This blog post is not intended to condone violence or hate

I was checking out some Millenial Woes videos the other day and on each video description was this ridiculous sentence: “This video is not intended to condone violence or hate.”

What the hell? It seems to me that the only type of people who need to put such disclaimers on their videos and websites are people who are intending to condone violence and hate. And yet I’ve listened to more than 30 hours of Millenial Woes videos and none of them have produced in me an urge to hate or to be violent.

It reminds me of the time I directed a porn shoot in January of 1996. I didn’t know what I was doing. So when it was all done, all the actors spontaneously lined up before the camera and announced, “I was not under the influence of alcohol and drugs when I made this video.” And then they all showed their recent HIV-free tests.

It would never occur to me to put a disclaimer on my video and blog posts because there’s no way that they can be construed as promoting violence and hate.

If you listen to talk radio, and it is almost all on the right, there’s just this current of rage surging through it, even on moderate shows like the one conducted by Dennis Prager. For years I’d come away with a feeling of rage after listening to Prager. It had to be calculated.

I rarely after watching an Alt Right video or reading an Alt Right book or essay, but I always feel rage after listening to talk radio. Talk radio and Fox News are conservatism for stupid people.

Former right-wing talk radio director Dan Shelley wrote Nov. 17, 2008:

The former news director of WTMJ reveals how talk show hosts like Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner work to get us angry.

I first got into journalism because I thought I could make a difference.
I wrote for the school newspaper and did “news” reports on a radio station a friend and I started at my high school in Springfield, Mo. I got my first professional job at age 20, while still in college, at a local radio station’s news department. Three years later, I became a news director, and 12 years after that, in 1995, I was recruited to move to Milwaukee to become news director at WTMJ, one of the largest and most successful news/talk radio stations in America.
That was where my real education occurred.
I worked for three years as news director, and then, in 1998, gained the additional title of assistant program director, a role I held until leaving the station in July 2006. From that position, I worked closely with our talk show hosts and became intimately familiar with how they appeal to listeners and shape their vision of the world. Let me tell you some of the lessons I learned.
To begin with, talk show hosts such as Charlie Sykes – one of the best in the business – are popular and powerful because they appeal to a segment of the population that feels disenfranchised and even victimized by the media. These people believe the media are predominantly staffed by and consistently reflect the views of social liberals. This view is by now so long-held and deep-rooted, it has evolved into part of virtually every conservative’s DNA.
To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate the notion that his or her listeners are victims, and the host is the vehicle by which they can become empowered. The host frames virtually every issue in us-versus-them terms. There has to be a bad guy against whom the host will emphatically defend those loyal listeners.
This enemy can be a politician – either a Democratic officeholder or, in rare cases where no Democrat is convenient to blame, it can be a “RINO” (a “Republican In Name Only,” who is deemed not conservative enough). It can be the cold, cruel government bureaucracy. More often than not, however, the enemy is the “mainstream media” – local or national, print or broadcast.
Sometimes, it can even be their own station’s news director. One year, Charlie targeted me because I had instructed my midday news anchor to report the Wimbledon tennis results, even though the matches wouldn’t be telecast until much later in the day. Charlie gave out my phone number and e-mail address on the air. I was flooded with hate mail, nasty messages, and even one death threat from a federal law enforcement agent whom I knew to be a big Charlie fan.
In the talk radio business, this concept, which must be mastered to be successful, is called “differentiating” yourself from the rest of the media. It is a brilliant marketing tactic that has also helped Fox News Channel thrive. “We report, you decide” and “Fair and Balanced” are more than just savvy slogans. They are code words signaling that only Fox will report the news in a way conservatives see as objective and truthful.
Forget any notion, however, that radio talk shows are supposed to be fair, evenhanded discussions featuring a diversity of opinions. The Fairness Doctrine, which required this, was repealed 20 years ago. So talk shows can be, and are, all about the host’s opinions, analyses and general worldview. Programmers learned long ago that benign conversations led by hosts who present all sides of an issue don’t attract large audiences. That’s why Kathleen Dunn was forced out at WTMJ in the early ’90s and why Jim and Andee were replaced in the mid-’90s by Dr. Laura. Pointed and provocative are what win.
There is no way to win a disagreement with Charlie Sykes. Calls from listeners who disagree with him don’t get on the air if the show’s producer, who generally does the screening, fears they might make Charlie look bad. I witnessed several occasions when Sen. Russ Feingold, former Mayor John Norquist, Mayor Tom Barrett or others would call in, but wouldn’t be allowed on the air.
Opponents are far more likely to get through when the producer is confident Charlie can use the dissenting caller to reinforce his original point. Ask former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Publisher Keith Spore, or former Police Chief Arthur Jones. How can Charlie do that? By belittling the caller’s point of view. You can always tell, however, when the antagonist has gotten the better of Charlie. That’s when he starts attacking the caller personally.
But the worst fate comes for those who ignore Charlie when he asks on the air why they did or didn’t do something, and they never respond. That leaves him free to make his point unabated, day after day. The most frequent victims of this were Journal Sentinel Editor Marty Kaiser and Managing Editor George Stanley.
Charlie knew they would rarely call or e-mail to answer his criticism, so he could both criticize decisions they had made and blast them for not having the guts to come on his show and respond. What little credibility they had among Charlie’s audience would decline by a thousand cuts. It would have been far better for them to face Charlie head on and take their lumps so he would move on to the next victim – I mean, topic.
One entire group that rarely gets on the air are the elderly callers – unless they have something extraordinary to say. Sadly, that doesn’t happen often. The theory is that old-sounding callers help produce old-skewing audiences. The target demo is 25 to 54, not 65 and older.
Talk radio, after all, is in the entertainment business. But that doesn’t mean it has no impact on public policy. Quite the contrary.
The stereotyped liberal view of the talk radio audience is that it’s a lot of angry, uneducated white men. In fact, the audience is far more diverse. Many are businesspeople, doctors, lawyers, academics, clergy, or soccer moms and dads. Talk show fans are not stupid. They will detect an obvious phony. The best hosts sincerely believe everything they say. Their passion is real. Their arguments have been carefully crafted in a manner they know will be meaningful to the audience, and that validates the views these folks were already thinking.
Yet while talk show audiences aren’t being led like lemmings to a certain conclusion, they can be carefully prodded into agreement with the Republican views of the day.
Conservative talk show hosts would receive daily talking points e-mails from the Bush White House, the Republican National Committee and, during election years, GOP campaign operations. They’re not called talking points, but that’s what they are. I know, because I received them, too. During my time at WTMJ, Charlie would generally mine the e-mails, then couch the daily message in his own words. Midday talker Jeff Wagner would be more likely to rely on them verbatim. But neither used them in their entirety, or every single day.
Charlie and Jeff would also check what other conservative talk show hosts around the country were saying. Rush Limbaugh’s Web site was checked at least once daily. Atlanta-based nationally syndicated talker Neal Boortz was another popular choice. Select conservative blogs were also perused.
A smart talk show host will, from time to time, disagree publicly with a Republican president, the Republican Party, or some conservative doctrine. (President Bush’s disastrous choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was one such example.) But these disagreements are strategically chosen to prove the host is an independent thinker, without appreciably harming the president or party. This is not to suggest that hosts don’t genuinely disagree with the conservative line at times. They do, more often than you might think. But they usually keep it to themselves.
One of the things that makes a talk show host good – especially hosts of the caliber of Sykes – is that his or her arguments seem so solid. You fundamentally disagree with the host, yet can’t refute the argument because it sounds so airtight. The host has built a strong case with lots of supporting facts.
Generally speaking, though, those facts have been selectively chosen because they support the host’s preconceived opinion, or can be interpreted to seem as if they do. In their frustration, some talk show critics accuse hosts of fabricating facts. Wrong. Hosts do gather evidence, but in a way that modifies the old Joe Friday maxim: “Just the facts that I can use to make my case, ma’am.”
Hint: The more talk show hosts squawk about something – the louder their voice, the greater their emotion, the more effusive their arguments – the more they’re worried about the issue. For example, talk show hosts eagerly participated in the 2004 Swift Boating of John Kerry because they really feared he was going to win. This is a common talk show tactic: If you lack compelling arguments in favor of your candidate or point of view, attack the other side. These attacks often rely on two key rhetorical devices, which I call You Know What Would Happen If and The Preemptive Strike.
Using the first strategy, a host will describe something a liberal has said or done that conservatives disagree with, but for which the liberal has not been widely criticized, and then say, “You know what would happen if a conservative had said (or done) that? He (or she) would have been filleted by the ‘liberal media.'” This is particularly effective because it’s a two-fer, simultaneously reinforcing the notion that conservatives are victims and that “liberals” are the enemy.
The second strategy, The Preemptive Strike, is used when a host knows that news reflecting poorly on conservative dogma is about to break or become more widespread. When news of the alleged massacre at Haditha first trickled out in the summer of 2006, not even Iraq War chest-thumper Charlie Sykes would defend the U.S. Marines accused of killing innocent civilians in the Iraqi village. So he spent lots of air time criticizing how the “mainstream media” was sure to sensationalize the story in the coming weeks. Charlie would kill the messengers before any message had even been delivered.
Good talk show hosts can get their listeners so lathered up that they truly can change public policy. They can inspire like-minded folks to flood the phone lines and e-mail inboxes of aldermen, county supervisors, legislators and federal lawmakers. They can inspire their followers to vote for candidates the hosts prefer. How? By pounding away on an issue or candidate, hour after hour, day after day. Hosts will extol the virtues of the favored candidate or, more likely, exploit whatever Achilles heel the other candidate might have. Influencing elections is more likely to occur at the local rather than national level, but that still gives talk radio power.
By the way, here’s a way to prognosticate elections just by listening to talk shows: Except in presidential elections, when they will always carry water for the Republican nominee, conservative hosts won’t hurt their credibility by backing candidates they think can’t win. So if they’re uncharacteristically tepid, or even silent, about a particular race, that means the Democrat has a good chance of winning. Nor will hosts spend their credibility on an issue where they know they disagree with listeners. Charlie, for example, told me just before I left TMJ that Wisconsin’s 2006 anti-gay marriage amendment was misguided. But he knew his followers would likely vote for it in droves. So he declined to speak out directly against it.
This brings us to perhaps the most ironic thing about most talk show hosts. Though they may savage politicians and others they oppose, they fear criticism or critiques of any kind. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
One day during a very bad snowstorm, I walked into the studio during a commercial break and suggested to Charlie that he start talking about it rather than whatever conservative topic he’d been discussing. Charlie assumed, as he usually did in such situations, that I was being critical of his topic. In reaction, he unplugged his head phones, stood up and told me that I might as well take over the show because he wasn’t going to change his topic. I was able to quickly strike a bargain before the end of the break. He agreed to take a few calls about the storm, but if it didn’t a strike a nerve with callers, he could return to his original topic.
The snowstorm was the topic of the rest of his show that day. And afterward, Charlie came to my office and admitted I’d been right. But we would go through scenarios such as this many times through the years.
Another tense moment arose when the Harley-Davidson 100th anniversary was captivating the community – and our on-air coverage – in 2003, but Charlie wanted to talk about school choice for seemingly the 100,000th time. He literally threw a fit, off the air and on, belittling other hosts, the news department and station management for devoting resources to Harley’s 100th coverage. “The Green House” newsman Phil Cianciola countered that afternoon with a joke about Charlie riding a Harley wearing loafers. Charlie complained to management about Phil and wouldn’t speak civilly about him in my presence again.
Hosts are most dangerous when someone they’ve targeted for criticism tries to return the fire. It is foolish to enter into a dispute with someone who has a 50,000-watt radio transmitter at his or her disposal and feels cornered. Oh, and calling a host names – “right-winger,” “fascist,” “radio squawker,” etc. – merely plays into his or her hands. This allows a host like Sykes to portray himself as a victim of the “left-wing spin machine,” and will leave his listeners, who also feel victimized, dying to support him. In essence, the host will mount a Hillary Rodham Clinton “vast right-wing conspiracy” attack in reverse.
A conservative emulating Hillary? Yep. A great talk show host is like a great college debater, capable of arguing either side of any issue in a logical, thorough and convincing manner. This skill ensures their continuing success regardless of which political party is in power. For example:
In the talk show world, the line-item veto was the most effective way to control government spending when Ronald Reagan was president; it was a violation of the separation of powers after President Clinton took office.

Perjury was a heinous crime when Clinton was accused of lying under oath about his extramarital activities. But when Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, was charged with lying under oath, it was the prosecutor who had committed an egregious act by charging Libby with perjury.

“Activist judges” are the scourge of the earth when they rule it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the rights heterosexuals receive. But judicial activism is needed to stop the husband of a woman in a persistent vegetative state – say Terri Schiavo – from removing her feeding tube to end her suffering.
To amuse myself while listening to a talk show, I would ask myself what the host would say if the situation were reversed. What if alleged D.C. Madam client Sen. David Vitter had been a Democrat? Would the reaction of talk show hosts have been so quiet you could hear crickets chirping? Hardly.
Or what if former Rep. Mark Foley had been a Democrat? Would his pedophile-like tendencies have been excused as a “prank” or mere “overfriendly e-mails?” Not on the life of your teenage son.
Suppose Al Gore was president and ordered an invasion of Iraq without an exit strategy. Suppose this had led to the deaths of more than 4,000 U.S. troops and actually made that part of the world less stable. Would talk show hosts have dismissed criticism of that war as unpatriotic? No chance.
Or imagine that John Kerry had been president during Hurricane Katrina and that his administration’s rescue and rebuilding effort had been horribly botched. Would talk show hosts have branded him a great president? Of course not.
It was Katrina, finally, that made me truly see the light. Until then, 10 years into my time at TMJ, while I might have disagreed with some stands the hosts took, I did think there were grounds for their constant criticism of the media. I had convinced myself that the national media had an intrinsic bias that was, at the very least, geographical if not ideological, to which talk radio could provide an alternative.
Then along came the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. Journalists risked their lives to save others as the storm hit the Gulf Coast. Afterward, journalists endured the stench and the filth to chronicle the events for a stunned world. Then they documented the monumental government incompetence for an outraged nation. These journalists became voices for the voiceless victims, pressing government officials to get help to those who needed it.
Yet, while New Orleans residents were still screaming for help from the rooftops of their flooded homes, journalists were targeted by talk show hosts, Charlie and Wagner among them. Not the government, but journalists. Stories detailing the federal government’s obvious slowness and inefficiency were part of an “angry left” conspiracy, they said. Talk show hosts who used e-mailed talking points from the conservative spin machine proclaimed the Katrina stories were part of a liberal “media template.” The irony would have been laughable if the story wasn’t so serious.
I went to Charlie and Jeff and told them my concerns. They waved me off. I went to Program Director Rick Belcher and told him I thought Charlie and Jeff had things terribly wrong. He disagreed. I was distraught. I felt I was actively participating in something so inconsistent with reality that even most conservative talk radio devotees would see this. But in a way, it was merely a more obvious example of how talk radio portrayed reality selectively.
I was a dedicated program manager. I helped the hosts at my station do show prep by finding stories I knew would pique their interest and fire up their constituencies. I met with Charlie Sykes daily, about a half-hour before show time, to help him talk through topics before going on the air. Charlie is one of the smartest people I know, but he performs at his best with that kind of preparation.
I often defended Jeff Wagner from upset moderates and liberals in the community. Jeff’s a very good talk show host whose brilliance is overshadowed only by his stubbornness.
I helped our program directors try to find the right role for Mark Reardon, who, in my opinion, was always miscast (he wasn’t as right-wing as Sykes or Wagner and his job was switched several times). Ultimately, that miscasting helped his career, because WTMJ laid him off, after which he became a talk show star in St. Louis, a much larger market.
I worked with news and sports hosts, too – Robb Edwards, Jon Belmont, Ken Herrera, Jonathan Green, Len Kasper, Bill Michaels – to help them craft ways to sound human and “real” behind the microphone without violating the separation of church and state that existed between the station’s talk and news programming. Sometimes I succeeded. Sometimes I didn’t.
And we were successful, consistently ranking No. 1 among persons 12 and older and in the top five in the advertiser-coveted 25 to 54 demo. Yet I was often angrily asked, once by then-Mayor John Norquist, why we just didn’t change our call letters to “WGOP.” The complaints were just another sign of our impact.
I left WTMJ with some regret, attracted by an offer to work in the cutting edge field of digital media at one of the nation’s largest news and entertainment conglomerates. By then, I had worked more than 26 years in radio news and more than 23 as a news director. In the constant push for ratings, I had seen and helped foster the transformation of AM radio and the rise of conservative hosts. They have a power that is unlikely to decline.
Their rise was also helped by liberals whose ideology, after all, emphasizes tolerance. Their friendly toleration of talk radio merely gave the hosts more credibility. Yet an attitude of intolerance was probably worse: It made the liberals look hypocritical, giving ammunition to talk show hosts who used it with great skill.
But the key reason talk radio succeeds is because its hosts can exploit the fears and perceived victimization of a large swath of conservative-leaning listeners. And they feel victimized because many liberals and moderates have ignored or trivialized their concerns and have stereotyped these Americans as uncaring curmudgeons.
Because of that, there will always be listeners who believe that Charlie Sykes, Jeff Wagner and their compatriots are the only members of the media who truly care about them.

Posted in Censorship, Radio | Comments Off on This blog post is not intended to condone violence or hate

Why Is Trump Moving The U.S. Embassy To Jerusalem?

This is the best explanation I’ve heard yet.

Andrew Sullivan writes:

I have to say I roll my eyes at the various attempts to explain President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state, and to make plans to move the U.S. embassy there. Is it an attempt to shake up the region to make peace more possible — or merely a strategic concession to reality? Why would Trump give the Israelis such a gift while asking nothing in return? Tom Friedman ponderously asks. And how on earth does it help the U.S. in navigating the entire region, since it guts any American pretense at even the appearance of neutrality? The earnest questions are everywhere.

And they are ridiculous. The reason for this move is self-evident. The Trump administration believes in the project of Greater Israel, and the right of just one people to control all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. They believe this as a theological and moral imperative, and all other diplomatic considerations take second place. Who are the key figures who hold this belief? Jared Kushner, the dauphin who has dedicated his short adult life to obliterating any concept of a Palestinian state; the U.S. ambassador David Friedman, whose commitment to Jewish supremacy in Greater Israel has always been total; and Mike Pence, whose theological conviction is that Israel must be made whole and eternal (and the Palestinians wished away) if the Second Coming is to arrive. Sometimes, Occam’s razor really helps. There is no need to wonder why this has happened. It has happened because this is now U.S. policy: the extirpation of the Palestinian cause and the complete conflation of America’s national interest with Greater Israel’s in the region. This is what Sheldon Adelson paid for and what Ralph Reed demands. And this is what they will get.

Take the absurdity of Kushner as an envoy to both sides. Appointing him to oversee an Israel-Palestine two-state solution is like appointing David Duke to resolve America’s racial tensions…

Posted in Jerusalem | Comments Off on Why Is Trump Moving The U.S. Embassy To Jerusalem?

Ovadiah Yosef – The Early Years (1)

I’m listening to this lecture by Marc B. Shapiro for Torah in Motion. Apparently, the late Israeli sage Ovadiah Yosef did not come from a distinguished rabbinic family. He had two brothers who were not religious.

The Sephardim have few haredim (fervently religious). Sephardim tend to be traditional. They’re not schismatic like the Ashkenazim.

Ashkenazim have average IQs around 108, Sephardim around 97 and Mizrahim (Middle Eastern Jews) of around 92.

Marc: “When you see pictures of Rav [Yosef Shalom] Elyashiv [who didn’t remember the names of his children let alone grandchildren], he always looks dour. Despite learning all the time, Rav Yosef was a people person. He smiles, he jokes. There must be a thousand videos of him giving his trademark slap in the face. In the last video he gave, the Haaretz reporter gets the slap on the face.”

“He never acquired any non-Torah knowledge.”

“The story they tell about Rav Mordecai Eliyahu was that they were showing him around a museum in France and he asked, ‘Who is Napoleon?'”

“[Rav Yosef] knew the Tanach by heart (a common Sephardic custom)… Unless you learn it by 14, you won’t learn it.”

“It used to be that day schools wouldn’t hire [secular Jewish] teachers if they were inter-married. That day is long gone.”

It is against American law to refuse to hire teachers based on their religion so almost all Orthodox Jewish day schools hire secular Jews and non-Jews to teach secular subjects.

Posted in R. Ovadia Yosef | Comments Off on Ovadiah Yosef – The Early Years (1)

Alt Right Torah – Parasha Mikeitz (Gen. 41:1-44.17)

This week’s Torah portion tells the story of “Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt, and Joseph’s testing of his brothers.”

* My cohost Dennis Dale asks: Is Judaism a proposition religion?

* The story of Joseph illustrates why Jews have rarely been popular with non-Jews but have often been useful to gentile rulers. Joseph was the first court Jew. He became second in power to the Pharoah and he took on, to some degree, an Egyptian point of view. He accuses his brothers of being spies. An ethnocentric group is quick to view outsiders as spies. Jews have sometimes accused me of being a spy in my conversion to Judaism. Anglos, being the least ethno-centric group around, are unlikely to view outsiders as spies.

* Joseph did not learn much from his experience. In Gen. 43:34, he gives Benjamin portions five times as large as the portions given to the rest of his brothers.

* Joseph is ruthless in the way he exercises his power. I can’t imagine greater cruelty in the way he treated his brothers. When I converted to Judaism, I was shocked by how ruthless rabbis were in the way they exercised their power. Great powers are ruthless in how they use their power. Bosses are ruthless in the way they exercise their power depending upon how much power they have over you. If they feel like you could leave for another job at any time, they will treat you better than if they feel they own you.

The more confident Jews and non-Jews feel, the more ruthless they will be in wielding their power.

* How does it help America to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?

* How does white nationalism compare with Jewish nationalism?

* John J. Mearsheimer’s three recent lectures at Yale on liberal hegemony.

* What is the basis of morality? God, the state, evolutionary biology?

I asked Greg Johnson (Editor Counter-Currents.com) on Sunday.

Luke: “Do you believe in objective morality and objective good and evil?”

Greg: “Yes. I think that morality and good and evil and things like that are based on nature. I follow the classical Greek notion of Natural Law and Natural Right. I believe those are reasonable views, that we can come up with an ethics that is based on nature, that’s not based simply on social convention or simply on revelation and appeals to religion. Science and socio-biology gives us a lot of useful information for constructing this ethic. Larry Arnhart has written a book called Darwinian Natural Rights. He’s influenced by classical political philosophy and natural rights thinking and yet he shows that socio-biology supports a lot of the naturalistic ethical ideas that you find in classical Greek and Roman political philosophy. That is the outlook that I think is most promising. By appealing to science and to classical philosophy, we can come up with a moral consensus and political consensus that is reason-based and science-based and that allows us to sidestep inherently contentious and sometimes violence-inducing things like appeals to religious revelation.”

On November 26, 2017, I asked Richard Spencer: “What is the source of morality?”

Richard: “That’s a very deep question.”

“Morality and theology are ways of building a group consensus without using direct force so that people feel like they are… There’s an evolutionary origin of morality.”

From the live Youtube chat:

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​greetings, Chosenites

Rullion​theres a hebrew poster of jerusalem behind you…what gives ?

Rafael​There was an article from the Times of Israel earlier this year saying that Sheldon Adelson was impatient with Trump on Jerusalem. He hadn’t donated since the inauguration

4trahasis​Shalom & Shadilay, Chosenites and goyim

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Rafael not surprising

Rafael​A few days ago there was another article from the ToI saying that he was just fulfilling a campaign promise

Rullion​because he was told to thats why

4trahasis​@Rullion - the Hebrew says Yerushalaim – Jerusalem.

Rullion​yeah thats what i said

4trahasis​👌

Rullion​I’m not familiar with this channel

Reinstalt moska​any mods here?

Reinstalt moska​how can i join the streamvoicechat?

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​No mods, dude

Reinstalt moska​hrm=/

Untethered Tube​Dennis here

Rullion​these guys jews ?

Untethered Tube​Luke is. Not us.

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Dennis EMJ says it’s a civil war in the U.S. between the right and left wing Jews, so maybe Trump is simply on the side of right wing Jews

4trahasis​It pisses off the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, etc… so I’m happy in that sense. As for benefits to Trump and U.S.? It will increase Arab/Muslim insanity, and prove Trump even more right about them.

Untethered Tube​who’s EMJ?

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​E Michael Jones, you should check his channel out. Luke is also a fan of his.

4trahasis​Increased terrorism means increased light on Muslim violence, means maybe Europe wakes up more.

Rullion​shut your door your cat just escaped !

Reinstalt moska​do they read the chat

Reinstalt moska​ask them about the BDS boycott divestment sanctions

Rullion​only one now

4trahasis​@Untethered Tube – cat is getting out.

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@4 logically, it should, but the Cathedral will push diversity no matter what

Untethered Tube​thanks

Ignacy Dobrzyński​AIPAC buys our Foreign Policy. Mearsheimer could tell you that, too.

Rullion​bolsheviks weren’t jews either right ?

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​^ Casey knows but let’s not only blame Jews. Bolsheviks also rose to power with atheist Russians.

Ignacy Dobrzyński​That’s not what Putin has said

Rafael​CoC talks about how jews recruited gentiles to appear less jewish

Luke Ford​i read the chat

Rullion​so becasue there are goym involved we cant say its the jews ? fair enough but we must say its not only the jews.

Reinstalt moska​can you comment on the bds against israel

Reinstalt moska​rullion lets put it this way, Iraq fought against israel, not all jews do, what particular jews do rullion?

Reinstalt moska​poor and middle class jews dont

Reinstalt moska​but not all rich, but fear of persecution does

Reinstalt moska​so whats going to happen is, since 1967, which was a self defense war against muslims and arabs

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​I’m saying let’s also blame ourselves for letting them get power. Even Solzhenitsyn said they won because Russian Orthodoxy was not deep enough within the Russian people to fight off Bolshevism

Reinstalt moska​blame and blame, what are people going to do about those who are insane?

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Ignacy What did Putin say?

Rullion​fair point not all jews. agreed

Rullion​not all terrorist are muslim

Reinstalt moska​the question is:WHO in particular jews, and what organisations? and how to prevent simular situations

Ignacy Dobrzyński​Pepe – There is a video from a few years back where Putin is talking to an audience filled with Rabbis and whatnot. he said the Bolshevik leadership was I think about 85% jewish.

Ignacy Dobrzyński​I can look for the video if you like

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​^ That’s fair and true, no problem with that statement

Untethered Tube​Jerusalem is Trump’s capitulation to the lobby

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Dennis, that’s what EMJ said. Great minds think alike.

Reinstalt moska​well trump did marry ivanka off to kushner guy, Think of it like this:back in the old Days they marry their sons and daughter soff to each kingdom so they wouldnt attack eachother most likely

Reinstalt moska​since they wouldnt want their Children kille

Reinstalt moska​d

Ignacy Dobrzyński​Agree that it could be a capitulation to zionists. Maybe in exchange Trump has asked for them to STFU about Iran….since Iran has not attacked anyone in 270 years

4trahasis​Derrida

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​Bottom line: for European man, when Christianity is weak, Judaism is strong. That is the arc of our history since Christ walked the earth.

Untethered Tube​I just hope Trump got something for it

4trahasis​Pepe, it’s like the story of Esau and Jacob , when one is strong the other is weak.

Rullion​he gets a giant menorah for the white house

VisionaryCompanion​Why Judaism?

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​You guys should see the Christkindlmarkt here in Chicago. On the same square there’s a huge 🕎. Blasphemy!!!

Ignacy Dobrzyński​Millenniyule chats start today. Millennial Woes will be speaking with Sargon, Coach Red Pill, Bre Faucheux, and Four King radio today. Starts in an hour and a half.

4trahasis​Sweet, thanks Ignacy

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Ignacy thanks, loved it last year

VisionaryCompanion​The question of why this guy chose Judaism as a way of getting out of porn is never addressed. It is like a quirk that we are supposed to marvel at, as if it were a sign of great depth of insight

VisionaryCompanion​If for no other reason than that it is irrational and stupid

James Edward​Hail Victory. When Richard was on your show it was the best show.

4trahasis​VC – He’s detailed it over the years. I think his discussion of a Prager book years ago was the first I remember, back in the days of Rabbi Rabbs being a guest.

Ignacy Dobrzyński​Andrew Joyce is by far my favorite guest

James Edward​I went to college and graduated hating God and hated being white. Explain why that is.

VisionaryCompanion​What does this tell us about the value of Judaism?

Rullion​the porn industry is run by muslims

Ignacy Dobrzyński​lol, what?

Rafael​Can you talk about how marxism came from judaism?

James Edward​Tell us more about Judaism??? Why do jews want to dominate us?

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​because they hate Christ, it’s really that simple

Untethered Tube​Protocols of the Elders of Islam

Rullion​lol

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​the Ayatollah is my landlord

Untethered Tube​The Happy Camel Merchant

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​das Ende

VisionaryCompanion​Tikkun Olam, etc

Rullion​המאבק שלי

4trahasis​The Selfish Meme

Untethered Tube​Where IS Vivian?

VisionaryCompanion​Her presence made this thing bearable

4trahasis​Tikkun HaBrit

Rullion​celibacy has been forced upon me

Rullion​i went bald

VisionaryCompanion​Once one’s eyes are open, one cannot close them again. Kevin MacDonald cannot be wiped from my memory banks.

Rullion​ye must be born again, thats the only way to love Gods law

Untethered Tube​There’s no going back from CofC

Untethered Tube​Once you go anti-Semite, nothing else feels right

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Dennis what is CoC?

Untethered Tube​Culture of Critique

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​right, duh

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​the fear of Hell is a good thing

VisionaryCompanion​E Michael Jones may have flaws, but he is illuminating on the Jews.

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@VC Luke wants to get him on the show. EMJ needs to get on board regarding race, though

Rullion​yeah but EMJ says john calvin was a jew so all credibility lost

4trahasis​Pepe – Hell is the invasion of your lands and your people being destroyed. In this world.

VisionaryCompanion​It is the idea that there is more than the law; there is a relationship with the Law-giver, who is embodied in Logos.

Ignacy Dobrzyński​@Luke Ford – Michael Hoffman woulkd be a challenging guest for you to have on, but I don’t see him interviewed much. A Goy expert on the talmud.

Rullion​yes what he said

VisionaryCompanion​I mean, Matthew Arnold spoke of the legalism of the Jews in Culture and Anarchy, over 150 years ago

VisionaryCompanion​And contrasted what he called dry Hebraism with Hellenism

4trahasis​There was a Rabbinic saying: even greater than the Torah (Law) revealed to Moses on Sinai, are acts of Gemilut Chasadim (Loving-Kindness).

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Ignacy have you read Hoffman’s book about usury? great stuff

Rullion​this guy must live in a white neighbourhood, sitting there with his door open. I scared for your safty

Ignacy Dobrzyński​@Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying? – I have not

Untethered Tube​I have an arrangement with my Somali neighbors

Rullion​The fact Christianity brings order is a inference to its validity ?

Untethered Tube​What R?

VisionaryCompanion​The mere fact that faith is a choice from manifold traditions means that it is not faith as it was known to the medieval peasant in 1400.

Rullion​what you were saying is is its needed to bring order to society..no

Rullion​We have the Spirit and the Word my friend

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​Man wants not freedom, rather a just master -Mithridates

VisionaryCompanion​Again, the lawgiver as embodied in Logos, as opposed to mere laws.

Rullion​thats why southern nationalist have a more compelling world view that the basic alt righter

VisionaryCompanion​Can the Western/Greek/Roman Dominique Venner vision of tradition be reconciled with the Talmud?

Rullion​harvey weinstein for president

4trahasis​There is no difficulty in reconciliation, VC. Talmud speaks of the Seven Laws for the Children of Noah (i.e. goyim), and one of these seven is Dinim, Courts, and that goyim are to judge themselves.

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​esoteric MAGA

4trahasis​Esoteric Trumpism

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​Peterson is, yes

Rullion​anybody who avoids the jq is a cuck

4trahasis​Peterson has more indigeneous art and symbolism in his home, than Western. Despite talking of the Logos and The Gulag Archipelago.

VisionaryCompanion​The material, aesthetic riches of the West are a mere obstacle to be dissolved, to the Jews. They hate those riches because they are rooted in a collective, lived participation in god in the world.

4trahasis​They seek to dissolve them, because they will not dissolve themselves into it.

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Luke you should have Gene Simmons on the show

Western Man​Shalom lads

4trahasis​I’d like to see him on Milleniyule

4trahasis​Shalom

4trahasis​is that all garble?

Western Man​Hence the term “Talmudic argument” casey

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​The Bible did nothing wrong

Reporter​Alt right Torah ‘ Awesome!! Torah belongs to All

Rullion​yes that why we used to have catechisms

Reporter​עברתי על 5 לאווים מדאורייתא

Reporter​היהודים באים

Untethered Tube​How dare you

Reporter​This guy does not have the story of Judaism at all…

Luke Ford​​היהודים באים

VisionaryCompanion​The story in full woud terrify him.

Reporter​Jews have a phobia of Jesus because it was foreign to them for 1900 years… nothing to do with theology at all…

Western Man​The Christian dialectic – between patriarchal ethno nationalist Old Testament and passive universalistic New Testament

Reporter​Joe Blow is correct ‘ religion was created by governments….

Western Man​The Jewish dialectic – gods chosen, the goyim are cattle and…. profit????

Rullion​jews prefer to stay in the cave and delude themselves

VisionaryCompanion​Cambria Will not Yield would disagree, and would say that Christ did not result in Christendom except in Europe

VisionaryCompanion​The rightist beef against Christianity is that it contains the egalitarianism virus because of its impicit universalism.

Wictor Lunde​why are they so mean

Western Man​I’m 24 but thanks Luke 👍🏻

Wictor Lunde​i think if everyone just shares and is nice to eachother everything would be a lot better

Untethered Tube​Judaism is masculine, Christianity is feminine

VisionaryCompanion​Both the men and the yentas are masculine.

VisionaryCompanion​Low sexual dimorphism. Gotta love the jews.

Maximilian​Would a return to ‘paganism’ be a solution for the European peoples?

Rullion​the 3rd reich was feminine

Wictor Lunde​Hitler was a crossdresser

Untethered Tube​return to the Anglican Church

Rafael​There’s that infamous video called “Religious Jews are asked about the Talmud” where a group of Hasidic jews talk about how the goyim only exist to serve jews. One says how we build their cars etc

Luke Ford​all ethnocentric groups are like this

VisionaryCompanion​Now, we have anglican clerics praying that a royal infant will become a poofter.

Rullion​please dont use the p word

Rullion​but silence when it comes to whites genocide in south africa

VisionaryCompanion​And Joe Slovo, a Jew, felt perfectly Jewish when he sang the “Kill the Boer” song with blood-lusting niggers.

4trahasis​#barf

4trahasis​Diversity means becoming a grey mob.

Bernard Brightson​Has the moving of the Embassy to Jerusalem been mentioned earlier in the stream?

Rullion​jewish DNA define please

4trahasis​Did they have a halachic conversion?

Untethered Tube​Yes Bernard

VisionaryCompanion​And in this country, they started the NAACP, to use the unwitting blacks as a weapon

4trahasis​And that’s what happens when you compromise on your racism.

Western Man​Jews seek to have many of their racial insecurities foisted upon competitors. They rejoice in white/black miscegenation yet their own DNA illustrates substantial admixture

VisionaryCompanion​Black/White Miscegenation was a conscious part of the plan. Idiot college students who have read two books in their lives will feel smart because they have read Malcolm X and Richard Wright.

James Edward​Casey is such a cuck. So soft on white identity.

Western Man​They also seek to appropriate “Aryan” qualities which they have historically sneered at. Blonde hair is sought for in Isreal, boxer klitschko is lauded as proof of Jewish athleticism, yet he is slavic

VisionaryCompanion​It is sickening. It is the Bulworth approach to race.

James Edward​Casey is weak. I want to be the opposite of his thinking.

Untethered Tube​submit Judaism to the Socratic method

VisionaryCompanion​That movie in which the politician who decided that the answer was for all races to hump their way to slurry of beige sameness

Western Man​Have Socrates fondle Judaism like he did his boy students..

Untethered Tube​lame

VisionaryCompanion​It is amazing how all this supposed cerebration leads to something so bland as the mocha solution

VisionaryCompanion​There is a kind of thought that stops thought, and that is the one kind of thought that should be stopped

Western Man​Lol

James Edward​Casey needs to love being white. He hates being white

Western Man​(((Casey))) the (((Christian)))

James Edward​Western Man. I agree (((Casey))). Doesn’t have any love for his people.

VisionaryCompanion​The mocha solution is appealing to dullards who shy away from “value judgements,” but it is promoted by intelligent mephistophelians who have every intention of being among the coudenhovian elite.

James Edward​Thanks for being my comment.

James Edward​Reading

Western Man​Nah casey is a good lad. He is on our side ultimately. He’s just black pulled because he can’t personally stop the Rothschilds etc.

Untethered Tube​Good point VC

Untethered Tube​Casey is midway through his journey

Natz Sloshenheimer​As a joke I might tell some fellow goy acquaintances “What have you done for the Jews this month?” and go on about how most of us are alive thanks to a white jew named Fritz Haber

Luke Ford​lol

Western Man​I know casey pales in comparison to Denis “1488” Dale but cut him some slack, he’s getting there

4trahasis​What of the NatSoc model: remove foreigners from State affairs.

James Edward​Untethered good point I think Casey is half way there. I hope he changes and starts loving his people.

Natz Sloshenheimer​Fritz Haber figured out how to extract Nitrogen from the atmosphere, so it can be used for fertilization of crops. Could not have this population level otherwise.

4trahasis​We should just have an Israeli President and get it over with.

4trahasis​The Episode Wherein Casey Washes His Hands Of White Genocide

4trahasis​Much ❤ tho

VisionaryCompanion​Atomized into a rosy mist.

Chrls​or is it that other martin luther, casey

Natz Sloshenheimer​Next time white liberal friends talk about white guilt, I should remind them about Fritz Haber being the reason we are alive

Untethered Tube​I have to check out at 11

gjjd​This reminds me of the phrase “morality is a will to power.” SOciety imposes rules to change incentives for beliefs and behaviors in order to get you to behave certain ways

gjjd​^that is a kind of power: morals can be used to control people

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​serious red pill right now, Chicago approves

Western Man​Morality is a group will to power, imposed by the group in order to be cohesive and thusly defeat competitor groups. War is the true beginning of morality In a paradoxical way.

VisionaryCompanion​It only means that when we pay attention to disproportionate crime statistics

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​war ensemble

gjjd​did you see the recent report showing that liberals and conservatives in Britain are equally likely to engage in white flight?

Natz Sloshenheimer​gjjd , I certainly think that if one simply wishes to understand the world then it is best to avoid morality. Since most people don’t separate ideas from morality, they can never gain full agency

VisionaryCompanion​And our notions of law and order are white, and our notions are not shared by blacks, and blacks can only be subordinate and subjected to disproportionate policing and forced to comply.

Western Man​When faced with an existential threat morals are formed for cohesiveness and a will to power to defeat other groups. The better morality is as important as the better warfare

VisionaryCompanion​When blacks are left to their own impulses, they revert back to their african norms.

gjjd​@Western Man I don’t think morals are generally used for inter-group struggle. I think that they are generally made to make the social environment more suitable for the creator of the morals.

VisionaryCompanion​WHile continuing to slaughtering themselves in droves

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​white institutions simply don’t fit blacks

James Edward​Pepe. Good points

James Edward​It’s ok to be Alt-Right.

Western Man​@gjjd there is a natural selection for morals aswell. The Germans required a high work ethic, conformity and outward aggression in order to survive as a people,arose because of geo political situation

gjjd​I really think people get too bent out of shape over the Fed. No real academic economists do

gjjd​@Western Man it is just not quite right to make morality ultimately about inter-group struggle. It can also be intra-group struggle: for example, promiscuous types get an advantage in a promiscuous…

gjjd​…society, an advantage over non-promiscuous types

Western Man​Being surrounded in European land mass by hostile neighbours required a certain moral. There are other factors of course but existential conflicts can’t be overlooked

gjjd​^inverse is also true

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​being white has become a liability, we are truly in bizarro world

Natz Sloshenheimer​I think the most succinct way of thinking of morals is as instincts, not as things that people sit and think about, because it is learned to early (if learned at all)

James Edward​White pride is ok

gjjd​@Natz I think there are a small number of “moral instincts,” which moral psychologists have tried hard to identify, such as harm, fairness, purity, loyalty

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Natz Do you ever listen to the Nordic Resistance podcast? The English one is pretty good

James Edward​Luke we know you studied Judaism but what is your ethnicity? Are you Jewish or…???

gjjd​@Natz however, in real society, we derive far more rules and regulations on behavior than these more basic instincts would dictate

J. Smith​Luke is not ethnically jewish as far as I know.

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​he’s Australian Anglo

beatific2c​white exceptionalism

James Edward​J Smith ok that is what i thought. He looks Eastern European

Natz Sloshenheimer​gjjd, alright, that would seem intuitive. but I think the word instinct could still be used broadly and vaguely because so many morals and values people hold go unquestioned

gjjd​Casey says, positive attitude=goodness. Kinda like the classical concept of “virtue,” that strength and health is virtue, as opposed to our current ideology that sacrifice is good

Luke Ford​I’m Anglo in DNA, 1/16th Chinese

James Edward​Luke. Nice. I knew you were made of awesomeness!! 14

Luke Ford​#14

Natz Sloshenheimer​White pride is OK because (some) Jews are white, and Jews are honorary Aryans because of Fritz Haber inventing cyanide gas ; – )

Bernard Brightson​Much Ado About Nothing

Natz Sloshenheimer​Pepe, I will listen to it sometime

James Edward​Luke can be a great resource to the Alt-Right because of his study of Judaism which is very complex.

Natz Sloshenheimer​This whole “trad thot” concern is absurd. Some people are really delusional, as if “white knights” and “trad thots” are a bigger concern for European civilization than all else

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​Roosh’s video on the thots was pretty funny

Natz Sloshenheimer​women make great propaganda

gjjd​Of course we need female leaders. We need, far more, to have better followers who are not constantly 1488-ing and screaming “gas the kikes,” and demanding that Tara MAKE MORE WHITE BABIES NOWWW!

Pepe Sells but Who’s Buying?​@Natz agree, they can be a decent gateway drug. Anyway, it’s not like the Alt Right is an organization IRL

James Edward​Gjjd good point

Natz Sloshenheimer​Pepe, I thought is was very funny too. Roosh is funny, but he’s prob. quite jaded, and his comments are unbalanced, designed to appease his crowd of nihilistic never-settle-down-ers

Posted in Torah | Comments Off on Alt Right Torah – Parasha Mikeitz (Gen. 41:1-44.17)

The Case For Off-Shore Balancing

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in 2016:

Americans’ distaste for the prevailing grand strategy should come
as no surprise, given its abysmal record over the past quarter century.
In Asia, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are expanding their nuclear
arsenals, and China is challenging the status quo in regional waters. In
Europe, Russia has annexed Crimea, and U.S. relations with Moscow
have sunk to new lows since the Cold War. U.S. forces are still fighting
in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no victory in sight. Despite losing
most of its original leaders, al Qaeda has metastasized across the region.
The Arab world has fallen into turmoil—in good part due to the
United States’ decisions to effect regime change in Iraq and Libya and
its modest efforts to do the same in Syria—and the Islamic State, or
isis, has emerged out of the chaos. Repeated U.S. attempts to broker
Israeli-Palestinian peace have failed, leaving a two-state solution further
away than ever. Meanwhile, democracy has been in retreat worldwide, and the
United States’ use of torture, targeted killings, and other morally dubious practices
has tarnished its image as a defender of human rights and international law.

The United States does not bear sole responsibility for
all these costly debacles, but it has had a hand in most of them. The
setbacks are the natural consequence of the misguided grand strategy
of liberal hegemony that Democrats and Republicans have pursued
for years. This approach holds that the United States must use its
power not only to solve global problems but also to promote a world
order based on international institutions, representative governments,
open markets, and respect for human rights. As “the indispensable
nation,” the logic goes, the United States has the right, responsibility,
and wisdom to manage local politics almost everywhere. At its core,
liberal hegemony is a revisionist grand strategy: instead of calling on
the United States to merely uphold the balance of power in key regions,
it commits American might to promoting democracy everywhere and
defending human rights whenever they are threatened.

Posted in John J. Mearsheimer | Comments Off on The Case For Off-Shore Balancing