Richard Spencer: ‘It’s amusing that a leader of the world’s largest religion effectively believes that religion doesn’t matter.’

BBC: Pope Francis warns world ‘is at war’ after Europe attacks

Pope Francis has warned that a recent wave of jihadist attacks in Europe is proof that “the world is at war”.
However, he stressed he did not mean a war of religions, but rather a conflict over “interests, money, resources”.
He was speaking ahead of his visit to Poland to reporters seeking his comments on the murder of a Catholic priest by French jihadists on Tuesday.
Father Jacques Hamel was killed at a morning mass in his church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, northern France.
The killing was the latest of a spate of attacks carried out in France and Germany over the past few days and weeks, many of them attributed to Islamist militants.
“The word we hear a lot is insecurity, but the real word is war,” the pontiff said.
“We must not be afraid to say the truth, the world is at war because it has lost peace.
“When I speak of war I speak of wars over interests, money, resources, not religion. All religions want peace, it’s the others who want war,” Pope Francis added.

Richard Spencer tweets:

* I’m not sure there is a more contemptible human being than Pope Francis.

* It’s difficult not to conclude that the Catholic Church is rotten to its core.

* A priest was murdered in a church by Muslims, and Papa Francis concludes that it was about money and resources. Ridiculous.

* If only greedy Westerners would have invested in midnight basketball leagues and after-school programs, there’d be no conflict.

Posted in Catholics | Comments Off on Richard Spencer: ‘It’s amusing that a leader of the world’s largest religion effectively believes that religion doesn’t matter.’

Emails: DNC Staffers Annoyed At Having To Commemorate The Holocaust

Daily Caller:

“We aren’t going to do statements for every Jewish holiday unless she wants to do them for every religious holiday and trust me, this Catholic can give you a list of them,” Houghton replied. “Also when she does an official statement it makes very little sense to have two statements out there in her voice.”

Banfill appeared to send a tongue-in-cheek response: “This is about remembering the Holocaust. Never forget.”

“Yup… or Darfur or Armenia or Rwanda or Bosnia (which PS is where my husband served),” Houghton replied. “Does she want us to do one for each other those remembrance days as well?”

Elsewhere in the WikiLeaks email dump, DNC CFO Brad Marshall accused Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders of being an atheist who skates by on his Jewish heritage.

“It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote.

How insensitive! Don’t they know that Jewish suffering is special?

Chaim Amalek writes: “Why would any normal, healthy goy want to “commemorate” or mark Yom Hashoah? Do orthodox Hasids have such a commemoration? As I recall American Jews hardly ever mentioned any of this until Hollywood, in the seventies, figured out there was ratings gold in it. Then their interest became America’s, complete with a museum in Washington, DC. But what about everyone else? Maybe we should have a day to mark the Rwandan Holocaust, with a special recognition given to Bill Clinton for all that he did to stop it.”

Posted in Holocaust | Comments Off on Emails: DNC Staffers Annoyed At Having To Commemorate The Holocaust

The Left Goes Ballistic

Steve Sailer writes: At a ceremony for some of the various policemen recently shot by his fellow Black Lives Matter advocates, President Barack Obama described the postapocalyptic hellscape of gun violence that is America today:

We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book…

In contrast, Donald Trump’s nomination acceptance speech was widely criticized as “dark.” … Pundits who, only days before, had been vociferously lamenting the gun crisis rushed to denounce Trump for fearmongering about crime.

After all, law and order is not supposed to be on the agenda for 2016. … You are supposed to be worrying about guns, not crime.


* Of course we can’t focus on crime – that would require acknowledgement of the fact that we have an incredibly violent subset of the population that is willing to use deadly force to resolve minor and petty disputes, and that would cast the left’s favorite class of victims in a negative light. Better to focus on the mechanism used to mete out punishment to one’s transgressors rather than ask why such a noble group of people are so quick to go to Defcon 1 over matters most people would let go.

* It’s incredible that the president would make such an absurd statement of it being easier to obtain a Glock, a higher end pistol, than a book. It’s as if he were to start babbling about UFOs on national television. The increase in homicide is a black thing but because of that they have to dance all around the subject without ever really spelling it out. Quite simply, the black population has to be sat upon by the police to keep their murder rate down. Without that they just revert back to their original state of tribalism and tribal warfare. Lighten up the police presence and they go out of control much as when power outages automatically lead to looting. It’s just the way they are and they haven’t changed much in all these years.

* David Dinkins always likes to pipe up and claim that the policies that reduced crime actually began in his administration. I forget whether he began stop-and-frisk or whether he hired Bratton and started Compstat. But he invariably writes into newspapers and points that out every time they ran a story about Giuliani cleaning up crime.

Anyway, the Dems used to use gun control like the Repubs use abortion: an issue they knew they couldn’t win in Congress or the courts, but by screaming about it could rile up the base for cash and votes.

Except now gun owners are beginning to talk about race again, thanks to the BLM movement trying to blame cops and rational people realizing it’s not that once they get the counter argument. So now the Dems screams are just making more people realize they are the Black Party.

* Murder rates over time are irrelevant unless improvements in medical care are controlled for. If you held the level of violence the same and had the medical care of 50 years ago the murder rate would be 3-4 times higher.

* Lessons of Ferguson:

If you steal some cigarillos from a store, then don’t walk around holding them openly in your hand.

If you do walk around holding them openly in your hand, then don’t walk in the middle of the street.

If a police officer tells you to stop walking in the middle of the street, then don’t punch him in the face.

If you do punch a police officer in the face, then don’t try to grab his handgun.

If you do grab his handgun, then don’t put your thumb on the barrel opening, so that a bullet wounds your thumb.

If your thumb is wounded and if you also are fat, intoxicated and wearing flip-flops, then don’t try to run away.

If you do run away, then don’t stop and turn around to face the police officer.

If you do stop and turn around, then don’t yell, “You’re too much of a pussy to shoot me!”

If you do yell, “You’re too much of a pussy to shoot me,” then don’t charge at the police officer.

If you do charge at the police officer and he shoots you in your torso, then don’t keep charging until one of the bullets hits you in the forehead.

* Obama’s statement also continues the long (racist) Leftist tradition of not considering blacks as having moral agency. “We” (implicitly whitey) put in front of (black) teens a veritable buffet of low cost Glocks (while at the same time we deprive them of access to books and computers). Forget for a moment that these are all lies and assume their truth for purposes of argument. Apparently, blacks have no role to play – once they are presented with these cheap guns they have no choice but to buy them and pop caps in their bruthas (and the occasional whitey).

Isn’t this same buffet available to the teens of Bloomfield Hills and Bethesda, only a few short miles from nearby ghettos in Detroit and DC? And don’t white teens have even more access to cash? Why are the prep school boys not shooting each other at a similar rate (or at all)?

* Let’s put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted ) and consider gun control as a practical matter.

Most of the communities that “we” have flooded with guns are also flooded with drugs. These drugs are mostly illegal. Outlawing the manufacturing, importation, possession or sale of these drugs with a variety of state and federal laws, most of which impose penalties at the felony level (i.e. long prison terms) has done little to stop their use, despite a century long “War on Drugs”.

Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories and they can be smuggled across the border. Or drugs that are intended for legitimate purposes can be diverted to illicit use. So if you put your finger in the dike, a thousand other holes spring up, driven by the pressure of the public’s demand and willingness to pay for drugs.

So while this war has not done much to actually reduce the supply of drugs to addicts (while at the same time making it difficult for people in real pain to receive appropriate medication) it has however filled our prisons and created a lucrative black market economy. Prohibiting alcohol had similar “success”.

But, Obama and the Left want us to try yet another prohibition experiment. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

* The elites who run NYC don’t want, and have never wanted, low crime and a crackdown on Black crime that drives most crime.

This is because they are mostly transient renters. Sure Jay Z and Taylor Swift have multimillion penthouses, but most are either the Ezra Klein transient renters or various entertainment/info personalities moving from city to city. The real money is absentee — Chinese and Russian oligarchs putting money into hard -to-seize real estate. Meanwhile White Flight was a huge godsend to the creative people, who were able to live frankly degenerate lives without rebuke by a White middle class.

This is why various lower-tier celebrities are openly rooting for a return to Taxi Driver NYC — it made renting cheaper. And if crime gets too bad, they’ll just move — to DC, to London, to LA.

You IMHO are penciling in the dynamic of LA — where celebrities actually own (and often buy/sell) luxury properties and things like the attack on NCIS actress Pauly Perrette at her Hollywood Hills mansion by some homeless person creates a big city crackdown. While South Central is essentially a no-police zone.

Orwell had it right — the purpose of torture is torture, the purpose of power is power. The purpose of Gun Control is disarming Whites in rural places. Because they are the natural and eternal enemies of rich White urban liberals who make their money by hereditary government networks. After all there are plenty of means to disarm Blacks such as Stop and Frisk which the people who actually RUN NYC — Di Blasio, Al Sharpton, various Black/NuYoRican Gangs, the glitterati, the NYT, all detest. And ended. Rudy represented the revolt of the Outer Boroughs, but that’s over with demographic change and the Caribbean immavasion tidal wave.

Again, people who write for the NYT or form the lower tier infotainment/government sector, need high Black crime in NYC to keep rents low. The collision between absentee foreign oligarchs seeing their property investments drop in titanic ways vs. the US elites should be interesting. I am more and more convinced the Jefferson’s insight that property owners had a permanent interest in not degrading their nation was wise, vs. Hamilton’s nomadic urbanites with no skin in the property game. Because they move so much.

* Stirring up fake controversies by taking quotes out of context is a Leftist speciality but it doesn’t seem to work on Trump at all. But that doesn’t stop the Left from trying again and again. The NYTimes news pages no longer even pretend to be impartial.

Something you have to understand (and which the reporter surely understands but pretends not to) is that Hillary’s email server has been offline and scrubbed for a long time now. So the only way the Russians could leak the contents is if they hacked it when it was still on line. So, even taking Trump’s remarks in a serious light and not as a joke as clearly intended (according to the NYT readers, sarcasm and humor are not permitted in Presidential candidates) it’s not possible that Trump is appealing for the Russians to conduct FUTURE espionage on Hillary.

At worst, he is telling Putin to release what he already has “and he would be rewarded by the American press”. The latter is what REALLY drove the NYT into a frenzy. Traditionally, yes, juice revelations about a presidential candidate are exactly what the press wants – they would be orgasmic if someone were to leak something truly incriminating about Trump. Normally they would give their eye teeth to break a scandal – since Watergate this has been the dream of every political reporter. But, in this case, the LAST thing that they want is to be forced to print something that would torpedo Hillary’s candidacy. I would even bet that they would suddenly get ethical qualms and find some reason why they couldn’t even print these stories (but the cat would be out of the bag anyway – they no longer have the monopoly).

* He smacked the reporters around in that press conference. His instinct is to constantly attack. The debates will be very interesting. I don’t think Hillary’s AI decision tree can be programmed extensively enough to appear extemporaneous, and I suspect she’ll fall back to point and sputter mode.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Left Goes Ballistic

The Swiss Handshake

This came in my email:

Sometimes it’s the little things that are most telling.

In Switzerland it has long been customary for students to shake
the hands of their teachers at the beginning and end of the school
day. It’s a sign of solidarity and mutual respect between teacher
and pupil, one that is thought to encourage the right classroom
atmosphere. Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga recently felt
compelled to further explain that shaking hands was part of Swiss
culture and daily life.

And the reason she felt compelled to speak out about the
handshake is that two Muslim brothers, aged 14 and 15, who have
lived in Switzerland for several years (and thus are familiar with its
mores), in the town of Therwil, near Basel, refused to shake the
hands of their teacher, a woman, because, they claimed, this would
violate Muslim teachings that contact with the opposite sex is
allowed only with family members. At first the school authorities
decided to avoid trouble, and initially granted the boys an
exemption from having to shake the hand of any female teacher.
But an uproar followed, as Mayor Reto Wolf explained to the BBC:
“The community was unhappy with the decision taken by the school.
In our culture and in our way of communication a handshake is
normal and sends out respect for the other person, and this has to
be brought home to the children in school.”

Therwil’s Educational Department reversed the school’s decision,
explaining in a statement on May 25that the school’s exemption
was lifted because “the public interest with respect to equality
between men and women and the integration of foreigners
significantly outweighs the freedom of religion.” It added that a
teacher has the right to demand a handshake. Furthermore, if the
students refused to shake hands again “the sanctions called for
by law will be applied,” which included a possible fine of up to
5,000 dollars.

This uproar in Switzerland, where many people were enraged
at the original exemption granted to the Muslim boys, did not
end after that exemption was itself overturned by the local
Educational Department. The Swiss understood quite clearly
that this was more than a little quarrel over handshakes; it was
a fight over whether the Swiss would be masters in their own
house, or whether they would be forced to yield, by the
granting of special treatment, to the Islamic view of the proper
relations between the sexes. It is one battle – small but to the
Swiss significant – between overweening Muslim immigrants
and the indigenous Swiss.

Naturally, once the exemption was withdrawn, all hell broke
loose among Muslims in Switzerland. The Islamic Central
Council of Switzerland, instead of yielding quietly to the Swiss
decision to uphold the handshaking custom, criticized the
ruling in hysterical terms, claiming that the enforcement of the
handshaking is “totalitarian” (!) because its intent is to “forbid
religious people from meeting their obligations to God.” That,
of course, was never the “intent” of the long-standing
handshaking custom, which was a nearly-universal custom in
Switzerland, and in schools had to do only with encouraging
the right classroom atmosphere of mutual respect between
instructor and pupil, of which the handshake was one aspect.

The Swiss formulation of the problem – weighing competing
claims — will be familiar to Americans versed in Constitutional
adjudication. In this case “the public interest with respect to
equality” of the sexes and the “integration of foreigners” (who
are expected to adopt Swiss ways, not force the Swiss to
exempt them from some of those ways) were weighed against
the “religious obligations to God” of Muslims, and the former
interests found to outweigh the latter.

What this case shows is that even at the smallest and
seemingly inconsequential level, Muslims are challenging the
laws and customs of the Infidels among whom they have
been allowed to settle [i.e., stealth jihad toward sharia
dominance]. Each little victory, or defeat, will determine
whether Muslims will truly integrate into a Western society or,
instead, refashion that society to meet Muslim requirements.

The handshake has been upheld and, what’s more, a stiff
fine now will be imposed on those who continue to refuse to
shake hands with a female teacher. This is a heartening sign
of non-surrender by the Swiss. But the challenges of the
Muslims within Europe to the laws and customs of the
indigenes have no logical end and will not stop. And the
greater the number of Muslims allowed to settle in Europe,
the stronger and more frequent their challenges will be.
They are attempting not to integrate, but rather to create,
for now, a second, parallel society, and eventually, through
sheer force of numbers from both migration and by
outbreeding the Infidels, to fashion not a parallel society
but one society — now dominated by Muslim sharia.

The Swiss handshaking dispute has received some, but
not enough, press attention. Presumably, it’s deemed too
inconsequential a matter to bother with. But the Swiss
know better. And so should we.

There’s an old Scottish saying that in one variant reads:
“Many a little makes a mickle.” That is, the accumulation
of many little things leads to one big thing. That’s what’s
happening in Europe today. This was one victory for the
side of sanity. There will need to be a great many more.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on The Swiss Handshake

‘Trump’s divergence from the conventional Republican platform is generating indignant punditry from neocons and neoliberals alike’

PERIES: So let’s take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis about the Siberian candidate?

HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they’re terrified that they’re losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.

Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn’t very good. And it was mostly an attack on Hillary. Chants of “lock her up.” And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and make him look like a loving man.

But finally came Trump’s speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he’s making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he’s not destroying the party, he’s building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.

So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don’t need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today’s world, the only kind of war we’re going to have is atomic war. Nobody’s going to invade another country. We’re not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody’s even talking about that. So let’s be realistic.

Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy. Not only did Krugman say that Trump would, quote, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy at the expense of America’s allies, and he’s referring to the Ukraine, basically, and it’s at–he’s become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. But also, at the Washington Post you had Anne Applebaum call him explicitly the Manchurian candidate, referring to the 1962 movie, and rejecting the neocon craziness. This has just driven them nutty because they’re worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump.

In economic policy, Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade and corporate power grab [inaud.] with Europe to block public regulation. And this was also a major plank of Bernie Sanders’ campaign against Hillary, which Trump knows. The corporatist wings of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties fear that Trump’s opposition to NAFTA and TPP will lead the Republicans not to push through in the lame duck session after November. The whole plan has been that once the election’s over, Obama will then get all the Republicans together and will pass the Republican platform that he’s been pushing for the last eight years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement with Europe, and the other neoliberal policies.

And now that Trump is trying to rebuild the Republican Party, all of that is threatened. And so on the Republican side of the New York Times page you had David Brooks writing “The death of the Republican Party.” So what Trump calls the rebirth of the Republican Party, it means the death of the reactionary, conservative, corporatist, anti-labor Republican Party.

And when he wrote this, quote, Trump is decimating the things Republicans stood for: NATO, entitlement reform, in other words winding back Social Security, and support of the corporatist Trans-Pacific Partnership. So it’s almost hilarious to see what happens. And Trump also has reversed the traditional Republican fiscal responsibility austerity policy, that not a word about balanced budgets anymore. And he said he was going to run at policy to employ American labor and put it back to work on infrastructure. Again, he’s made a left runaround Hillary. He says he wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, whereas the Clintons were the people that got rid of it.

And this may be for show, simply to brand Hillary as Wall Street’s candidate. But it also seems to actually be an attack on Wall Street. And Trump’s genius was to turn around all the attacks on him as being a shady businessman. He said, look, nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. Now, what that means, basically, as a businessman, he knows the fine print by which they’ve been screwing the people. So only someone like him knows how to fight against Wall Street. After all, he’s been screwing the Wall Street banks for years [inaud.]. And he can now fight for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he’s been able to stiff the banks.

Posted in America | Comments Off on ‘Trump’s divergence from the conventional Republican platform is generating indignant punditry from neocons and neoliberals alike’