate a one-inch wood plank, or take an elk. (For more on the Girandoni, see my article “The History of Firearms Magazines and Magazine Prohibitions,” 88 Albany L. Rev. 849, 852-53 (2015).)
The first repeaters had been invented about three centuries before. The earliest-known model is a German breech-loading matchlock arquebus from around 1490-1530 with a 10-shot revolving cylinder. M.L. Brown, Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology, 1492-1792, 50 (1980). Henry VIII had a long gun that used a revolving cylinder (a “revolver”) for multiple shots. W.W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, 81-82 (9th ed. 1910). A 16-round wheel lock dates from about 1580. Kopel, at 852.
Production of repeaters continued in the seventeenth century. Brown, at 105-6 (four-barreled wheel-lock pistol could fire 15 shots in a few seconds); John Nigel George, English Guns and Rifles, 55-58 (1947) (English breech-loading lever-action repeater, and a revolver, made no later than the British Civil War, and perhaps earlier, by an English gun maker).

The first repeaters to be built in large quantities appear to be the 1646 Danish flintlocks that used a pair of tubular magazines, and could fire 30 shots without reloading. Like a modern lever-action rifle, the next shot was made ready by a simple two-step motion of the trigger guard. These guns were produced for the Danish and Dutch armies. Brown, at 106-7.
In Colonial America, repeating arms were available for people who could afford them, or who were skilled enough to make their own. For example, in September 1722, John Pim of Boston entertained some Indians by demonstrating a firearm he had made. Although “loaded but once,” it “was discharged eleven times following, with bullets in the space of two minutes each which went through a double door at fifty yards’ distance.” Samuel Niles, A Summary Historical Narrative of the Wars in New England, Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 4th ser., vol. 5, 347 (1837). Pim’s gun may have been a type of the repeating flintlock that became “popular in England from the third quarter of the 17th century,” and was manufactured in Massachusetts starting in the early eighteenth. Harold L. Peterson, Arms and Armor in Colonial America 1526-1783, 215-17 (Dover reprint 2000) (Smithsonian Institution 1956). Another repeating flintlock, invented by Philadelphia’s Joseph Belton, could fire eight shots in three seconds. Idem, 217. Pim also owned a .52 caliber six-shot flintlock revolver, similar to the revolvers that had been made in England since the turn of the century. Brown, 255. A variety of multi-shot pistols from the late eighteenth century have been preserved, holding two to four rounds. Charles Winthrop Sawyer, Firearms in American History: 1600 to 1800, 194-98, 215-16 (1910).
The repeaters described above were not the most common arms. It would take two decades for the program begun by President Madison to result in repeating arms beginning to become affordable to the middle class. So in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a person who could not afford an expensive repeater, but who wanted to be able to fire more than one bullet without reloading, would often buy a blunderbuss. The blunderbuss was the size of a very large handgun. Its muzzle flared outward slightly, like a bell. This made it easier to load while bouncing in a stagecoach, or on a swaying ship. The blunderbuss could fire either one large projectile, or several at once. Most often it was loaded with about 20 large pellets, and so it was devastating at short range. The name seems an adaptation of the Dutch “donder-buse” or “thunder gun.”
Excellent for self-defense at close quarters, the blunderbuss was of little use for anything else, having an effective range of about 20 yards. Militarily, it was used by sailors to repel boarders. Stagecoach guards and travelers carried blunderbusses, and it was also a common arm for home defense. For more on the blunderbuss, see Brown and George, above.
No one would dispute that modern arms are much improved from 1791 in terms of reliability, accuracy, range and affordability. But the gap from the 22-shot Girandoni (powerful enough to take an elk) to a modern firearm is pretty small compared with the changes in technology of “the press.” Compared to the one-sheet-at-a-time printing presses of 1791, the steam and rotary presses invented in the 19th century made printing vastly faster — a speed improvement that dwarfs the speed improvement in firearms in the last 500 years. When the First Amendment was written, a skilled printer could produce 250 sheets in two hours. Today, a modern newspaper printing press can produce 70,000 copies of a newspaper (consisting of dozens of sheets) in an hour. Now, with digital publishing, a newspaper article can be read globally within minutes after it is written.
This means that irresponsible media can cause far more harm today than they could in 1791. For example, in 2005, Newsweek magazine published a false story claiming that American personnel at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated Korans belonging to prisoners there. Eventually, Newsweek retracted the story. But the phony story had already spread worldwide, setting off riots in six countries, in which over 30 people were killed. Had Newsweek been using 18th-century printing presses, the false story would have mostly been read by several thousand people in the New York City area, where Newsweek is based. It would been months — if ever — before the Newsweek issue with the false story was read by anyone in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
We do not limit any constitutional right to the technology that existed in 1791. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court observed:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
This is an accurate statement of constitutional law, but it understates how truly frivolous the argument against modern firearms is. The people who ratified the Bill of Rights certainly did not anticipate the invention centuries later of the Internet or of thermal imaging sensors. The American people of 1791 did not have to anticipate the invention of repeating arms, because such arms had been in existence for centuries.

Monday, April 3, 2017

Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List

From Chateau Heartiste

Courtesy of reader chris, a large (and growing) reference list of studies finding strong and accumulating evidence for the Chateau Heartiste maxim that Diversity™ + Proximity = War by Various Means.
Feel free to link to this post on social media platforms or drop it in a clown world combox whenever a shitlib smugly wanders into your shitlord kill zone, begging for a hail of hot Realtalk™. Pounding an equalist dingbat over the head with real world events happening right before his eyes that contradict his religious teachings doesn’t work as well as pounding him over the head with peer reviewed SCIENCE!, for nothing flatters the shitlib ego as much as his carefully manicured belief that he is on the side of science. And nothing pleases yer ‘umble Destroyer of Ids more than witnessing the exact moment when a shitlib’s ego is rent in two.
– Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity, case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present. Link.
– Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust. Link.
– “In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.” Link.
– Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest. Link.
– The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal. Link.
– In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy. Link.
– “Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by both physical and political boundaries.” Link.
– Diversity hinders between-group cooperation at both the one-on-one and group levels. Link.
– The best chance for peace in Syria is better borders (intrastate or through the creation of new states) “suited to current geocultural regions”, and tribal autonomy. Link.
– Using data from US states, study finds a negative relationship between ethnic polarization and trust. Link.
– Diversity is associated with more White support for nationalist parties, except at the local level where large immigrant populations cut into vote totals for nationalist parties. Link.
– In Australia, ethnic diversity lowers social cohesion and increases “hunkering”, providing support for Putnam’s thesis finding the same results in the US. Link.
– After controlling for a self-selection bias, study finds that ethnic diversity in English schools reduces trust in same-age people and does not make White British students more inclusive in their attitudes towards immigrants. Link.
– In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway. Link.
– Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence. Link.
– “[E]thnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship more or less applies to all 187 countries. … [E]thnic nepotism is the common cross-cultural background factor which supports the persistence of ethnic conflicts in the world as long as there are ethnically divided societies.” Link.
– Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism. Link.
– Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century. Link.
– Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”. Link.
– The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation. Link.
– Using data from Copenhagen school registers, researchers found that native Danes opt out of public schools when the immigrant population concentration hits 35% or more. Link.
– In the most liberal region in the US, San Francisco and surrounding suburbs, White parents are pulling their kids out of public schools that are becoming increasingly asian. Link.
– School integration (forced proximate Diversity) will not close race achievement gaps. Link.
– Exclusionary dating is a natural consequence of racial diversity. Link.
– As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic. Link.
– Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men. Link.
– Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends. Link.
– A longitudinal test of the impact of diversity finds that it makes existing residents feel unhappier and more socially isolated. Link. (alternate link)
– Internal dissension stoked by ethnic, social, political, and religious diversity, rather than environmental degradation, caused the collapse of the urbanized Cahokia Indian Tribe. Link.
– The volunteer participation rate in America hit a record low last year, declining 0.4% from the previous year, and has been declining since 2005. Not coincidentally, the racial composition of America has become more fragmented during the same time. Link.
– A sense of social cohesion with the people who live around us is as happiness-inducing as love for the place itself. Link.
– Our desire for ‘like-minded others’ is hard-wired. Link.
– “The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation”
Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. (Link)
– A wealthy Virginia county that is rapidly racially diversifying is getting poorer and less socially cohesive. Link.
– Gender diversity does not promote nonconformity in decision-making bodies. (But individual ability diversity does.) Link.
– High ethnic diversity has a negative effect on innovation, but high “values diversity” has the opposite effect, as long as ethnic diversity is low. The best innovation happens in countries that are ethnically homogenous but diverse in values orientation. Link.
– Growing racial diversity in Houston is contributing to declining construction standards and aggravating the impact of natural disasters. Link.
– As an explanation of recent voting behavior, ethnic origin trumps class differences. “…the political salience of white ethnicity persists, suggesting that ethnic groups do not simply dealign or politically “assimilate” over time.”
Chris summarizes,
In short: diversity gives us violence, conflict, less welfare, less trust, less cohesion. Merkel knew what she was doing. So do other elites. They are responsible. All the negatives of immigration and refugees are predictable and backed up by scientific evidence. Ergo each act of violence can be considered to be done from the hands of the elites themselves.
Merkel raped those women.
The ruling Western elite have native White blood and the rapes of native White women on their hands. Historically, what was done to ruling elites who displayed such open, traitorous contempt for their people? I’ll leave the imaginative answer to this question as an exercise for the readers.
Related to the above thought exercise: president Butt Naked is on record declaring he wants to turn America into a “hodgepodge of folks”, i.e., he hates White people and wants to see them demographically swamped by nonWhites.
This reference list will be updated periodically as new studies arrive and older ones are rediscovered.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Society Is A Racial Construct (Culture = Civilisation)

Society is a racial construct - VoxDay/Chateau Heartiste

Le Chateau spells it out, in support of Rep. Steve King's statement of the obvious.
Steve King ✔ @SteveKingIA
Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.
  • Society is a racial construct.
  • There is no magic dirt that will transform, say, Somalis and Syrians into lovers, defenders, and disciples of Constitutional republicanism.
  • Race matters.
  • Once more…..RACE MATTERS.
  • In fact, race is the primary source pool of civilization and culture; all other variables are commentary in comparison.
  • Culture isn’t a costume. It can’t be worn like a Turinic shroud with the expectation that it will reverse-imbue the intrinsic character of any people who happen to hop the border and adopt its most superficial trappings.
  • Culture is an emergent property of the people that comprise it, who themselves are properties of their genes and of the predispositions and beliefs and behaviors and temperaments and aptitudes with which they are endowed by their genes.
  • America is not a nation of immigrants. America is a nation of colonists who, along with their descendants, created, built, and nourished America into a great nation, perhaps the greatest the world has ever known. Immigrants came later, and they were for a long while chosen from stock populations that were not too dissimilar from the founding stock of America (African slaves stand as a glaring exception). It was not until relatively recently (1965 onward) that immigrants significantly deviated in numbers and racial congeniality from the historical norm of immigration into America.
  • Quite simply, the myth of American exceptionalism is just that. American ideals aren’t spread by osmosis into the deep psyches of different races of people; rather, a very specific race of people — White Europeans of primarily Anglo-Celtic-Germanic descent — breathed life into the American ideals, and without them their ideals wither from neglect and misuse in the care of their usurpers.
  • We are not created equal under Nature, and this truism applies to races as it does to individuals. Memorable exceptions only prove the wisdom of pragmatic generalizations.
  • The Constitution, or any stirring stanza of words written by Whites for White sensibilities, will not change a Chinaman into a heartland Chad. Racial foreigners can mouth the words, but if they don’t feel it in their bones they’ll have no trouble betraying those words when its personally advantageous or when the Law isn’t hovering closely to motivate their observance.
  • A civilization is the sum total of the people that inhabit it. Change the people, change the civilization.
  • Some cultures really are superior to other cultures. If it were not so, millions of those from the lesser cultures would not be escaping into the homelands of the better cultures.
  • Finally, the character of a nation is not established by a founding document; instead, the founding document chronicles the character of a nation. PEOPLE MAKE THE NATION, THE NATION DOES NOT MAKE THE PEOPLE. If the people change, so does the nation, into whatever form the replacement people find most familiar, which usually means a facsimile of their native homelands they left behind.
Steve King is right. You can wave your final goodbye to White American civilization if some other tribes are having all the babies. The future belongs to those who show up, and the shape of that future depends on the innate character of its inheritors. That’s Stone Cold Truth 101, and it’s the truth that has bedeviled suicide signaling leftoids for generations, and driven them into increasingly insane postures of delusional doublethink, obscene hypocrisy, and hoary lies.







Friday, March 10, 2017

Why Tim Tebow Is Wrong About Interracial, International Adoption

Why Tim Tebow Is Wrong About Interracial, International Adoption

I love Tim Tebow as a brother in Christ, and I’ve cheered for him and prayed for him to succeed on his fields of battle as a Florida Gator, Denver Bronco, and New York Met. The homeschooler-turned-Heisman winner and national champion has been a tremendous example of Christian virtue in the face of satanic hostility. He has been vilified simply for standing for central Christian truths, including the exclusivity of Christ (there’s no other way to God than Jesus — see John 14:6), the divine, unalterable institution of heterosexual marriage, the sanctity of all human life from the womb to the tomb (including the disabled and the unborn), and the need to call people to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. In all of this, he has displayed class and composure.
For all of these reasons, Tim Tebow is somebody I absolutely tell my kids to look up to and emulate.
However, in addition to the doctrines we both hold dear, and the God we both love, I actually used to have something in common with Tim Tebow that is — unfortunately — not something anyone should emulate.
Tim Tebow thinks that adopting kids from around the world is a great way to form a family.
Let me explain why that’s not a great idea — and why it took me a long, long time to realize that.
Allow me to quote from this recent article about Tebow, which is basically a verbatim transcript of my thought process years ago:
“You know what I think would be awesome? If I could adopt a kid from every continent. I think that would be a pretty cool goal,” he says. “I want to sit around the dinner table every night and see kids from Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, right here in the States. How cool would that be? It’s one of my favorite things to dream about.”
Tebow, who is single, says that any potential spouse would have to be on board with his dream. “Of course I want a woman who I’m attracted to,” he says. “That’s a very big part of it. But I’m looking for someone who loves Jesus and loves people. Someone who makes me want to be a better person for her. And she has to want kids, and has to want to adopt. That’s a requirement.”
For Tebow, who was born in the Philippines, a multicultural family is appealing.
“I think when you look at God’s family, it’s not about color,” he says. “Love knows no color. I want my kids to grow up with an appreciation for every single person, no matter what they look like. That’s what unity looks like to me: knowing that you can love people who aren’t the same as you are. I want to teach that message to my kids; I want them to live it.”
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I once had the same dream for my future family. As a matter of fact, even as I courted and married my wife Mary, the composition of our future family was part of my wife-selection process. Would she be open to adopting kids from other races and other nations? Would she be open to teaching them their languages and their cultures?
As Good Morning White America listeners may know, both my wife and I escaped liberalism with a miraculously tiny amount of damage. Allow me to skip ahead and spoil the ending: despite my strong convictions and desire to do so, we did not adopt interracially or internationally.
Why didn’t we?
Dear reader — and dear, dear brother Tim — please listen to my heartfelt plea for mercy, compassion, and justice towards children.
Your biological children.
Your relatives’ children.
And the children of your own countrymen.
Then the children of other nations.
The reason why we did not adopt interracially or internationally (and yes, that means even from Eastern Europe) are as follows:
1. God calls you to do your duty in what He puts under your authority. God does not call you to save the world first. He calls you to do your laundry first. To go to work. To study hard and get a good education so you can provide for yourself. To honor your father and mother during your youth and later during their elderly years.
At the heart of Tebow’s thinking is the desire to do good to those in need. And that is praiseworthy! But the error comes in applying the right good to the wrong object in the wrong order.
To whom do fathers owe their first allegiance: their children, or the children of strangers? Well, whom did God put under their jurisdiction? Over whom do fathers have the most obvious authority and the responsibility that comes with it?
Their biological children. My own flesh and blood comes first, always and everywhere. This is not only a biblical idea but a universally accepted norm of human behavior. Family first. Blood is thicker than water. The ties that bind.
If we start deconstructing that, we quickly end up with the pro-gay marriage advocates — because what we deconstructed was not racism, but the family.
I recently taught about how Christ differentiated between Jews and Gentiles, and gave preference to His own co-ethnics, in the Gospel of Matthew. It didn’t make Jews blameless in His eyes — far from it — but it did make them dearer to Him than others, just as Paul expressed in Romans 9:1-4 when he wrote,
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites…
The biblical commands to care for the orphan and widow are important aspects of a holy life. Charity towards the poor amongst our own people is a Christian duty. A requirement, a commandment — not a suggestion. See James 1:27.
But when we care for orphans, that charity must begin at home. It must begin in our own extended families. Are there any orphans amongst the branches of your family tree? Any widows? Any poor? Any mentally or physically disabled? These must be the first recipients of our charity.
From there, we should look at our local communities, extending outwards to include our fellow countrymen in more distant places. The situation is confused in our multicultural society, but less-confused nonwhites understand this point intuitively. Blacks help blacks before they help whites. Jews help Jews before they help Gentiles. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is a virtuous way of extending charity.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
~1 Timothy 5:8
The above verse is the one that the authors of the Westminster Larger Catechism used in Q. 129 as a “proof text” of the requirement that parents and other superiors owe their children and inferiors physical sustenance.
In contrast, in Q. 130 those same authors explained that parents are sinning against God, and breaking the Fifth Commandment, when they neglect that duty and expose their children needlessly to dangers. Interracial crime, anyone?
God issued the Fifth Commandment for the explicit purpose of prolonging the children’s inheritance and prosperity in the Promised Land. How can that be accomplished when the children’s inheritance is given away, and strangers are invited in to take over their homeland? Again, see WLC Q. 133.
2. Taking necessities, or inheritances, from your own children and giving it to others is sinful. If you take what little money, time, and energy you have from your own children, your nieces and nephews, the kids in your neighborhood and church, and the kids in your own country, and instead spend that money, time, and energy on people that are as foreign to you as could possibly be imagined (like going around the globe to adopt a kid from China or Kenya), that is a sin. Unless the needs of the kids closest to you have been satisfied, and you have an incredibly lucky amount of time, energy, and money still left over to spend on total strangers, whom God did not providentially bring to your doorstep or put under your jurisdiction (at work, church, etc.), then reallocating your limited resources to spend them on people not under your authority is robbery from those kids under your authority.
To make it clearer: If you have not yet attended to the educational, spiritual, emotional, dietary, cultural, vocational, social, and other needs of your kids, relatives’ kids, neighborhood kids, and the kids of your fellow countrymen — why are you robbing them of your time, energy, and money to give what they need and deserve away to the children of strangers?
3. Most of the orphans whom we virtue-signalling white Christians think we’re saving from unthinkable horrors are actually not in quite that amount of danger and despair. This is like the argument people make about deporting illegal aliens. How can you send them back to Mexico, that hellhole? Well, as a matter of fact, Mexico is the 15th richest country in the world by GDP, and Mexicans per capita aren’t that bad off, either. Mexico has far more opportunities to enjoy life than… over 100 other countries! So unless we’re going to take in all of those other 100 countries’ people and all of Mexico (and magically provide for them all), it is unrealistic to start acting on the basis of the alleged horrors of life in Mexico.
I’ve got a friend who has asked me, “If the grid goes down and society falls into chaos, and a black kid came to you begging you to save his life from imminent danger, would you save his life?” To which I answer, “If it doesn’t put my own children and family in danger, of course I would.”
The context is important. In this situation, the danger is ultimate. The danger is imminent. The danger is unavoidable. There are no alternative and acceptable options. And the people I am responsible for will remain safe. Ergo, I can at least temporarily, and even at some risk or expense, save that person. It’s an acceptable trade that doesn’t negate fulfilling my primary duties.
This white desire to save nonwhite lives in danger is why we rejoice at tales like Corrie ten Boom’s The Hiding Place, and why we recoil at Schindler’s List. We abhor taking innocent life, or letting others take innocent lives while we stand around and do nothing about it.
Growing up in Manila or in Mexico City, however, is not a death sentence. Is it as comfortable as a life in an American suburb? Of course not. But like Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you.” Poverty is an unavoidable fact of life in the fallen world. So is widowhood and orphanhood. Jesus apparently did not think it something that demanded total sacrifice in order to be His follower.
Is Mexico a less prosperous nation than the United States? Yes, of course. But is life in Mexico a death sentence? By no means. And in fact if you’re honest about it, arguing that “everything un-American equals unacceptable/poor/immoral/hellhole” is about as arrogant and pretentious an argument one could ever make. Well-intentioned whites like Tebow and myself don’t intend to be arrogant or pretentious, but that’s actually what we are. The truly humble thing to do is to say, You know what? I’ve got it good, but I don’t have it all. I can learn from these people who live in other countries. I can be happy for them there. I don’t need to foist myself and my culture on them, or rob my own children and countrymen, by importing them into my country. Good walls make good neighbors.
I’ll continue this in part two later this week, Deo volente.

See also David Carlton’s series “Adoption Reconsidered: Reexamining the Contemporary Trend of Adoption

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Truth Obligates - The Thinking Housewife

Truth Obligates  - The Thinking Housewife

February 28, 2017

51umciYfS-L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_ GERARD MENUHIN was born in Scotland in 1948. He is the son of Jewish parents, the great violinist Yehudi Menuhin and British ballerina Diana Rosamund Gould. His brother is the pianist Jeremy Menuhin. Their grandfather was Moshe Menuhin, the great, great grandson of Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the founder of Chabad Hassidism and an anti-Zionist. Gerard is an actor, novelist and journalist, a graduate of Eton and Stanford University who lived in Germany and England as a child. In his latest book, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil (2015), Menuhin rejects many of the official and popular accounts of World War II and thus has earned the hateful slur of “Holocaust denier.”
Menuhin is a courageous man — a cultured intellectual reduced to the most infantile, bigoted and deceitful characterizations by a herd of infantile, bigoted and deceitful propagandists. He is not a “Holocaust denier,” but a hero.
Perhaps only a person of Jewish ancestry could write so fearlessly on such a forbidden topic. His book is filled with important historical information from primary sources and daring opinions. Menuhin believes the war should not have been fought at all.
At times, his opinions are harsh, as Jews sometimes can be toward themselves, and I don’t agree with them all, but he is not a “Holocaust denier” and, in fact, there are no “Holocaust deniers,” at least not any that are taken seriously. No one sane questions the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews died in concentration camps in Germany, a terrible disaster brought about toward the end of the war when the Allies bombed the supply lines into the camps, where Jews, whose leaders had declared war on Germany in 1933, worked in armaments factories and miserably awaited deportation. What Menuhin and many other abused, hounded and slandered historical revisionists do deny is that anywhere close to six million died, that gas chambers existed and that there was a plan to exterminate European Jewry. Menuhin has thus earned more slurs: “self-hating Jew” and “anti-Semitic Jew.”
A reviewer at Amazon writes:
Mr. Menuhin does more to honor the real victims of the Holocaust, than any other, since he shames the lies proliferated in their names, and restores their dignity and well earned memory. Furthermore, this is the kind of literature that will contribute to mitigating antisemitism, and not the EU Holocaust laws passed to penalize and imprison those who express those sentiments.
Another reviewer writes:
I have still not managed to finish the book. I had to stop several times because for an half-awakened, still half-indoctrinated German it was too much to take in. Many times I reread parts with tears in my eyes. Too many lies. So much hatred against us which we just ignored. So much destruction of our country, our culture our people we were told was deserved but in fact was just to crush our natural economic development. I now believe that our biggest weakness is our honesty. It makes us incapable to recognize the lies against us. A musician myself I am proud to say that I have met Yehudi Menuhin in person but I now believe that his son Gerard will leave an even deeper mark in human history than his father.
In writing his book, Menuhin fell into one of the most vilified of coteries. Who knows how long it will be before he is arrested and put in jail. In the Spanish Inquisition, people were incarcerated for telling lies. In the modern Inquisition, people are jailed for telling the truth.
He writes of his motives:
I, perceiving the truth about past and present events, merely tried to correct their interpretation, not realizing when I started, that any revelations I might experience and try to communicate in no way disturbed this sequence, could not upset its sway, and only endangered me and made me ridiculous to those in the know and, with the exception of a few, unintelligible to those who are not.
Yet, as the German saying has it: “Truth obligates; who keeps silent concurs.” (Wahrheit verpflichtet, wer schweigt stimmt zu.)
Peace between humans should be the norm on Earth. Yet to achieve this normal state requires all our energy. My father said:“Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word—but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal.”
My father tried to generate peace with his music. I have inherited a duty to do the same in the only way I can.
Tell the Truth intersperses history with memoir. (His method is confusing at times.) Menuhin is an atheist. I don’t share his lack of regard for the faith of the ancient Israelites. He is not the only historical revisionist who does not believe in, appreciate or understand God’s former Covenant with the Jews. Nevertheless, despite this blindness, his book is a compelling account of an historical and personal awakening.
Here is an excerpt:
As the captive audience of my mother’s recollections of the Blitz, I habitually tuned out or deleted most of her repetitive anecdotes, out of resentment. I regret this now, as a clearer firsthand account of life in wartime London, however edited, would have been informative. But the very manner of my mother’s monologues hindered questions, which would have been considered mere interruptions of the scheduled broadcast.
Associated topics included the “Wirtschaftswunder” years, the miracle of postwar German industrial reconstruction, to which my mother alluded during my parents’ few visits to my German school, in 1957. At nine, I was unsurprisingly unaware of this phenomenon, or of the incongruity of two advanced Anglo-Saxon nations destroying each other. About fifteen years later, I heard an irascible colonel on American radio voice a fitting verdict: “For the British and the Germans to be fighting each other was an inappropriate encounter situation.” All the Germans I knew were unfailingly pleasant and remarkable only for seeming each to possess the same model of shiny dark blue suit, in retrospect perhaps in itself an indication of their striving toward a return to bourgeois standards. The schoolchildren at Hermannsberg were also models of normality, in that, in their free time, they were chiefly occupied with games/sports, amusement, music and outdoor pastimes. That their ancestors and mine could have been incited to kill each other never occurred to me. The only reference to the war that I remember is of a glancing remark I overheard as I was drying myself after the morning shower, when two older boys were exchanging hearsay about the fate of German POWs in Russian captivity. Although it was typical of schoolboys’ gossip, the morbid subject naturally impressed me at the time.
Since then, I have learned much, some of it by reflection, some from books and records of and about the time, which by their copious footnotes and corroborative contents and cross-referencing, confirm that the sympathy I have always felt for this much-maligned and mistreated people is justified. In fact, I never gave the subject much thought, occupied as I was with my daily drudgery, until the Nineties, when, while I was ordering the contents of my deceased grandparents’ house, I chanced on a copy of the National Zeitung, the patriotic German newspaper to which my grandfather had contributed a column for several years during the Sixties. He had devoted his life, by means of books and articles, to supporting the Palestinians, among whom he had lived as a boy, during the first decade of the 20th century. A Russian-Jewish immigrant, he had experienced much kindness from the local Arabs and had taken stock of the attitude and expectations of some of the Jewish settlers.
The newspaper commanded respect, with its simple Maltese/Iron Cross logo and boldly independent informative stance. Although it entered my thoughts only intermittently, my ambition to communicate with its publisher and friend of my grandfather’s grew over the years, in measure as I was subjected to various revelations.
No mission to discover a universal truth inspired me, rather a wish to understand my times and the development of the world, in particular to explain to myself this catastrophic caesura during the1940s, a warp not only in time, but in Western European character, during which the fathers and grandfathers of my German classmates had allegedly done the unspeakable.
So hideous and shameful had been their crimes then that they had even acquired their own appellation.By inducing a particular bias into a hitherto neutral English word, a commodious new orthodoxy was invented, so powerful that its regular, ubiquitous invocation by the media had placed the entire Western world under its spell. How could this be?
Due to the exceptional nature of the twelve years of National Socialism, a large and growing body of lurid fiction and alleged fact has materialized, based on its dramatic superficialities rather than onany study or comprehension of its socialist policies, and inspired by a particular agenda. Sobriety rejects sensationalism. A perusal of reputable historical sources, some of them quite hard to find, helped me to form my own opinion. The most powerful persuasion, however, did not come from the rather dry accounts in my reading, but from the perfectly straightforward deduction that a people with the traditions and culture of the Germans did not almost overnight become barbarians and commit mass murder. Their military did not lose its humanity just because it was accustomed to obeying orders.
Most tellingly, the descendants of these reputed monsters could not have been the absolutely average children who surrounded me daily while I was at school in Germany, children who could have come from anywhere.
Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill’s The Second World War (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954), and the Mémoires de guerre of General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not the least mention of Nazi gas chambers is to be found. Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war. Robert Faurisson, “The Detail (the alleged Nazi gas chambers),” The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1998 (Vol. 17, No. 2), pages 19-20)
The 6 million figure, in connection with the claimed suffering of European Jews, appeared regularly in North American newspapers of record at least since 1915 (The Sun, June 6, 1915), presumably to prepare the ground among emotionally labile readers for the time when testimony to support such a claim could confidently be manufactured. The use of “holocaust” in this context was introduced as early as 1936 (New York Times, May 31, 1936). [emphasis added] “Russian imperial leaders had long been suspicious of the Jews, and largely banished them to the so-called Pale of Settlement that was established in western Russia in the 1790s. Beginning in the 1880s, western media issued exaggerated reports of slaughters, pogroms, and assorted massacres among the Russian Jews there, whose aggregate numbersof victims were nearly always recorded—astonishingly—as ‘6 million.’” The New York Times carried periodic such reports. See, for example: January 26, 1891: “Rabbi Gottheil says a word on the persecution of the Jews: ‘. . . about 6 million persecuted and miserable wretches’.”),
September 21, 1891: “An indictment of Russia . . . a total of 6,000,000 is more nearly correct.” June 11, 1900: “[In Russia and central Europe] there are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.” March 23, 1905: “We Jews in America [sympathize with] our 6,000,000 cringing brothers in Russia.”
March 25, 1906: “Startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews. . . .” The situation led a former president of B’nai B’rith to a prophetic exclamation: “Simon Wolf asks how long the Russian Holocaust is to continue.” (November 10, 1905) (Inconvenient History)
Forty years before the Holocaust story gradually took shape in 1942, both the number and the precise terminology were used:
Startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews were made on March 12 in Berlin to the annual meeting of the Central Jewish Relief League of Germany by Dr. Paul Nathan, a well-known Berlin publicist, who has returned from an extensive trip through Russia as the special emissary of Jewish philanthropists in England, America and Germany, to arrange for distribution of the relief fund of $1,500,000 raised after the massacres last autumn. He left St. Petersburg with the firm conviction that the Russian government’s studied policy for the “solution” to the Jewish question is systematic and murderous extermination. (New York Times, March 25, 1906) (author’s italics)
One does wonder who these “philanthropists” were, who sent the good doctor on his mission.
How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress. . . . Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war. . . . But the same righteous Governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for 6 million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war. . . . (Max Nordau, Zionist Congress 1911, Basel/Perfidy by Ben Hecht, page 254, 1962; author’s italics)
The Appeal—To save Six million Men and Women in Eastern Europe from Extermination by Hunger and Disease. The Obligation—It is the duty of every person in New York to give the utmost he can spare to relieve the greatest need the world has ever known (advertisement, New York Times, May 5, 1920)
The Bible is full of “burnt sacrifices,” which evidently pleased God (e.g., Leviticus 1:14-17 details all the mumbo-jumbo pertaining to burnt sacrifices). Apparently, Jewish prophecies in the Torah require that 6 million Jews must vanish before the state of Israel can be formed: “You shall return minus 6 million.” Those 6 million had to disappear in “burning ovens.” So 6 million Jews had to be gassed and end up in burning ovens to fulfill the prophecies and satisfy the Talmud Torah dogmatists—a necessary adjunct to the financial entrepreneurs—of Israel’s legitimacy, according to their covenant with their God.
There have been—and indeed continue to be—many efforts to memorialize the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, but this effort of the surviving Hassidic masters stands out. The Zohar records that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah. Truth be told, our scrolls have far fewer letters—304,805 to be exact. Thus the number 600,000 cannot refer merely to a different text of the Bible, for the discrepancy is too great. The number 600,000 could therefore be considered a symbolic number.
One of the later mystics, Rabbi Natan Nata Shapiro of Krakow (Megaleh Amukot, 1585-1633) wrote that this number corresponds to the 600,000 Jewish souls that exist. Sure there are more people than that, but each soul can mystically animate more than one person. Moreover, the Hebrew name for Israel—Yisrael—is an acronym for Yesh Shishim Ribbuy Otiyot Latorah, there are 600,000 letters in the Torah. (Jerusalem Post, June 1, 2012) (author’s italics) So could the number 666 ‘be considered a symbolic number’.
The Bible declares: “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred three score and six.” (Revelation 13:18) Useful superstitions about “The Beast” or Antichrist can thus be traced to this hokum around the number “6.”
All material evidence to the contrary is stubbornly declared insignificant, as was the exonerating evidence at the Nuremberg show trials. The only relevant fact is:
The holocaust dogma of Judaism is an article of faith and a doctrine of belief of Jewish religious history adjudicated by their rabbis according to Talmudic law and Kabalistic tradition. (Ben Weintraub, The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism: Keystone of the New World Order)
So we have “‘’faith,” “doctrine” and “belief.” What we don’t have is hard physical proof. “Faith means you don’t know,” as someone has said. If you don’t know that a crime has occurred, how can you punish someone for perpetrating it?
As Jewish jazz musician and author Gilad Atzmon says, “The Holocaust is a complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists.“ (Ruhr-Nachrichten 2005)
More astounding because it appeared in a major mainstream French newspaper, as summary to a long pseudo-historical article under the general title “Menace negationniste” (“Menace of holocaust denial”), was the assertion:
Everyone is free to refer to this or that kind of explanation, everyone is ultimately free to imagine or to fantasize that these monstrous events did not take place.
Unfortunately they did take place and nobody can deny their existence without abusing the truth. One must not ask oneself how such mass murder was technically possible. It was technically pos-
sible because it took place. (Le Monde, February 21, 1979)
This pledge of allegiance to the faith was signed by 34 French historians, all presumably keen to keep their jobs. One assumes that they were also familiar with the French fantasist Rabelais, who com-
posed five satirical books entitled The Horrible and Terrifying Deeds and Words of the Very Renowned Pantagruel King of the Dipsodes, Son of the Great Giant Gargantua.
As “6 million” merely represents some token in Jewish dogma, some cabalistic hocus-pocus, there is no reason to attach any special importance to its numerical value. It is only rational to recall that there were never 6 million Jews under German control during the war.
The claim that 5.7 million Jews were murdered is not true. The number of Jewish victims can only range between 1 and 1.5 million, because there were not more Jews within Hitler’s reach. (Ferdinand Otto Miksche, colonel in the French army and a close aide to Charles de Gaulle, The End of the Present, Herbig, Munich, 1990, p.107)
Statistics for 1919 show 615,021 Jews in the whole of Germany. (Flächeninhalt und Bevölkerung, October 8, 1919) Official statistics and censuses before and after the war show hardly any changes in the numbers of Jews.
This was demonstrated by Swedish author Einar Aberg in 1959, who, citing official organs  of Jewry such as the American Jewish Committee and mainstream American publications such as The World Almanac, showed that they did not document a substantially sharp decline during the years of the war. It stated that in 1936 there were 15,753,633 Jews worldwide; while in 1949 there were 15,713,638.
These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures. —Chairman, New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education (Newark Star-Ledger, Oct. 23, 1996, p. 15)
An estimate based on documents held by the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross arrives at a figure of 74,000 deaths at Auschwitz, based on the “Auschwitz death books.” The death books themselves are wartime German camp records, which were captured by the Soviets toward the end of the war and hidden in Soviet archives, until released to the Red Cross in 1989 by Mikhail Gorbachov.
The International Red Cross made frequent visits to Auschwitz:
We had not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners. This corroborates a report which we had already received from other sources. . . . (USA-Today, Friday, May 2, 1997, page 14A)
Furthermore, there exists since 1979 a document from the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Arolsen, which lists the certified deaths in each concentration camp of the Third Reich (total 271,304 cases of which 52,389 in Auschwitz). (Bureau of Vital Statistics Arolsen, case officer Herr [Redacted], Az. I/V-050-Schw. May 11, 1979)
In conclusive proof, both of the nature of Auschwitz concentration camp and of the implausibility of the charge that Jews were gassed there—or anywhere at all—the records of the Auschwitz Kommandantur (commander’s headquarters) appeared in 2000 (Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Munich, 604 pp.). Here are a few extracts:
Commandant’s headquarters order Nr. 9/40. Auschwitz, November 28, 1940. Communication with prisoners in protective custody. It must be yet again be affirmed that some SS-men still call the prisoners to the fence to give them shoes or items of clothing to be repaired. I must point out that such behavior is not only forbidden, but that it is also life threatening. . . . The Comman-
dant of Auschwitz concentration camp. Signed Höss, SS-Major.
Commandant special order 1/42. Subject: work on Sundays. If a prisoner is to produce a full amount of work, it is necessarythat he should also have enough strength, rest and readiness to approach each week’s stint. For this, he needs Sunday to rest. In this regard, it is vital to ensure that prisoners in future bathe once a week, and that the calm of Sunday be used to maintain clothes and all other items of daily use, which the prisoner needs for his personal care. Signed, Höss, Major and Commandant.
Sunday work for prisoners. I forbid the assembly of work details on Sundays for work that is not absolutely necessary or essential. Prisoners should report for disinfection, bathing etc. and with this to undertake the necessary change of clothes, bed linen and mending of clothes. (author’s italics)
Standortbefehl Nr. 51/43. Auschwitz, November 16, 1943.Häftlingseigentum. Prisoners‘ property. I have occasion to point out, for the last time, that prisoners’ property, no matter what it consists of, or where it is or is seen, must remain untouched. . . . I expect from every orderly, decent SS-member—and that will be the majority—that he keeps his eyes open and helps to remove swiftly
[Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, Barnes Review, 2015, pp 7-14]
Menuhin responds to the idea that he is a “self-hating Jew:”
If you are Jewish yourself, and you point the finger at Jews for their skulduggery, you must either be insane or hate yourself, or possibly both, they say. You hate them, so you hate yourself. Hmm. The only sense I can make of this is that, having recognized the terrible harm Jews have done to the world and continue to do to it, some Jews hate themselves for being Jewish. Well, that may indeed be so.
The first “Jewish self-hater” may have been the Judean Jesus himself, the itinerant preacher who castigated the money-lenders, thus revealing to the Pharisees that he was not the useful leader they had been expecting, and sealing his fate. In my case, as I’ve said, not being actually a Jew according to their laws, I can’t hate myself for this. Hatred is, in any case, a consuming emotion and thus an unhealthy one. [p. 389]

Monday, February 27, 2017

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Vox Day - The Toll (AKA Burn The Coal...)

From the Vox Day Blog Wednesday, January 18, 2017:

The toll

There is a common phrase one hears among skeptics of biracial relationships between blacks and whites, "burn the coal, pay the toll". But given my background in economics, I couldn't help wondering what, precisely, is the toll? Here are some relevant facts, figures, and probabilities for white women contemplating the costs and benefits of coal-burning.

  • 100 percent greater chance of getting divorced.

Marriages that took place between African American men and white women had twice the potential of ending up in divorce in comparison to marriages involving a white man and a white woman. White female and African American male couples also had the greatest chances of divorce out of all non-white and white marriages.
- "Is Interracial Marriage More Likely to End in Divorce?"

  • 3 percent chance of having legitimate children

92% of biracial children with African American fathers are born out of wedlock,with Caucasian mothers leading in that percentage [at 97%]. 90% of women who have children out of wedlock with African American men will not end up marrying that man, where as 10% will wed,  yet those that wed, or do have their children in wedlock, typically end up a single mother nonetheless due to divorce.
- "Ninety Two Percent: Examining the Birth Trends, Family Structure, Economic Standing, Paternal Relationships, and Emotional Stability of Biracial Children with African American Fathers"

  • 98 percent chance of not being financially supported by the child's father

Does the father of your children support financially? Caucasian: NO 98% YES 2%
- "Ninety Two Percent: Examining the Birth Trends, Family Structure, Economic Standing, Paternal Relationships, and Emotional Stability of Biracial Children with African American Fathers"

  • A one-in-three chance of encountering herpes.

White infection rate: 6 percent. Black infection rate: 32 percent.
- "Percentage of Adults Aged 20--29 Years with Genital Herpes Infection, by Race/Ethnicity", National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

  • 1,524 percent greater chance of encountering gonorrhea

White male infection rate: 28.8/100,000. Black male infection rate: 467.7/100,000.
- "STD/HIV incidence rates in the US (breakdown by race) 2014", Centers for Disease Control

  • 670 percent greater chance of being murdered 

In this paper we examine patterns and trends in homicides between marriage partners in the United States for 1976 through 1985 using data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplemental Homicide Reports (FBI-SHR). We identified 16,595 spouse homicides accounting for 8.8 per cent of all homicides reported to the FBI-SHR during this 10-year period…. The risk of victimization was greater for spouses in interracial than in intraracial marriages … Spouse homicides in marriages where the husband was Black and the wife was White constituted 1.4 per cent of the total … Spouse homicide incidence rates were 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages relative to intraracial marriages.
- “Fatal Violence among Spouses in the United States, 1976-85,” by James A. Mercy and Linda E. Saltzman.

So, that's the toll involved. It's not even close to the cheerful middle-class picture so often presented by the television commercials. In light of the statistical probabilities involved, any parent who remains silent for fear of being called "racist" fully deserves the 18-year penalty that so often results from biracial relationships. I note that any parent who permitted their children to take such similarly high risks in other circumstances would probably be charged with abuse.

On the macro level, the obvious conclusion is that the media's propagandistic push for biracial relationships is just another front in its 52-year war on the family, of every race and color. And on Gab, a biracial individual commented on the truth of these observations concerning illegitimacy and child support: @voxday Hitting me right in the childhood