The Mystification of Anti-Semitism

Updated November 19:

Commenter Lafayette Sennacherib notes that when he commented on a blog recently, laying out the various complaints that Nazis had against Jews (that the Jewish elite were aligned with international capital, while the rest contained a hotbed of seething Communism) his comment was deleted as anti-Semitic.

Let us protest this sort of thing.

What the Nazis did was really evil and fucked up, but they did have their reasons!

The Jewish line is that all anti-Semitism is "mysterious." This is what I call "the mystification of anti-Semitism." Many Jewish writings on anti-Semitism take this line, to the point where this is now our dominant "analysis" of anti-Semitism.

The Jewish line goes something like this: Anti-Semitism is crazy! It cannot be explained by any rational mechanism. There simply is no rational reason for it whatsoever. Basically, it's a form of insanity.

This analysis has the advantage for sure of letting the Jews of the hook and putting it all on the anti-Semites, but sadly enough, in life, things do have reasons. Even victimizers victimize people for various reasons.

This is of course not to defend victimizers or engage in blame the victim crap, but this analysis is useful in life.

Now suppose in life I am getting victimized a lot. I move around to different towns, and I keep on getting victimized, often for the exact same false "reasons." My victimizers are a bunch of pricks for sure, but it's incumbent on me as a rational actor to discover what it is that I am doing that is setting these idiots off (unfortunately, this been the case at various times in my life).

A proper analysis, with the assistance of a psychotherapist, helped me to understand what was driving some of the idiots who did some really fucked-up stuff to me at various times in my life. Turns out that they were not psychotic nuts, but were operating from some logical, but sick, psychological impulses. I now try to live my life so as not to provide fuel for bullies.

I feel this Jewish-led project to mystify anti-Semitism has not been helpful in terms of getting to the bottom of the phenomenon. As anti-Semitism does a lot of harm to Jews, it is important to get to the bottom of it.

Further, if there are any reasonable complaints against Jews that further anti-Semitism, it is helpful to discover these so that Jews may modify their behavior in the future in order to lessen anti-Semitic bile directed at them.

One of the projects of this blog is an empirical analysis of anti-Semitism.

That is, we will take all of the arguments, from the Philosemites to the anti-Semites, as "possibly true" and then analyze them to see if there is anything there or not. I'm not prepared to just reject all anti-Semitic accusations as nonsense, but they do need to prove their case. Likewise with the Jews and their defenders! May the best theory win.

Musings on Dual Loyalty, Judaism as Zionism, and Anti-Semitism

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated December 6:

Always-perceptive commenter James Schipper makes some astute, terse and cut to the chase comments on my post, The "New Anti-Semitism". In it, he moves beyond the typically vulgar anti-Semitism that much modern anti-Zionism descends into and offers a perfectly logical explanation for the dual loyalty accusation leveled at Jews.

He also brings up some very difficult questions about the differences between Judaism and Zionism and whether there is really any difference at all.

Schipper:

If criticism of Israel = anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, then we should be proud to call ourselves anti-Semites.

What is really wrong with Israel? It is not such a bad country for Jews, or even for the Arabs in Israel proper. I would rather be a Jew in Israel than an Arab in any Arab country. Israel was born in sin, but so was every country in the Western hemisphere. Israel is oppressive in the occupied territories, but by historical standards, this oppression is hardly unique.

The real reason for opposing Israel is that it does not see itself as the country of its citizens but as the country of all the Jews in the world. According to Israel, Jews in other countries are living in exile, are really Israelis and should be loyal to Israel.

In other words, Israel expects the Jewish citizens of other countries to behave like Israel's fifth-columnists, and that is exactly what Zionists outside Israel are.

No political party outside Israel should accept Zionists as members, and no government outside Israel should appoint Zionists to a senior government job. Instead, Zionist should be encouraged to put their bodies where their loyalties are: in Israel.

Suppose that Italy saw itself as the country of all Catholics in the world and expected Catholics everywhere to defend Italian interests, then it would be behaving exactly as Israel does. That would also be a good reason for non-Catholics in other countries to look at Catholics with suspicion and to regard Italy with hostility.

The late Arthur Koestler wrote in an essay that after 1948 all Jews should choose one of two options: go to Israel or abandon Judaism altogether. He is right insofar as Judaism implies Zionism.

Judaism has always posited that Jews are a people and that Israel is their promised land, which is also the position of Zionism. If Judaism implies Zionism, then Jews outside of Israel, it they want to remain Jewish, should emigrate to Israel or else detribalize and deterritorialize Judaism, which may be denaturing it.

Theological question: Why does Obama allow bad things to happen and evil people to prosper?

More seriously, why did Obama appoint a hard Zionist as his chief of staff? It is not a good sign.

I agree with several things in this post.

First of all, he attacks some of the usual broadsides leveled at Israel and dismisses them.

What I find disturbing, and many Zionists have noted this, is the particular vehemence many Israel-critics level at Israel's oppression of Jews inside Israel, while they are silent or even supportive of even worse oppression by states against minorities outside Israel.

White nationalists think it's awesome for Whites to treat non-Whites like shit, except when it comes to White Jews versus "muds" in Israel. Kurds in the Arab World are treated awfully bad, Berbers less so but still poorly, and the Shia are oppressed all over the Arab World. There is open oppression and violence against Christians in Egypt and Iraq.

Bahais are treated horribly in Iran, Sunnis less so but still poorly, and the Ahwaz have some good beefs. Turks treat Kurds horribly in Turkey. Russia has massacred 20% of the population of Chechnya in what can only be termed a genocide. China's treatment of the Uighurs and Tibetans is disgraceful. Treatment of Hindus in Pakistan is shameful, and NE Indian Asians are treated poorly by the Indian state.

Japan treats its Koreans, Burakumin and Ainu pretty badly. The Hmong are still treated like shit in Laos and the Montagnards are not done well by Vietnam. Pygmies are openly genocided and cannibalized as a matter of custom in Zaire, and the Khoisan are nearly murdered at will in SW Africa.

There is a real genocide of Arabs against Africans in Darfur, and another one, Arabs versus Christians, has just ended in South Sudan. Africans are routinely enslaved by Arabs in the Sahel.

We could go and on but you get the picture. What is disturbing about all of this is that most Israel-critics are either indifferent to, ignorant of or even supportive of, the maltreatment of minorities above. Zionists are correct that this is either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

All, or most all, modern nations were born in sin.

This was due to the nature of the modern nation-building exercise, which typically involved ethnic cleansing or some sort of mass killing or genocide of any existing indigenous people, sidelining, subjection, forced assimilation (cultural genocide) or outright genocide against anyone not part of the dominant nation of the nation-state, and forced destruction of all languages but the one chosen by the nation-state or that is the dominant nation.

The Modern Left in the West, which has adopted Third-Worldism , minority-hugging and European hatred with gusto, errs in singling out Europeans for particular abuse in terms of nation-building. It's been bloody and awful everywhere and at all times.

Schipper also points out that although Israel is oppressive in the Occupied Territories, by comparative standards, they are relatively mild. Considering the outrageous provocations and attacks of the Palestinians, I am amazed that Israel has gone as easy on them as it has.

Arabs do not believe in fighting wars in a civilized manner and the Geneva Conventions are regarded by them as Western comedy. Any Arab state faced with Palestinian-type provocations by non-Arabs would have been vastly worse than Israel.

Truthfully, just about every nation fighting an insurgency has been more horrible that Israel on orders of magnitude.

Consider this: according to counterinsurgency doctrine, enshrined by the US military and state and promoted by the US media and both US political parties, any civilian who "supports" an insurgency needs to be arrested, beaten, tortured and killed. All counterinsurgencies supported by the US have routinely massacred, mutilated and tortured to death insurgency "supporters".

This has been true in every counterinsurgency in Latin America, in Indonesia in 1965, in the US counterinsurgencies in SE Asia during the Vietnam War, in the counterinsurgencies in Mozambique, Algeria and Angola, in Russia's counterinsurgency in Chechnya, in India's counterinsurgencies in India proper and Kashmir, in Sri Lanka against the Tamils, in Indonesia against the Acehese and East Timorese, in the Philippines against the NPA, and in Nepal's recent Civil War.

In these counterinsurgencies, hundreds of thousands of "supporters" of insurgencies were murdered, tortured and mutilated, while the US cheered, poured in money and looked the other way.

In contrast, almost 100% of Palestinians seem to support the Palestinian insurgency. Clearly, Israel has not been going around killing "supporters" of the insurgency. If they did, they would have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians so far.

Considering the provocations of the Palestinians, Israel has fought one of the cleanest counterinsurgencies in modern times.

Zionists are correct that these criticisms of Israel, combined with support for to indifference to much worse behaviors by non-Jews, are evidence of either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

But Schipper does hit it on the head.

The reason to oppose Israel is that it is not a state of its citizens. Israel openly says that it is the state of all Jews on Earth, not of its citizens. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable for non-Jews in every nation on Earth containing Jews to look upon their Jews as possible traitors and dual-loyalists. Dual loyalty, rather than being an "anti-Semitic canard" as many Jews shrilly screech, is actually grounded in immaculate reason.

Schipper also suggests that the wall between Judaism and Zionism may be little more than a wall of sand, and one that has been hit by so many waves that there's almost nothing left.

Although anti-Zionist Jews offer various reasons for their non-support of Israel, the fact remains that Judaism has always said that Israel is the land of the Jews. Assuming the Messiah returns tomorrow, even Naturei Karta is willing to head to Israel and become fervent Zionists.

Hence the uncomfortable notion, typically parroted by ferocious anti-Zionists and some vulgar anti-Semites, that it is not just Zionism that is the problem, but Judaism itself, is lent some troubling weight. I don't want to go near this thesis because to be honest, I'm a pussy when it comes to the Jewish Question.

Schipper finally suggests that the Jews of the world either renounce Judaism or practice what you preach and head to Israel. Once again, troubling stuff.

There's nary a trace of anti-Semitism in Schipper's comments, but the issues he raises are toxic as Hell.

Just some thought-meals.

Enjoy.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

The "New Antisemitism"

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated November 11:

I'll proudly don this label, though I admit that some (or many) practitioners of this new form of "the oldest hatred" (sic) are taking it way too far into what I call "vulgar anti-Semitism".

As a basic philosophical position, this blog will take the logical Left position of embracing a reasonable form of "new antisemitism" while in general taking a principled Left line (at the very least following Paul de Man's wartime essays and Jacques Derrida's interpretation of his writing)* in opposing vulgar anti-Semitism as an example of backwardness, stupidity, lazy thinking, racism and in general, just reactionary bullshit.

Confused?

Good.

Deal with it, anti-Semites and Jewish nationalists.

*The link is to some deconstructionist stuff starring Derrida, Paul De Man and some others, and the subject is as abstruse as most of that stuff is. For this who don't feel like wading through the post-structuralist mud, I will try to sum it up:

During WW2, in 1942, Paul De Man wrote some anti-Semitic articles for the Vichy Nazi press in France. De Man later went on to become one of the big deconstructionist guys. So it came out that he had written this Vichy Nazi stuff, and it was a big scandal.

Derrida "deconstructed" his work and noted that in his work, De Man had argued against "vulgar anti-Semitism", which is more of an "I know it when I see it" thing than something well-defined.

Nevertheless, his article would still be seen as anti-Semitic by any reasonable reader. So Derrida, in deconstructing De Man, wrote that since all anti-Semitism was vulgar necessarily, De Man, in condemning vulgar anti-Semitism and not mentioning any other kind, was actually condemning all anti-Semitism. This set off a spate of articles back and forth in deconstructionist circles.

References

Goldberg, David Theo. 1993. Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning, pp. 229-230. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Patai, Daphne, Corral, Wilfrido Howard. 2005. Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent. Spitzer, Alan B., Chapter 17, The Debate Over the Wartime Writings of Paul De Man. The Language of Setting the Record Straight. New York: Columbia University Press

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Thoughts on Ethnocentrism and "Race-Mixing"

White nationalists tend to say that any White person who dates or marries outside the White race is a "race traitor" who is engaging in "race mixing" and is fostering "racial suicide". They also say that any such person must be a "White self-hater" with no love or pride on their own people.

This post will examine whether or not that is so. It will also examine ethnocentrism cross-culturally, with a view towards whether or not it is normal. It will also examine the tendency among human groups to simultaneously guard their women from outsiders while the males also attempt to mate with outsiders.

I argue that all of these things are cultural norms in human beings and may have biological or genetic origins.

I've been talking to some of my smart friends about this stuff, and here's what we came up with.

I noted that I have met persons from all over the world. One tendency that I noted among most, but not all, persons, was ethnocentrism, often of an extreme type. They all had a lot of pride in their race, nation, ethnic group, religion, or whatever. In particular, they did not like to hear criticism of it from outsiders.

At the same time, many were not particularly racist. They certainly were friendly enough towards me. These same people, if they were young and unmarried, often combined a profound ethnocentrism with a desire to marry outside their group. In this case, many of them wanted to marry an American, especially a White American.

This would seem to strongly contradict White nationalist theory that everyone who desires to marry outside their race, nation or ethnicity is race-traitor who is full of hatred for their own kind. That just doesn't seem to be true. White nationalists are flat out wrong. It's perfectly possible to love your people and marry outside of them.

Oddly enough, people seem to be able to combine an often profound ethnocentrism with a desire to marry out and commit "race-treason" or "racial suicide".

I talked to one of my friends, and while he is not a White nationalist (He despises them), he admitted that he thinks Whites, specifically Northern Europeans, are superior to all other groups. He also said that he had been in love with a number of non-White women, and he would have gladly married them.

He said that even after he married them, he would probably still have felt that Northern Europeans were superior, even though he loved his wife. He suggested that many people of other races who marry non-group members probably feel the same way.

How can we make sense of these findings?

First of all ethnocentrism does seem to be a norm in human societies. As an example, let us look at a tribe in the Brazilian Amazon called the Pirahã.

This tribe has been the subject of a lot of research lately because they appear to lack recursion in their language. As recursion is said to be a human linguistic universal (or part of universal grammar in the Chomsky-Pinker paradigm) that is genetically coded into our brain, its absence in the Pirahã implies either that they are genetically distinct (dubious) or that the Chomsky-Pinker theory of universal grammar needs a lot of work.

Leaving aside the Pirahã's lack of recursion for a moment, let us look at their extreme ethnocentrism. The Pirahã have been in contact with Europeans for a good 200 years. During that time, many a missionary has tried to convert them to Christianity. However, for a primitive people, the Pirahã are very scientific-minded, so they have never accepted Christianity.

Anthropologist/linguist Daniel Everett has worked with the Pirahã for 30 years. He originally started out as an evangelical minister to them, but their rejection of his preaching caused him to question his own religion, and he is now an atheist.

He used to talk to them about religion and the Pirahã would say, "Well, who is this Jesus guy? Have you ever seen him? Have you ever met him? Do you know anyone who has seen him or met him?" He would have to answer no to all of these questions. The Pirahã would then say, "So why should we believe this stuff?"

According to their culture, one can only believe things that one has experienced with their own senses, or that someone you know has experienced sensually.

Anyway, this is why the Pirahã have been rejecting missionaries for 200 years now. Not only have they rejected missionaries, but they have also rejected the Portuguese language and modern living, which they have also been exposed to for 200 years. They know what the Portuguese language is, and they know what modern living is, but they want no part of either.

Portuguese language classes have often been offered to the Pirahã, and they attend the classes and pretend to be engaged, but actually refuse to learn any of the language. Some of the children start to learn Portuguese, but as soon as they show signs of learning the language, the parents pull them out of class and refuse to let them return. They don't want to learn Portuguese! Period!

Further, they want no part of modern culture. They have been told over and over the advantages of modern culture, but they're not buying.

These refusals are rooted in the Pirahã's profound sense of ethnocentrism. The Pirahã see themselves as superior to all other races, and they are even superior to all of the Indian tribes around them, whom they want nothing to do with. I've seen pictures of the Pirahã, and they just look like Amazonian Indians to me. In my ethnocentric mind, I can't see how they have anything to feel superior about. But they do feel this way.

From this interesting post in Majority Rights, a White Supremacist site that is nevertheless intelligent, interesting and relatively easy to tolerate, we can see that this feeling is not limited to the Pirahã. It's a discussion of racism in China. One commenter, who is Chinese, notes that most NE Asian groups see their race, nation or ethnic group as superior to all others, including surrounding Asians.

A White commenter who met Vietnamese students in Europe noted that these Vietnamese felt the same way. Furthermore, he noted that the Vietnamese place strong restrictions of their women marrying out.

The commenter said that a female member of the group that married out to a White man would be considered a whore who was lower than dirt who had just married into a subhuman race, the Whites. But if she married into an Asian group not her own, that would be even worse. She was now worse than a whore for marrying into a group that was even lower than Whites. The commenter noted that the Chinese felt much the same way.

I would imagine many other East Asians, especially the ethnocentric Koreans and Japanese, feel the same.

We really could go on and on here, but ethnocentrism, even profound ethnocentrism, seems to be a human norm. We can certainly get away from it as individuals, but it's probably always going to be with us. It also implies that the thorough deracination of Western Whites, to the point of deliberate self-abnegation, is simply not normal. Much as I dislike them, the White nationalists are correct on this point.

Another commenter linked to this article, reported in the press as racist anti-African riots by Chinese students in China against African students. To the extent this stuff was written up at all in the Western press, it was as irrational racist riots against innocent Africans by racist Chinese.

The truth seems to be more complicated. A White American who was a student in China at the time noted that the African students were throwing wild parties in their dorms. Non-African males were allowed in, but not Chinese males. Chinese females were very much invited. He attended one of these parties and "rescued" two Chinese women by getting them out of there.

It was common knowledge at the time that the Africans were getting Chinese women drunk and then "raping" them. Whether that meant date rape or actual physical rape is uncertain, but after a while, Chinese students (probably mostly young males) had had enough and there were days of anti-African riots.

Among the regulations that followed was that African male students were forbidden from consorting with Chinese females in their dorms.

In the examples above we see another essential part of ethnocentrism - "Don't any of you outsiders dare to fuck with our women. We will defend the honor of our women with our lives and we will kill any outsider males who take liberties with our females."

You don't have to study a lot of anthropology or history to see how this line seems to be written all through human history. The horrible stoning of Dua Khalil Aswad, a 17 year old Yezidi girl who eloped with a non-Yezidi man, is an example. She was stoned to death by a crowd of 10,000 Yezidi men for "marrying an outsider".

One of the best ways to rile up a population against an invader or an enemy is to suggest that "they are taking liberties with our women." Countless male armies have been roused to defend the honor of the nation's or group's females.

We also see this in the Jim Crow laws of the South where Black males were lynched for looking at, whistling at, talking to, having sex with, or raping White women. The image of pure Southern womanhood was to be upheld with blood.

What's up with this? Kevin MacDonald argues that there are probably dual imperatives operating here. The first is protection of the females of the tribe from mating with outsiders. This is probably done in the furtherance of "ethnic genetic interests." That is, most tribes probably want to survive for as long as possible as an entity. The best way to do this is to keep outsiders away from your women.

At the same time, MacDonald argues that there is an opposite genetic imperative at work, that the males seek to mate with outsiders, while protecting their females from doing so. MacDonald sees this as attempting to add genetic diversity to the group to make it more fit, but I see it as more base than that.

Probably many of these mating occurred during raids in which the outsider females were raped. In many cases, they were captured as some sort of slaves, brought back to the group, and forced into marriages with males of the group.

In this way, the tribe poaches the women (probably the best, or most attractive women were favored), removes them from the competing group, and brings them into one's own group. Though White nationalists would argue that this is genetic contamination, it surely was not seen that way. The tribe simply wishes to perpetuate itself, and the genes it utilizes in that goal are not relevant.

In older times, a woman who mated out probably was carted off by invading outsiders or went off with the outsider willingly, and hence was simply lost to the group. If all the women did this, the tribe would go extinct.

Yet males could mate out and still live with the group, since they would bring any captured women back to reside with the tribe of the man who captured her.

Further, by capturing the best females of competing outsiders, you deplete them of their best resource. If you rape them and run off, you force the outsiders to bear the children of your tribe (assuming they raise the child and don't kill it), interjecting the genes of your own tribe into theirs against their will. It's a form of domination and aggression of a very base sort.

Racists typically use these facts to try to justify racism by saying that everyone is a racist and that anti-racism is abnormal. This is to be condemned. At least here in the modern West, there seem to be an awful lot of folks that are significantly free of racist feelings, so it would seem we are not genetically doomed to racism.

Modern political correctness argues that the tendencies above, ethnocentrism and protection of one's women from outsiders, are examples of the most horrible and evil racism.

The Left would simply argue that these are reactionary archaisms that must be swept away via revolution. They would probably throw in something stupid and say that these backwards tendencies are all related to economics.

But it seems so much deeper than that.

Though civilized man is capable of transcending most of his base instincts much of the time, the fact remains that at the end of the day, we are just long-legged bipedal apes.

Any sensible analysis of human behavior needs to recognize that.

What the Heck? Juggalo Funeral

A real White trash funeral, complete with booze cooler casket and the bereaved dressed in their Sunday best.

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

There is something about this picture that really bothers me. Those people with the Insane Clown Posse t-shirts are known as juggalos. Juggalos are the fanbase of the Detroit White hip hop group Insane Clown Posse.

Juggalos have lately gotten a reputation for being associated with a lot of crimes, to the extent that they are now considered to be a White street gang. But only about 15% of juggalos are involved in gang-related criminal activity.

There is something just so wrong about showing up at your baby's funeral wearing Insane Clown Posse t-shirts. And the coffin looks like a beer cooler. And if you look at the really weird markings on the coffin, there are two aliens engaged in a shootout.

The story around this baby's death is that it died preterm when the woman with the dyed hair was 6-7 months pregnant, due to her very heavy use of drugs. She was supposedly a very heavy drug user who took all sorts of drugs every day during her pregnancy, resulting in the stillbirth of the baby preterm. Afterward, she supposedly sued the hospital for killing the baby, when in fact it was her drug abuse that did it.

What's even worse was she called in to some Juggalo radio show and talked about her dead baby for about a minute, then started bitching about some merchandise they never sent her.

This is her MySpace page. It's worse. Here is a closeup of the cartoon images on the casket from the Myspace page along with some text:

The "psychopathics" from outer space are going to protect this stillborn baby from evil? WTH?

Here is the funeral announcement from the MySpace page:

Juggalo Ho posted:

R * I * P

*Anabelle Lotus Krawczyk*
05 - 11 - 2008


Mother ~ Julie aka Juggalo Julz
Father ~ Joe aka Druggalo JK47

BORN ~ Mothers Day, Sun.

May 11, 2008 10:39am

DIED ~ Mothers Day, Sun.

May 11, 2008 10:52

FROM MOMMA, JUGGALO JULZ::

MY LITTLE NINJETTE DIED 1 IN A MILLION MEDICAL ERROR..FOR NO REASON. THE DOCTORS SHOOK THERE HEADS AT ME AND SAID WERE DONT KNOW WHY OR HOW. WHAT THE gently caress IS THAT? MY DAUGHTER SHOULD BE IN MY ARMS RIGHT NOW AND SHES GONE AND THATS PRICELESS TO ME!!! I PROMISED MY LOTUS I WOULD GET JUSTICE FOR HER DEATH TO MY VERY LAST BREATH! PLEASE HELP A JUGGALO FAMILY OUT.....

EVERY & ANY JUGGALO & JUGGALETTE IS INVITED TO MY BABY NINJETTE ANABELLE LOTUS KRAWCZYK FUNERAL..WERE ALL A gently caress’N FAMILY AND OUR LITTLE LOTUS IS GONE TO SHANGRI-LA...
PLEASE WRITE ME BACK HERE OR EMAIL IF U WILL COME. IM STILL MAKING ARRANGEMENTS. ON DATE OR TIME YET..

BEST WISHES ~

PLEASE WEAR ANYTHING DARK LOTUS OR IF U FONT HAVE LOTUS ANYTHING PSYCHOPATHIC GEAR TO HER FUNERAL

PLEASE JUGGALOS IF U CAN DONATE ANYTHING EVEN.

$0.01 OR $1.OO WILL HELP US TO GET A HEADSTONE FOR OUR DAUGHTER.

YOU CAN DONATE AT THE FUNERAL
OR IF U CANT ATTEND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STILL DONATE ANYTHING TO OUR HOME AND EMAIL ME ON HERE AND I WILL SEND U MY ADDRESS...

PLEASE BRING A LOTUS FLOWER THEY ARE SO RARE TO FIND. OR PLEASE TELL ME WHERE I CAN FIND ONE.. IM HAVING A LOT TROUBLE FINDING IT...

PLEASE FAMILY COME AND SUPPORT US IN OUR DARKEST HOUR...NINJA DOWN

MCL JULIE & JOE


WHERE ~ MALEC & SONS FUNERAL HOME

ADDRESS ~ 6000 N. MILWAUKEE AVE.
CHICAGO IL 60646

FUNERAL HOME PHONE ~ 773 - 774 - 4100

DATE ~ FRIDAY MAY 23 2008

TIME ~ 9:00AM - 1:00PM (Service starts at 9:00AM then we go to the cemetery)

*REMEMBER AT A FUNERAL WE ALL FOLLOW TOGETHER TO THE CEMETERY AFTER THE SERVICE.....

LAYED TO REST AT ~ EDEN CEMETERY

ADDRESS ~ 9851 W. IRVING PARK ROAD
SCHILLER PARK IL 60176

CEMETERY PHONE ~ 847 - 678 - 1631

*WE PRAY TO SEE ALL JUGGALOS THERE FOR ANABELLE LOTUS....

THANK YOU FOR YOUR LOVE AND SUPPORT,
A GRIEVING JUGGALO MOTHER & FATHER

You've got to be kidding? "Ninja down"? The mother's name is "Juggalo Julz", and the father's name is "Druggalo JK47"? Tell me this isn't true. Something about that is just wrong.

I realize I have been told that it's un-Commie of me to make fun of White trash, and there's nothing really funny about a stillborn baby, but sometimes I just can't help myself. It's always sad when a kid dies, but at least she didn't get to be raised by these parents.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.