MSM Lies over “Allahu Akbar” Stabbing in Australia

Posted on August 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

New Observer: Yesterday’s “Allahu Akbar” stabbing attack in Australia has highlighted the ongoing establishment/media lies over Islamist terrorism and legal Third World immigration.

Chinese-origin Mia Ayliffe-Chung was stabbed to death by North African-origin Smail Ayad—but the media insists they are “British” and “French” and that the stabber was “insane,” and not an Islamist.

According to a report in the Australian—whose version of the events has now been widely copied by the controlled media in the West—the Arab lives in Marseilles and was a “Frenchman,” while the victim is an “English woman from Derbyshire.”

Even though Ayad shouted “Allahu Akbar” while carrying out the attack, the media insists on reporting that police are “looking into” the cause of the attack.

This “interpretation” of Ayad’s motives is patently bogus. The controlled media’s motives in this regard are obvious if the following imaginary scenario is envisaged:

If a white man attacked blacks while shouting “KKK,” would the media report that police are “looking into the motivation” for the attack, or would the media report endlessly about “white racist attackers” etc. etc.?

The media’s refusal to admit that there is now a deadly serious Islamist terrorist threat in nearly every Western nation, is part of the establishment’s refusal to acknowledge the reality of race—and of the danger of mass Third World immigration.

In addition, the media’s contrite excuses for Islamist terror attacks are now blatant and obvious to all.

Almost every individual attack of the past two months in Europe—and now Australia—has been written off as the work of a “mentally ill” person.

Posted in Australia, Islam | Comments Off on MSM Lies over “Allahu Akbar” Stabbing in Australia

Disinformation About 2008 Georgia-Russia War

Posted on August 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Would the New York Times blithely report “preventing Arab nationalism is a centerpiece of the foreign policy of Israel, which invaded Egypt and Syria in October 1973 largely to forestall that possibility”? Or would the editors reject that as technically accurate but tendentious description intended to mislead from the question of which side first rolled into the Sinai and the Golan Heights on Yom Kippur?

The border between South Ossetia and Georgia had had international observers stationed on to report if somebody crossed the the border in force and ruined the erratic peace that had more or less prevailed for 17 years. Late on August 7, 2008, the international observers reported that the Georgia Army was sending tanks across their line.

In general, the 2008 war of Georgia invading South Ossetia followed by Russia invading Georgia was a lot like the Yom Kippur War of 1973 of Egypt invading the Sinai followed by Israel invading Egypt, except that:

– South Ossetia had been de facto separated from Georgia for almost 3 times as long as the Sinai had been separated from Egyptian control following Israel’s invasion and military conquest of the Sinai in 1967.

– South Ossetia had never been under the control of independent Georgia (unless perhaps around 1920), with South Ossetia asserting its independence from Georgia at the same time as Georgia asserted its independence from the Soviet Union, while Egypt had non-controversially ruled Sinai for many years before 1967.

– South Ossetia’s independence appears to have been supported by the indigenous South Ossetians, while the small number of indigenous inhabitants of Israel-occupied Sinai definitely didn’t prefer Israeli rule.

– Georgia had been actively backed by a superpower — the US had invited Georgia to join NATO in the spring of 2008 (much to the dismay other NATO members) and Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia on August 7, 2008 was a follow-on to the Georgia’s war games with 1,000 visiting American troops from July 15-30, 2008. In contrast, Egypt had kicked its Russian advisers out in 1972.

Also, in 1973 the Israeli military was dug in on the east bank of the Suez Canal in the Sinai, so that the Egyptians’ initial battle of simply getting their army over the Canal and into the edge of the Sinai was quite heroic, as was Ariel Sharon’s improvised counter-invasion across the Canal into Egypt proper.

In contrast, the Russians had little in the way of military forces in South Ossetia, but the inept Georgians failed to secure their priority of shutting off the tunnel from Russia. The confused Russian response was blundering as well but at least they got through the tunnel into South Ossetia.

Egypt didn’t invade Israel proper in October 1973, it invaded the Sinai Peninsula. Similarly, Syria invaded the Golan Heights. In response, Israel not only drove the Egyptians once again out of Sinai and the Syrians out of the Golan Heights, but invaded and occupied sizable chunks of both Egypt and Syria that it hadn’t already occupied (eventually giving them up after much shuttle diplomacy).

But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:

“preventing Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt on October 18, 1973 largely to forestall that possibility.”

You would be pointing out that twelve days before Sharon crossed the Suez Canal on 10/18/73, the Egyptians had crossed the Canal on 10/6/73.

“there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia.”

Despite Israeli panic, there was never any danger that the Egyptian Army would somehow fight its way across all the rugged land that had taken Moses 40 years to cross and invade Israel proper. (In fact, the Egyptian war plan was to simply to cross the Suez Canal and win one battle over Israel.)

In 1973, the US not only massively airlifted weapons to Israel, but escalated the nuclear war alert status to scare the Russians into staying out.

* Steve, you are just plain wrong on the Egyptian Plan for the Yom Kippur War, moreover how desperate it was for Israel, and how close the Egyptians came to wiping out Israel short of a last-ditch Samson in the Temple nuclear response.

In short, though Arafat had no plans destroying Israel (he didn’t think it possible), his generals gambled that it was indeed possible. And they came very close — the Israelis were totally caught by surprise, and took heavy casualties. The Egyptians came close to breakthrough in the Sinai, the major reason they stalled was simply outrunning supplies particularly gas. The Egyptian Army did not have enough fuel trucks to move fast enough while the Israeli Air Force was focused on the Syrians.

Indeed the battle plan was conceptually brilliant — divide the Israelis who had superior air forces and land forces, so that they could not concentrate fire upon one adversary in turn. The mistake Sadat’s generals made was not understanding that the low training and logistical resources could not maintain the tempo needed for success. Thus the Egyptian tank forces were literally out of gas and their troops gassed from continual fighting just when Israel recovered to focus most of their force upon them.

That was nothing like the Russia-Georgia War. Which had a tiny nation up against a very, very large one with nuclear weapons. Instead of a huge nation with no nukes up against a tiny one with nukes. There was not much danger of Russia simply nuking Georgia in desperation; while there *WAS* danger of Israel feeling existentially threatened in nuking both Syria and Egypt.

* Anyone notice how the NYT; DC Post and other official MSM organs display a much stronger anti-Russian slant in their foreign policy coverage than they ever did collectively during Stalin’s regime; the Cold War; Gorbechev’s era; etc. How is it that such diverse Soviets as Stalin and Gorby are much more revered among the official left even today than Putin? I don’t entirely understand it. I mean, until Putin arrived on the scene and particularly over the last ten yrs or so, from about the 1930′s all the way to Yeltsin’s regime (ca.2000?) the USSR/early Russian Federation was pretty much treated quite favorably in the MSM especially when compared to the likes of Reagan and other perceived US “warhawks”. How is Putin any more a monster (either in kind or degree) than Stalin and the others that followed him, even including up to Yeltsin? Theories may abound but not sure there’s a satisfactory explanation as of yet.

But with Putin, the MSM have finally found a Russian leader that they clearly despise. Unfortunately the exact reasons remain unclear.

* Putin’s outlook appears to be post-Soviet in that he seems to stress more of a nationalist, somewhat open to official displays of traditional religion, and not pro-LGBTWWT, etc. but even those things don’t fully get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps the liberal-progressives along with their neoconservative allies turned on Putin in particular and Russia in general because of the formers throwing out of globalist oligarchs who helped to weaken Russia economically in the years post-USSR. In other words, had the Russian Federation from the onset had a strong willed leader with a nationalist outlook who closed its borders to global oligarchs, perhaps Russia wouldn’t have been in the economic doldrums it found itself in during the late ’90′s. I mean, is Borris Yeltsin really recalled today with much fondness in Russia for being a great leader? Seriously? Yeltsin was very much appreciated and respected by the Western globalist elites, much the same way as was Gorbechev, but how do the ordinary Russian masses view Yeltsin today?

Also, does anyone know how Gorbechev is viewed today right now in Russia? Not among the Western global elites, but among the Russians themselves? How is he recalled in Russia?

Posted in America, Israel, Russia | Comments Off on Disinformation About 2008 Georgia-Russia War

Will too many Israeli children lead to demographic disaster?

Posted on August 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Isn’t it the quality of the children that matters? If they are high IQ (over 115), then they will be a blessing to the nation. If they have IQs under 100, they will be a curse to the Jewish state.

Jerusalem Post:

Tal claims people are deterred from addressing demography by “the very virulence of attacks against anyone who challenges such a central principle in the country’s code of ethics.”

Those who critique Beduin birthrates, he says, are said to have racist motives, and those who say Jews should have fewer children are accused of being “anti-Zionist.”

He asserts that the sense of “social justice” among “privileged, liberal intellectuals” makes them fear criticizing haredim and Beduin who have large families.

Steve Sailer notes: “So while the quality of argument in Israel isn’t necessarily all that high on average, look at the quantity. When it comes to arguments about the future, quantity has a quality all its own.”

COMMENTS:

* The geography of Israel is a lot like the geography of Southern California: Tel Aviv is Santa Monica, the San Gabriel Valley is the West Bank, Lake Arrowhead / Big Bear Lake are the Golan Heights, the Dead Sea is the Salton Sea etc.

* If Israel ever ‘normalized’ relations with the rest of the world – something which will never happen, as the only other ethnicity as stubborn, self-centered and ruthless as Israelis are Arabs, then Israel’s ‘demographic problem’ would be eminently solvable.

As a hi-tech modern state relying on sheer brain-power to make its living in the world, Israel is uniquely placed to find a lucrative niche in today’s ‘globalized’ world – and thus the problem of accommodating a high population density in a rather hot, dry, barren, inhospitable etc land could be handled with solutions such as desalinazation, air conditioning etc, and the marked shift of a once agricultural nation into the ream of a high income high productivity urbanised nation. Think of Israel as a greater LA – before third world immigration destroyed it.

* “Some of the world’s leading Jewish environmentalists feel that the normal rules of demographic restraint should be suspended in the case of the Jewish people.”

That statement sure has a familiar ring to it.

* One thing I’m not sure I’ve ever seen discussed in the media is to what degree is Israel’s ongoing real estate cost crisis caused by “overpopulation”? The conventional wisdom is that it’s due to poor planning, bureaucracy and regulation, fiscal policy, etc, but what if the “poor planning” is because the folks doing the planning 20 years ago learned how to do it from European countries with lower birthrates?

* While Israel is horrendously overcrowded, when you hear Israeli’s complain about it, their problem is not population density or whatever, it’s that the “wrong kind of Jewish people” are taking over.

The “wrong kind of Jewish people”, are Haredim and Hardelim (literally translates to “mustard”). Whenever you hear Israeli’s mention “settlers”, that is code for Hardelim.

Haredim/Hardelim simply cannot coexist with secular/”traditional” Israelis (there is no such thing as secular Mizrahi Jews, so they call themselves traditional). Sadly, secular and traditional birthrates are indeed above replacement but they are on the decline and rapidly outpaced by Haredi/Hardeli births. In fact, 40% of Jewish children born in Israel are born to Haredi/Hardeli families, and the percentage rises about 1 point every year.

In the 90s, there were problems with Haredim taking over neighborhoods but now the Haredim are taking over entire cities. Beit Shemesh was once a center of Israeli decadence but is now under Haredi rule and the secular/traditional are being ethnically cleansed from it. The secular have already given up fighting for Jerusalem and Tel Aviv is also starting to feel the squeeze.

This article mentions emigration, but who is emigrating? I’ll tell you who isn’t: Haredim, Hardelim and Israeli Arabs. They never leave the country as they actually have some real roots in the place. Emigration, or “Yerida” as it is called in Israel, is a totally secular/traditional phenomena, and a growing one at that.

This is not a new issue in Israel. Israelis have been talking about this for 2 decades but after they failed to draft the Haredim into their army 2014 it sunk in for them that they are doomed and now they are in sheer panic. Their days are numbered and they know it so they lash out the only way they know how: by writing stupid articles.

So for all the people here who don’t like Jews, I got some bad news for you: you are about to get A LOT more of them. How does another 5 million sound?

* Israel is 34th in terms of population density, Belgium is about the same and The Netherlands is higher(30).

* A side effect of Israel’s intra-Jewish demographic changes is that the number of people who’d consider solving the Palestinian problem by kicking them out of Israel is growing steadily.

Just give it a little time.

* First, the secular Jewish birthrate in Israel is not declining, it is rising. It is still below the Haredi birthrate, of course.

Second, the Hardal (not “Hardeli” – that isn’t a thing) sector, which are groups of Haredi Jews who have become more Zionist, are not a large part of Israeli society, and they are also pretty much admired by seculars and traditionals because they have decided to pull their part in the military and economy.

Thirdly, the population of so-called ‘settlers’ is dominated by neither of those groups, but rather the National Religious who are entirely different.

Fourthly, religious people – Haredi, Hardal, or otherwise – are absolutely not taking over Tel Aviv. Their presence in the area is restricted to one suburb, Bnei Brak, which also has a huge industrial park.

Fifthly, neither seculars, nor traditionals, nor anyone else, outside of a few far-Left writers for Haaretz, have given up on Israel. Studies have shown that Israeli Jews are the most optimistic people in the Western world. The future will be different than the secular, socialist, past, no doubt, but there are reasons to think that Israeli Jews will make it work. People have been predicting the demographic doom of Israel since before 1948 and they’ve been wrong every time. There are indeed getting to me too many Haredi, but they are one shave and outfit change away from being standard Jews, i.e. people with a 115 average IQ ready for the 21st century workforce.

* “Some of the world’s leading Jewish environmentalists feel that the normal rules of demographic restraint should be suspended in the case of the Jewish people,” Tal writes, “at the very least until pre-World War II numbers are restored.”

I wonder what the response would be if a journalist in the US were to write:
Whites used to be ~25% of the world’s population around a century ago, but now are only ~10%, due to factors such as scapegoating for all the ills of the world, selfless donations to support a burgeoning population in Africa, encouragement by the elites to overwork themselves and pay for illegals and other minorities to have children like a Pez dispenser, etc. So obviously, the rules of normal demographic restraint should be suspended for Europeans and their diaspora, at least until their percentage of the world population returns to the historical 25% level we observed in the past.

* The statistics cited by the Israeli about drastic declines in fertility in Arab countries are mostly fraudulent. There is no evidence of such a decline in the Gulf states, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen or Syria. Meanwhile, the Israeli birth rate has been essentially constant since the early 90s. But wherever they are and whatever they do, even if they recreate the heartwarming density of the ghetto in their own communities, Jews will always be vastly outnumbered by gentiles, so perhaps they should not thirst quite so much for attention, validation and reformation of their neighbours. Less tikkuning the olam please, Jews.

* Seems like Israel needs more Lebensraum. With all the Syrians clearing out, maybe the new Syrian government will return some of Israel’s “rightful property.”

* The Japanese don’t seem to think they need millions of Taharrush gang rapists to save them from demographic decline.

* One odd yet largely unremarked upon aspect of the demographics of Israel is that there’s no large Jewish city in the scenic inland north – the Galilee. The largest Jewish town there is Nahariya, with a population of 50,000 or so. Compare that with the equally remote desert south, which has the city of Be’er Sheva with over 200,000 people. The founders of Israel had a romantic attachment to the idea of settling the desert.

* Most US aid to Israel comes in the form of weaponry, which keeps your military industrial complex humming right along.

Many Israelis (like me and Libertarian-ish former Likudnik Moshe Feiglin) would like you to keep your aid, thank you very much, as it creates an undesirable quid pro quo codependency.

* Yes, Mizrahi average lower, but the Haredi in Israel are probably ~2/3 Ashkenazi if not more. It is also interesting to note that in Israel and France Mizrahi are currently holding their own as far as representation in the high IQ professions, so perhaps IQ testing done a generation ago missed something. Another data point: Thus far there have been only three science Nobel Laureates born in Arab countries (population ~200 million) and two have been Mizrahi Jews (population ~1 million).

* But first of all, the definition of a Hardal Jew (not Hardelin as the previous commenter coined – that isn’t a word) is someone who is Haredi in appearance but also very Zionist, has served in the military, and is more likely to participate in the economy. So to the extent that Hardal numbers are growing, that represents a good demographic trend for Israel militarily. (Whether it is good culturally is another matter of course)

As for the Haredi, one possible outcome, which is already happening to some degree, is that constant Arab attacks on Haredi will push them toward more participatory Zionism and military service. Already a disproportionate number of victims of Arab stabbings and beatings are Haredi, for several reasons including that they are concentrated in working class Jerusalem neighborhoods in proximity to Arab ones, that they are easily identifiable as Jews (and stereotypical ones at that), and that they don’t fight back well because they have no military training.

* Israel is a special case because it is the only high GDP nation in its corner of the world, and furthermore the only high GDP nation which is only nine miles wide and surrounded by hostile people and countries committed to its liquidation.

* I’ll tell you how this ends. Israeli Jews will just take over more Arab land, the same way the Zionist did: by buying it, settling it and conquer what is in between.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Will too many Israeli children lead to demographic disaster?

WP: What’s the alt-right? A primer

Posted on August 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

David Weigel writes for the Washington Post:

‘The Camp of the Saints’
A 1973 French novel by Jean Raspail, published as “Le Camp des Saints,” which envisions an immigrant invasion of France, and which many on the alt-right view as prophetic. In a 2005 essay for the American Conservative, after riots in France, commentator (and future Michelle Bachmann collaborator) Jim Pinkerton cited Raspail’s novel at length to ask why Europe had not realized it was committing “national suicide.”

As Raspail describes the scene aboard the immigrant convoy, “Everywhere, rivers of sperm. Streaming over bodies, oozing between breasts, and buttocks, and thighs, and lips, and fingers … a welter of dung and debauch.”

But France is persuaded that these people are a “million Christs,” whose arrival will “signal the dawn of a just, new day.” In other words, Raspail writes, what the French are lacking is a proper sense of national-racial consciousness, “the knowledge that one’s own is best, the triumphant joy at feeling oneself to be part of humanity’s finest.” Instead, he concludes, after having been beaten down by decades of multicultural propaganda, “the white race” has become “nothing more than a million sheep.”

Raspail’s vision has been cited frequently at Breitbart News, especially when a major Western leader criticizes anti-immigrant sentiment. “Now, as in the novel, prominent political officials are urging on ever larger waves,” wrote Breitbart’s Julia Hahn in 2015. “Secular and religious leaders hold hands to pressure blue collar citizens to drop their resistance; media elites and celebrities zealously cheer the opportunity that the migrants provide to atone for the alleged sins of the West — for the chance to rebalance the wealth and power of the world by allowing poor migrants from failed states to rush in to claim its treasures.”

‘Cuckservative’
A portmanteau, from “cuckold” and “conservative,” used to troll people who call themselves conservative but support immigration reform and multiculturalism. The implication: A white American who allows mass immigration into his country is no different than a man allowing other men to sleep with his wife.

‘It’s the Current Year!’
A logical fallacy, popularized on 4chan and Reddit, in which an idea can be dismissed because “it’s 2016” (i.e., the world and history have moved on, and there is nothing left to discuss). It’s frequently identified with HBO’s John Oliver, whose commentaries (circulated widely on progressive news sites) often label ideas as ridiculous because, well, it’s 2016.

Jared Taylor
The founder of American Renaissance, a magazine, then conference, then website about white identity. Ever game to talk to media — though critical of the term “alt-right” — he’s used the publication and conference to encourage white nationalists to expand on their ideas.

Pepe the Frog
A cartoon that originated on MySpace but was adopted by Trump supporters and alt-right trolls, as reporter Olivia Nuzzi explained at length this year.

Peter Brimelow
The founder of VDare, a clearinghouse of news and opinion about immigration, which he founded after his immigration book “Alien Nation” became a taboo bestseller.

‘The Political Cesspool’
A white nationalist podcast and radio show that began in 2004 and grew its following during Barack Obama’s presidency, and became notorious after Donald Trump Jr. appeared to promote his father’s presidential campaign.

Richard Spencer
The president of the Virginia-based National Policy Institute and founder of the defunct website Alternative Right, which was “dedicated to heretical perspectives on society and culture — popular, high, and otherwise — particularly those informed by radical, traditionalist, and nationalist outlooks.” One of the most media-savvy thinkers in the movement, Spencer was an early supporter of what Trump’s campaign represented; before that, he helped find and promote young alt-right thinkers. In addition to shaping what “alt-right” meant, Spencer coined the term “identitarian” to distinguish white people who wanted to defend their culture but rejected the label of “racism.”

Sam Francis
An influential conservative thinker cast out of the movement’s mainstream — and fired from his Washington Times column — for speaking at the 1994 American Renaissance conference. Subsequently, he became a sort of martyr for nationalist writers and thinkers. Throughout his career, he argued that cultural liberalism was not as popular or inevitable as its promoters claimed.

“Whites need to form their racial consciousness in conformity not only with what we now know about the scientific reality of race but also with the moral and political traditions of Western Man-White Man,” Francis wrote in 2005. “The purpose of white racial consciousness and identity is not simply to serve as a balance against the aggression and domination of other races but also to preserve, protect, and help revitalize the legacy of the civilization that our own ancestors created and handed down to us, for its own sake, because it is ours, and because, by the standard of the values and ideals we as a race and a civilization have articulated, it is better.”

Walt Bismarck
A musician and video editor who grew a following (under the sobriquet “Uncuck the Right”) with pop song parodies rewritten around alt-right themes. “The alt-right does not comprise obese low church Protestant Baby Boomers with 103 IQs,” he explained to Fusion in 2015. “We’re a bunch of eccentric hipsters and neckbeards who understand how the Left works, and how to create legitimately subversive and effective propaganda.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on WP: What’s the alt-right? A primer

The alt-right’s take on Clinton’s speech: Botched, but legitimizing

Posted on August 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

David Weigel writes: Hillary Clinton’s highly touted address on the “alternative right” sparked debates in every corner of American politics. For some commentators on the left, such as the historian Rick Perlstein, Clinton’s decision to cleave “mainstream” conservatism from the alts was an unforced blunder.

“Republican congressional candidates have to be tied to a Trumpism that is understood as the apotheosis of the recent history of the Republican Party,” Perlstein wrote. “Because if they are not, it would be oh so easy for the survivors to say, on November 9: It ain’t me, babe. I’m a Ryan conservative, not a Trumpite. We Ryanites are normal, respectable folk. After all, even Hillary Clinton says so.”

For the alt-right and its allies — a group that temporarily included Republicans who accused Clinton of a strange diversion — the speech helped elevate a fringe. Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, told The Washington Post before the speech that his colleagues were taking bets on whether they’d be name-checked. After the speech, he was simply bemused…

“What Clinton single-handedly did is give the movement the greatest publicity and legitimacy it’s had in years,” wrote VDare’s James Kirkpatrick. “She also specifically designated George W. Bush and John McCain as the kind of good loser conservatives she wants Republicans to act like. In other words, she praised them for being the collaborators they are.”

Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, had the same take.

“The Alt Right as a moniker of resistance is here to stay,” Spencer said. “Hillary just ensured that; there will be more and more people, with various perspectives, adopting it. At this point in history, the ‘Alt’ is just as important as the ‘Right.’ Hillary aligned herself with George W. Bush and John McCain. The Alt Right is the real opposition. We’ve made it, I never thought this would happen so quickly.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The alt-right’s take on Clinton’s speech: Botched, but legitimizing