Archive for the ‘Required Reading’ Category

AmRen Continues To Do My Job For Me

April 2, 2010

I’ve been really busy lately…and really lazy…and haven’t found much time to post things.  Fortunately, American Renaissance has kept its eyes on the prize.  Here’s what they’ve brought to light:

1) Apparently Congress hasn’t yet funded the $1.25 billion reparatations…excuse me, “discrimination”…settlement for America’s millions of black farmers.  I wrote about this hereHere’s AmRen:

Lawmakers from both chambers on Wednesday pressed the administration to help find funds to resolve black farmers’ longstanding discrimination claims against the Agriculture Department (USDA).

March 31 is the deadline the Obama administration and Congress set to fund a new $1.25 billion settlement, according to its agreed-upon terms. But a week away from the deadline, Capitol Hill has not moved on funding for the settlement.

Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) made a public plea Wednesday to find the money to resolve the discrimination claims.

Lawmakers said the administration needs to step in so Congress can move forward on the appropriations request. Conyers and others said the administration has to designate the settlement funding as an emergency so Capitol Hill can waive pay-go rules and attach it to legislation.”

I don’t know if they’ve found the money yet.  I’m pretty busy right now, so I’ll look into it when I get a chance.

2) The suit by whites, alleging racial discrimination, against DeKalb County Georgia’s black-run government continues.  So far, it’s cost the taxpayers $2.53 million to defend against the suit.  Funny, blacks allege discrimination, the U.S. Government lays down and hands over $1.25 billion.  Whites allege discrimination, the government fights it to the bitter end.  $2.53 million is probably more than the white plaintiffs were even asking for.  It would have probably just been cheaper for New Zimbabwe to have settled out of court.  But this is minority-occupied America…Whitey won’t get a dime no matter what!

3) AmRen quotes the Commercial Dispatch on a white woman being denied a School Board Appointment.

Starkville Mayor Parker Wiseman on Thursday vetoed the Board of Aldermen’s appointment of Susan Tomlinson to the Starkville School District board.

“It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to veto the appointment of Susan Tomlinson to the Starkville School Board,” Wiseman said in a statement. “{snip} Knowing her personally, knowing her credentials, and knowing her outstanding record of service to the schools, I have no doubt that Mrs. Tomlinson could serve the school district capably and well. However, having reviewed a deep field of uniquely qualified applicants and the current needs of the School Board, I do not feel that Mrs. Tomlinson is the best fit for the vacant position.”

Wiseman went on to say it is important for a policy-making body like the School Board to be “representative of the community” it serves.

The Starkville School District is 64 percent black, 32 percent white, 2 percent Asian, 1 percent Native American and 1 percent Hispanic. If Tomlinson, who is white, were to serve on the school board, the board would become 80 percent white and 20 percent black.

“The Starkville Board of Aldermen has the power to appoint four of the five members of the Starkville School Board,” Wiseman said. “As such, the Board of Aldermen bears the responsibility to ensure not only that appointees are qualified to serve, but also that the School Board is representative of the diverse community it serves. Diversity of representation should be considered as an important but not controlling factor in the process of appointing a school board member.”


4) From Politico, by way of AmRen:

“Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has begun an unofficial “diversity survey” of Fortune 500 companies and has told the companies that if they do not participate in the survey, he will make their names public.”…

“Menendez, the only Hispanic in the Senate, wants to find out how many minorities, women and disabled people serve as top executives or members of the firms’ corporate boards, as well as the “demographic makeup of your suppliers.”…

“Menendez said the survey had nothing to do with being chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, where one of his main roles is raising money and courting wealthy donors. And he rejected any suggestion that a company that did not comply with the survey could be the object of a boycott.”…

Don’t worry Menendez, Corporate America will fold…Corporate America   always   folds when it comes to “diversity.”  Well, I guess you can’t call it “folding” when they eagerly take the lead.  Those crazy “free-marketers”…they live, breathe, eat, and sleep “efficiency!”


June Cleaver Doesn’t Live Here Anymore.

March 24, 2010

I’m currently in the process of reading Taken into Custody:  The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville.  It really is an amazing indictment of the two-tiered legal system that men face when confronted with divorce and the loss of custody of their children.  As the whole book is full of horrific examples of what men face, I’ll just quote this one segment, referenced by Baskerville (p.79), of an article that appeared in the Observer:

“One applicant had cancer which …’could be upsetting’ for his child.  A man might be said to ‘lack sensitivity’ or be ‘over-enthusiastic’ or even ‘father-centered’ – for which tendency one man was denied all contact with his child.  In one case, it was noted disapprovingly that a father had told his son he preferred Scrabble to Monopoly and thought hyacinths smelled sweeter than roses.  This was seen as ‘taking the lead in contact’ – a form of emotional abuse, according to the reporting officer.  One father wore a black shirt, which ‘could be intimidating.’  Another stood accused of ‘losing his temper with customs officials in a French airport’ … and was therefore said to have an ‘unfortunate disposition.’  One report could find no reason why a child should not see more of his father but went on to conclude:  ‘Nonetheless, the mother must be concerned about something.’  The father’s contact was limited to two hours every six weeks.”

I just chose this segment to quote because it offers several examples within a few sentences…and I’m very lazy.  Denying visitation rights for the reasons listed above is not the worst of it.  There are some absolute horror stories, and I’m not even a third of the way through the book.  I’m just too lazy to go back through the pages I’ve read and pick them out.  The trampling of constitutional rights, judicial abuse, discrimination in favor of the wife/mother, arbitrary imprisonment, and Kafkaesque administrative procedures are the norm.  You really should read this book.  It’s like electro-shock therapy for those of you men out there still laboring under the delusion that you’ll get a fair shake in the American legal system.  If you can’t afford the book, or just don’t have time to read it, here are two good articles by the author, on the same topic:

Fathers Into Felons

The Fathers’ War


What’s amazing is the completely and totally hateful way in which these women, who are overwhelmingly the ones filing for no-fault divorce, treat their husbands, who in most cases have done nothing wrong.  They falsely accuse them of the worst things imaginable, and completely deny them the right to visit their children either out of spite or “just because they can.”  Welfare is widely acknowledged as one of the key factors causing the destruction of the black family beginning in the 1960’s.  America’s “child-support enforcement” regime is probably THE key factor in the post-60’s destruction of the white family.  Prior to welfare, a father was necessary for the mother and her child to have around at the very least due to the financial resources he provided.  Once welfare filled that role, he was superfluous, and single-motherhood among blacks soared.  It increased for whites as well, but at a much lesser rate.  The main reason for that is simply that welfare use is socially stigmatized among whites.  “Child support payments” collected from “deadbeat dads” (the widespread existence of which Baskerville proves is a myth) is not.  Women turned on their men in a heartbeat.  In most cases, yes…you really are nothing more than a wallet to her.  Yet another difficult truth white males will need to…yet will probably refuse to accept.  June Cleaver doesn’t live here anymore.

This appears a little later on (p.81):

“A 1997 ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court prohibiting a father from taking his children to Christian services received some media attention but no opposition from either churches or civil libertarians.  In Arlington, Virginia, a judge’s 1997 injunction prohibiting a father from taking his son to Bar Mitzvah was reversed only after a protest in front of the county courthouse.”

So…a Christian father is denied the right to take his child to religious services, he complains, but to no avail…a Jewish father is denied the right to take his child to religious services, and all of a sudden it’s an injustice to be remedied .  At least a dozen words could describe what popped into my mind when I first read that.  “Shocked” definitely isn’t one of them.  This is why Jews can continue to support social and political movements designed to weaken family structures.  Because when it comes time to actually implement these “universal” laws to specific individuals and their cases, Jewish fathers can count on Amy Totenberg, or any of the large number of Jews that dominate American institutions, to uphold at least some of their parental rights, while simultaneously denying those rights to white gentile fathers.  Our Hebrew Overlords will always be taken care of in the end.

Required Reading: F. Roger Devlin vs. Gov’t Enforced Rotating Polyandry

February 13, 2010

I’m not sure if I buy into the whole strict alpha vs. beta dichotomy, but there is invariably some truth to it.  Richard Hoste at HBD Books has a new post up dealing with the topic of statutory (non-forced) rape.  Here’s his take:

“But if we’re going to say that it’s ok for young girls to have sex with boys their own age, why is it a type of rape for them to have sex with older men?  Perhaps it’s because a 14 year-old boy who can have sex with a girl his age is alpha.  A 30 year-old man prowling chatrooms looking for partners that young isn’t and inspires disgust.  It’s not about protecting girls from any old thing.  There’s a world out there for them. At this point of their lives there’s only one enemy that must be dealt with.  The beta male.  (Adult alphas aren’t part of the equation as they’re picking up the legals)”

While I don’t agree with him here, it’s hard to argue with the observation that many of our laws, and their enforcement, are designed to inoculate women, at the expense of men, against the consequences of their sexual decisions in the post-Women’s Lib era.

This reminded me of a great article I had read earlier, from The Occidental Quarterly, by F. Roger Devlin, entitled Rotating Polyandry-And Its Enforcers  [Note:  It no longer appears to be available online.].  Devlin combines book reviews of Women’s Infidelity:  Living in Limbo by Michelle Langley and Taken into Custody:  The War against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville to argue the following:

1) That there is “a natural four-year cycle for the human female…[which] apparently allows enough time after childbirth for the average mother in a state of savagery to regain her ability to survive without male provisioning.  [And that] in the absence of any system of marriage, a woman’s natural tendency is to ‘liberate’ herself from her mate at that point.”  [Women’s Infidelity]  And that…

2) Our current system of divorce/child-custody/child support laws and their enforcement acts as a “brutal police-state machinery” which enables women to follow this cycle of spousal abandonment, yet still receive all of the material benefits of marriage from enslaved ex-husbands who receive no matrimonial-type rewards (child visitation rights, shared household labor, sexual monogamy) in return.  [Taken into Custody]  And that…

3) This constitutes a nation-wide system of government-sponsored “rotating polyandry” enforced at gunpoint by the various alphabet soup agencies of our various levels of government.

The first book/premise doesn’t really have to do with the topic of this blog, so I won’t touch that one…but the second book/premise…  I plan on buying Taken into Custody soon based on this review.  Apparently it’s full of horror stories documenting the two-tiered legal system that men/husbands/fathers face when attempting to secure their rights, such as parental visitation.  A good excerpt:

“Whatever the outcome of the trial, for the rest of [the father’s] children’s childhood they and he will live under constant surveillance and control by the court.  He will be told when he can see his children, what he can do with them, where he can take them…what religious services he may (or must) attend with them and what subjects he may discuss with them in private…He can be ordered to work certain hours and at certain jobs, the earnings from which will be confiscated…If he loses his job or is hospitalized he will be declared a felon and jailed for failure to pay child support.  His home can be entered by officials of the court…”

Apparently at least one man was “threatened with prison unless he signed a [false] preprinted confession” admitting to physical and emotional abuse of his wife.

According to Devlin’s review, the author also argues that the widespread image of the proverbial “deadbeat dad” is really just a myth.

In my opinion, child-support/alimony laws, as they exist and are interpreted today, are the essence of using our legal system to force men to pay for the consequences of women’s sexual decisions, particularly at the expense of “beta’s.”  Prior to welfare, “beta’s” at least had a competitive niche that they could fill in the mating market.  Women had a choice.  They could sleep with a cad “alpha” who would leave them when they got pregnant, or they could “lower their standards” and accept a loyal “beta,” along with the accompanying emotional and financial security.  Hey, they may not be the best looking guys on the planet, but if you got knocked up, they would take care of you.  Once welfare came along, women didn’t need that financial security.  They could go ahead and sleep with the “alpha,” get pregnant, and then let the state pay the bills.  But welfare reform changed all that, which is why it is no coincidence that it coincided with the imposition of draconian “child support” laws.  The “child support” laws of today are the betas’ revenge.  “Let the alphas pay.”  This is misguided…it doesn’t matter to the woman who pays…she still gets the alpha…and the check…whether that check comes from the state or the alpha.  Advantage:  Alpha.  If betas were smart, they would seek to weaken “child support” laws while maintaining past welfare reform.  Right now, yes, they’re hurting alphas, but at no benefit to themselves.  United we stand, divided we fall!

Required Reading: The Best of Sailer

February 13, 2010

A couple of months ago, when Ricci and Sonia Sotomayor were all over the news, Steve Sailer wrote a ton of articles about the case/nomination, and about AA and “disparate impact” in general.  If you are new to the topic, or if you want to learn more, his writings are a great place to start.  Sailer has a sharp mind and a sharper wit, and manages to demolish the arguments of quota-supporters.  Here are some of his articles that you should check out: