Donald Trump – Sex Pistol

GotNews: “The alt-right is being demonized massively by a mainstream that doesn’t want it to exist. And that’s exactly the point — so the more that they do it, the more it just helps the cause. The alt-right 2016 is like punk rock 1977: it’s daring, new, socially unacceptable, inevitable, and scaring the crap out of everyone. That a huge chunk of those mainstreamers are utterly stereotypical tatted-up “punks” just ups the irony ante, and increases the troll factor.”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Trump has been on message consistently for about the last month. He’s using a teleprompter, avoiding gaffes, and letting Hillary marinate in her own mistakes.

* Kellyanne somehow whispering the right words into the Donald’s ears that soothe the savage beast, while Steve K Bannon has been orchestrating covert ops. Credit must go to this duo. Plus assuming that Stephen Miller is doing most of the speech writing.

* The transformation of Trump since he hired Conway and Bannon is nothing short of amazing. The gaffes stopped literally overnight, and were followed by one substantive, policy-laden speech after another. His rise in the polls is definitely due to this transformation, and these two deserve the credit for it (along with Trump himself). Hiring them and firing Manafort was the right move. Manafort was clearly not up to the job. I just wished he had done it sooner.

* Donald Trump finally sounds like a real presidential candidate and less like PUA guys Mystery and Roosh V.

Ever since The Donald hired Kellyanne Conway he no longer goes around publicly degrading women in the media for their physical appearance like he did with Ted Cruz’s wife, Carly Fiorina, and Megyn Kelly.

If he loses the election he can go back to publicly saying Woman A and Woman X are ugly, fat, and have blood coming out of their eyes, blood coming out of their you know what vaginas. He can go back to the old Donald.

* “FOX got the highest ratings ever after the debate so Ailes makes friends again with Trump and sends Megyn Kelly off to get over her period. Hey, noting [sic] personal, just business.” –Colin Powell e-mail to Jeffrey Leeds (8/18/15)

* I think it’s a sign that the MSM—after Hillary’s direction to them in her “Alt-Right” speech—is starting to heavily monitor and study the Alt-Right. I wonder what the numbers for this website and Taki’s were before and after her speech.

I’ll bet the numbers have spiked twice: the first time after her speech, and the second time after Sunday, when the Alt-Right was proven correct that she was sick, and the corporate media whores were covering up and/or ignoring the obvious.

P.S. Remember how Hillary was two hours late to her announced. Alt-Right speech and no one said anything about it? Yeah, I’m taking that as more evidence of her sickness. Her Parkinson’s flared up and she was delayed two hours.

Hey, it’s not like the MSM did any real investigation or reporting on why Hillary was unexplainably late…and then a few weeks later she’s passing out in the middle of the street in Manhattan.

* Not many Crooked Hildabeast supporters are fans of punk rock bands like The Clash for example. And that’s because the vast majority of Nonwhites are not into that type of music and most of her White supporters are Millennials. White Millennials on average are more likely to be into Hip Hop music, Taylor Swift, Calvin Harris, etc than The Clash. The Clash is something their old Donald Trump supporting White parents listen to.

Donald Trump supporters are fans of The Clash. I could also see a lot of Gary Johnson supporters being into The Clash because his supporters also tend to be older Whites.

Whenever I as a White Millennial wear my Clash t-shirt, only older Whites on the streets compliment my shirt. I hate most of the music from my generation. Although once in awhile a song from this decade will grab my attention like Follow Me Into The Jungle.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Donald Trump – Sex Pistol

Trump +6

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Trump is moving out ahead in the polls and many of the #NeverTrumpers are realizing this game of musical chairs will quickly be coming to an end and they will be left standing holding their ….

I get no joy out of NeoCons supporting Trump. I’ve actually been hoping Trump would at least ponder the possibility of allowing some of the architects of the Iraq War to be extradited to The Hague for war crimes trials. No military of course, only civilian leadership. It would be great fun to start making lists of the #NeverTrumpsters who would be eligible for a one-way ticket to the an International Tribunal for the Iraq War.

Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, David Frum, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Charles Krauthammer, this could be a real all-star cast of NeoCons in the dock.

George W. Bush would have to be there. Colin Powell as well although his recent emails about Bill Clinton’s activities with bimbos may get him off the hook.

Dick Cheney is supporting Trump so perhaps he can get exculpated due to his ill health.

* I always did think that Norm Podhoretz and his comrade Irving Kristol were a bit brighter than the younger generation of neocons — if Norm and Irv were often wrong, at least they sometimes had something interesting to say.

The younger neocons, not so much.

Regression to the mean, I suppose.

* Israel? OK. But at age 86 Norman Podhoretz has a longer and firmer perspective than the younger, flighty neos you mention. For decades he has seen politicos come and go. He knows how horrible the grifter Clintons are and that Hillary is simply not an option for a rational human being. Norman Podhoretz knows how horrible Obama is and that Hillary with be Obama’s third term. Hillary stated this many times by proclaiming she will sign an instant immigration amnesty within 100 days of her inauguration. Passed through Congress in coordination with her favorite cuck-Republican, House Speaker Paul Ryan.

* I think it’s more than Israel, since Hillary would be as pro-Israel as Trump. I suspect that Norman Podhortez despises Hillary’s LGBT and feminist agenda (in the 80s and 90s, Commentary had a lot of pieces attacking the gays and feminists). In the past, Podhortez Sr. has also been outspoken about black crime (calling it our “dirty little secret”), so he could also be concerned about the “Black Lives Matter” racket.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/podhoretz-junior-vs-steve-sailer

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-the-gay-rights-movement-won/

https://www.thenation.com/article/some-jews-gays/

* It’s natural that in a conversation with an Israeli newspaper, Podhoretz would focus on our Presidential race’s implications for Israel.

And in any event, his rationale is about more than just Israel:

“Hillary has a worse character than Donald Trump,” he said. “She’s a thief and a liar and a brazen unprincipled opportunist. She has never done anything good in her entire political career. Even as a woman, she has gotten to where she is on the shoulders of her husband, not on her own merits. No, I have no respect for her whatsoever on any front.”

Podhoretz was able to dump the Commies and become a Reaganite. Rejecting the establishment Republicans’ view on Trump is just the newest evidence that the man can think for himself.

* According to prominent alt-right insiders, Trump has confided in them privately and promised to them to “finish off” the Jews once in office.

* But what if this promise to prominent alt-right insiders conflicts with Trump’s other promise to them to clone Harambe?

* He’s going to pay off his Alt Right supporters by replacing the Bald Eagle with the Green Frog of Justice:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/replace-warlike-bald-eagle-symbol-green-frog-peace

The United States, like many countries, uses predatory symbols to convey an image of strength and a warlike nature. In 2016 we feel it is no longer appropriate for our nation to use oppressive symbolism like the bald eagle. We request that the current administration change the national symbol from a bald eagle to a green frog. The frog is a peaceful, jovial animal whose mythological context is transformation into a prince. It’s multicultural, honoring fortuitous foreign figures from Ch’ing-Wa Sheng to Kek. We kindly ask that you shift the symbol of the United States from one of oppression and violence to a green frog of peace and love.

* They haven’t really had to choose so far in the US. They could get their multikulti cake (for the US) and eat it (and have ethno-nationalism instead; for Israel) all the time. Both candidates are still pro-Israel, so they still don’t really have to choose.

* Trump better not welch on that promise. We of the alt-right expect an officer corps of cloned Harambes to lead us to victory!

* The pressure on the refusenik republicans is becoming immense.
Hillary, who began bad, is becoming awful. Donald, who began erratically, has grown into a consummate campaigner. And much harder to fake, he seems like a decent guy.
People are watching his speeches and thinking… what was it I didn’t like about him? Oh, who cares?
That is changing the frame.
And those arch neo cons are still standing in the corner in the worst possible company.
They will jump before too long. They have a lot to lose if Trump wins and they find themselves on the wrong side of history.

* Trump is the least likely of any politician in D.C., save for Rand Paul and John Duncan, to get us into a stupid and needless military conflict.

* NORMAN PODHORETZ / NOV. 1, 1996

A few years ago I listened in amazement as a friend of mine, a prominent social critic, told a group of his fellow conservatives who had gathered to talk about the gay-rights movement that “we’re turning this thing around.” Normally my friend was so astute an observer of the twists and turns in public opinion on the major issues of the day that I found it hard to understand how he could have gone so far wrong in judging the way this one was moving. Or was it perhaps I who had gone completely off the rails in believing that the great campaign to legitimize homosexuality and to establish it as a fully acceptable “alternative lifestyle” was succeeding beyond even its own wildest expectations? Was he crazy, or was I?

In the ensuing discussion, I based my argument on what seemed to me the almost complete triumph of the gay-rights agenda and its sustaining attitudes in all the institutions of the culture, from the universities and the arts to the media of information and entertainment and even to an incredible extent (considering that the Bible unequivocally prohibits homosexuality as an “abomination”) in the churches. He then countered this sketch of the culture with evidence drawn from the polity. He pointed to the retreat that public opinion had forced upon President Clinton when he proposed to end all restrictions on gays in the military, and he also cited a number of recent local referenda in which homosexuals had been denied the protected status they sought through inclusion in antidiscrimination laws.

Those referenda would later be struck down by the courts—but that would neither have surprised my friend nor cut any ice with him. Thanks to their umbilical connection to the universities through the law schools, as well as their relative insulation from the pressures of majority sentiment, the courts in his scheme of things (and in mine, for that matter) were less a part of the polity than a part of the culture; and the culture, he readily stipulated, was for the time being a lost cause from the conservative point of view.

Neither of us, then, was crazy; we just had our eyes on different realities; and the debate was temporarily resolved by a reciprocal concession on my part that he was probably as right about the polity as he acknowledged I was about the culture. This, however, still left open the question of which realm would ultimately prove decisive, and on that question we continued to disagree. His bet was that in an increasingly conservative political climate, the culture would sooner or later either wind up following the election returns where homosexuality was concerned, just as it was already doing on other issues like the family, welfare, and crime; or, short of that, it would prove powerless to resist the pressures of majority sentiment. My guess was that in this area, if not necessarily in all others, the election returns would in the end largely be determined by the culture.

* Gore Vidal wrote in 1981:

Meanwhile, the redneck divines have been joined by a group of New York Jewish publicists who belong to what they proudly call “the new class” (né arrivistes), and these lively hucksters have now managed to raise fag-baiting to a level undreamed of in Falls Church—or even in Moscow.

In a letter to a friend, George Orwell, wrote, “It is impossible to mention Jews in print, either favorably or unfavorably, without getting into trouble. ” But there are times when trouble had better be got into before mere trouble turns into catastrophe. Jews, blacks and homosexualists are despised by the Christian and Communist majorities of Eait and West. Also, as a result of the invention of Israel, Jews can now count on the hatred of the Islamic world. Since our own Christian majority looks to be getting ready for great adventures at home and abroad, I would suggest that the three despised minorities join forces in order not to be destroyed. This seems an obvious thing to do. Unfortunately, most Jews refuse to see any similarity between their special situation and that of the same-sexers. At one level, the Jews are perfectIy correct. A racial or religious or tribal identity is a kind of fact. Although sexual preference is an even more powerful fact, it is not one that creates any parcular social or cultural or religious bond between, those so-minded. Although Jews would doubtless be Jews if there was no anti-Semitism, same-sexers would think little or nothing at all about their preference if society ignored it. So there is a difference between the two estates. But there is no difference in the degree of hatred felt by the Christian majority for Christ-killers and Sodomites. In the German concentration camps, Jews wore yellow stars while homosexualists wore pink lambdas. I was present when Christopher Isherwood tried to make this point to a young Jewish movie producer. “After all,” said Isherwood, “Hitler killed 600,000 homosexuals.” The young man was not impressed. “But Hitler killed six million Jews,” he said sternly. “What are you?” asked Isherwood. “In real estate?”

Like it or not, Jews and homosexualists are in the same fragile boat, and one would have to be pretty obtuse not to see the common danger. But obtuseness is the name of the game among New York’s new class. Elsewhere, I have described the shrill fag-baiting of Joseph Epstein, Norman Podhoretz, Alfred Kazin and the Hilton Kramer Hotel. Harper’s magazine and Commentary usually publish these pieces, though other periodicals are not above I printing the odd exposé of the latest homosexual conspiracy to turn the United States over to the Soviet Union or to structuralism or to Christian Dior. Although the new class’s thoughts are never much in themselves, and they themselves are no more than spear carriers in the political and cultural life of the West, their prejudices and superst tions do register in a subliminal way, making mephitic the air of Manhattan if not of the Republic.

A case in point is that of Mrs. Norman Podhoretz, also known as Midge Decter (like Martha Ivers, whisper her name). In September of last year, Decter published a piece called “The Boys on the Beach” in her husband’s magazine, Commentary. It is well worth examining in some detail because she has managed not only to come up with every known prejudice and superstition about same-sexers but also to make up some brand new ones. For sheer vim and vigor, “The Boys on the Beach” outdoes its implicit model, The Protocols of the Elders of Zlon.

Decter notes that when the “homosexual-rights movement first burst upon the scene,” she was “more than a little astonished.” Like so many new-class persons, she writes a stilted sort of genteel-gentile prose not unlike—but not very like, either—The New Yorker house style of the 1940s and ’50s. She also writes with the authority and easy confidence of someone who knows that she is very well known indeed to those few who know her.

Decter tells us that twenty years ago, she got to know a lot of pansies at a resort called Fire Island Pines, where she and a number of other new-class persons used to make it during the summers. She estimates that 40 percent of. the summer people were heterosexual; the rest were not. Yet the “denizens, homosexual and heterosexual alike, were predominantly professionals and people in soft, marginal businesses—lawyers, advertising executives, psychotherapists, actors, editors, writers, publishers, gallery owners, designers, decorators, etc.” Keep this in mind. Our authoress does not.

Decter goes on to tell us that she is now amazed at the recent changes in the boys on the beach. Why have they become so politically militant—and so ill groomed? “What indeed has happened to the homosexual community I used to know—they who only a few short years ago [as opposed to those manly 370-day years] were characterized by nothing so much as a sweet, vain, pouting, girlish attention to the youth and beauty of their bodies?” Decter wrestles with this problem. She tells us how, in the old days, she did her very best to come to terms with her own normal dislike for these half-men-and half-women, too: “There were also homosexual women at the Pines, but they were, or seemed to be, far fewer in number. Nor, except for a marked tendency to hang out in the company of large and ferocious dogs, were they instantly recognizable as the men were.” Well, if I were a dyke and a pair of Podhoretzes came waddling toward me on the beach, copies of Leviticus and Freud in hand, I’d get in touch with the nearest Alsatian dealer pronto.

Decter was disturbed by “the slender, seamless, elegant and utterly chic” clothes of the fairies. She also found it “a constant source of wonder” that, when the fairies took off their clothes, “the largest number of homosexuals had hairless bodies. Chests, backs, arms, even legs were smooth and silky…. We were never able to determine just why there should be so definite a connection between what is nowadays called their sexual preference [previously known to right-thinking Jews as an abomination against nature] and their smooth feminine skin. Was it a matter of hormones?” Here Decter betrays her essential modesty and lack of experience. In the no doubt privileged environment of her Midwestern youth, she could not have seen very many gentile males without their clothes on. If she had, she would have discovered that gentile men tend to be less hairy than Jews except, of course, when they are not. Because the Jews killed our Lord, they are forever marked with hair on their shoulders—something that no gentile man has on his shoulders except for John Travolta and a handful of other Italian-Americans from the Englewood, New Jersey, area.

It is startling that Decter has not yet learned that there is no hormonal difference between men who like sex with other men and those who like sex with women. She notes, “There is also such a thing as characteristic homosexual speech.… it is something of an accent redolent of small towns in’the Midwest whence so many homosexuals seemed to have migrated to the big city.” Here one detects the disdain of the self-made New Yorker for the rural or small-town American. “Midwest” is often a code word for the flyovers, for the millions who do not really matter. But she is right in the sense that when a group chooses to live and work together, they do tend to sound and look alike. No matter how crowded and noisy a room, one can always detect the new-class person’s nasal whine.

Every now and then, Decter does wonder if, perhaps, she is generalizing and whether this will “no doubt in itself seem to many of the uninitiated a bigoted formulation. ” Well, Midge, it does. But the spirit is upon her, and she cannot stop because “one cannot even begin to get at the truth about homosexuals without this kind of generalization. They are a group so readily distinguishable.” Except, of course, when they are not. It is one thing for a group of queens, in “soft, marginal” jobs, to “cavort,” as she puts it, in a summer place and be “easily distinguishable” to her cold eye just as Jewish members of the new class are equally noticeable to the cold gentile eye. But it is quite another thing for those men and women who prefer same-sex sex to other-sex sex yet do not choose to be identified—and so are not. To begin to get at the truth about homosexualists, one must realize that the majority of those millions of Americans who prefer same-sex sex to other-sex sex are obliged, sometimes willingly and happily but often not, to marry and have children and to conform to the guidelines set down by the heterosexual dictatorship.

Decter would know nothing of this because in her “soft, marginal” world, she is not meant to know. She does remark upon those fairies at the Pines who did have wives and children: “They were for the most part charming and amusing fathers, rather like favorite uncles. And their wives… drank.” This dramatic ellipsis is most Decterian.

She ticks off Susan Sontag for omitting to mention in the course of an essay on camp “that camp is of the essence of homosexual style, invented by homosexuals, and serving the purpose of domination by ridicule.” The word “domination” is a characteristic new-class touch. The powerless are always obsessed by power. Decter seems unaware that all despised minorities are quick to make rather good jokes about themselves before the hostile majority does. Certainly Jewish humor, from the Book of Job (a laff-riot) to pre-auteur Woody Allen, is based on this.

Decter next does the ritual attack on Edward Albee and Tennessee Williams for presenting “what could only have been homosexual relationships as the deeper truth about love in our time.” This is about as true as the late Maria Callas’s conviction that you could always tell a Jew because he had a hump at the back of his neck—-something Callas herself had in dromedarian spades.

Decter makes much of what she assumes to be the fags’ mockery of the heterosexual men at the Pines: “Homosexuality paints them [heterosexuals] with the color of sheer entrapment,” while the fags’ “smooth and elegant exteriors, unmussed by traffic with the detritus of modern family existence, constituted a kind of sniggering reproach to their striving and harried straight brothers.” Although I have never visited the Pines, I am pretty sure that I know the “soft, marginal” types, both hetero and homo, that hung out there in the 1960s. One of the most noticeable characteristics of the self-ghettoized same-sexer is his perfect indifference to the world of the other-sexers. Although Decter’s blood was always at the boil when contemplating these unnatural and immature half-men, they were, I would suspect, serenely unaware of her and of her new-class cronies, solemnly worshiping at the shrine of The Family.

To hear Decter tell it, fags had nothing to complain of then, and they have nothing to complain of now: “Just to name the professions and industries in which they had, and still have, a significant presence is to define the boundaries of a certain kind of privilege: theatre, music, letters, dance, design, architecture, the visual arts, fashion at every level—from head, as it were, to foot, and from inception to retail—advertising, journalism, interior decoration, antique dealing, publishing… the list could go on.” Yes. But these are all pretty “soft, marginal” occupations. And none is “dominated” by fags. Most male same-sexers are laborers, farmers, mechanics, small businessmen, school teachers, firemen, policemen, soldiers, sailors. Most female same-sexers are wives and mothers. In other words, they are like the rest of the population. But then it is hard for the new-class person to realize that Manhattan is not the world. Or as a somewhat alarmed Philip Rahv said to me after he had taken a drive across the United States, “My God! There are so many of them!” In theory, Rahv had always known that there were a couple of hundred million gentiles out there, but to see them, in the flesh, unnerved him. I told him that I was unnerved, too, particularly when they start showering in the Blood of the Lamb.

Decter does concede that homosexualists have probably not “established much of a presence in basic industry or government service or in such classic [new-classy?] professions as doctoring and lawyering but then for anyone acquainted with them as a group the thought suggests itself that few of them have ever made much effort in these directions.” Plainly, the silly billies are too busy dressing up and dancing the hully-gully to argue a case in court. Decter will be relieved to know that the percentage of same-sexers in the “classic” activities is almost as high, proportionately, as that of Jews. But a homosexualist in a key position at, let us say, the Department of Labor will be married, and living under a good deal of strain because he could be fired if it is known that he likes to have sex with other men.

Decter knows that there have always been homosexual teachers, and she thinks that they should keep quiet about it. But if they keep quiet, they can be blackmailed or fired. Also, a point that would really distress her, a teacher known to be a same-sexer would be a splendid role model for those same-sexers that he—or she—is teaching. Decter would think this an unmitigated evil because men and women were created to breed; but, of course, it would be a perfect good because we have more babies than we know what to do with while we lack, notoriously, useful citizens at ease with themselves. That is what the row over the schools is all about.

Like most members of the new class, Decter accepts without question Freud’s line (Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis) that “we actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.” For Freud, perversion was any sexual activity involving “the abandonment of the reproductive function.” Freud also deplored masturbation as a dangerous “primal affliction.” So did Moses. But then it was Freud’s curious task to try to create a rational, quasi-scientific basis for Mosaic law. The result has been not unlike the accomplishments of Freud’s great contemporary, the ineffable and inexorable Mary Baker Eddy, whose First Church of Christ Scientist he was able to match with his First Temple of Moses Scientist.

Decter says that once faggots have “ensconced” themselves in certain professions or arts, “they themselves have engaged in a good deal of discriminatory practices against others. There are businesses and professions [which ones? She is congenitally short of data] In which it is less than easy for a straight, unless he makes the requisite gesture of propitiation to the homosexual in power, to get ahead.” This, of course, was Hitler’s original line about the Jews: They had taken over German medicine, teaching, law, journalism. Ruthlessly, they kept out gentiles; lecherously, they demanded sexual favors. “I simply want to reduce their number in these fields,” Hitler told Prince Philip of Hesse. “I want them proportionate to their overall number in the population.” This was the early solution; the final solution followed with equal logic.

in new-class circles it was an article of faith that television had been taken over by the fags. Now I happen to have known most of the leading producers of that time and, of a dozen, the two who were interested in same-sex activities were both married to women who… did not drink. Neither man dared mix sex with business. Every now and then an actor would say that he had not got work because he had refused to put out for a faggot producer, but I doubt very much if there was ever any truth to what was to become a bright jack-o’-lantern in the McCarthy Walpurgisnacht.

When I was several thousand words into Decter’s tirade, I suddenly realized that she does not know what homosexuality is. At some level she may have stumbled, by accident, on a truth that she would never have been able to comprehend in a rational way. Although to have sexual relations with a member of one’s own sex is a common and natural activity (currently disapproved of by certain elements in this culture), there is no such thing as a homosexualist any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexualist. That is one of the reasons there has been so much difficulty with nomenclature. Despite John Boswell’s attempts to give legitimacy to the word “gay,” it is still a ridiculous word to use as a common identification for Frederick the Great, Franklin Pangborn and Eleanor Roosevelt. What makes some people prefer same-sex sex derives from whatever impulse or conditioning makes some people prefer other-sex sex. This is so plain that it seems impossible that our Mosaic-Pauline-Freudian society has not yet figured it out. But to ignore the absence of evidence is the basis of true faith.

Decter seems to think that yester-year’s chic and silly boys on the beach and today’s socially militant fags are simply, to use her verb, “adopting” what she calls, in her tastefully appointed English, a life style. On the otherhand, “whatever disciplines it might entail, heterosexuality is not something adopted but something accepted. Its woes—and they have of course nowhere been more exaggerated than in those areas of the culture consciously or unconsciously by the propoganda of homosexuals—are experienced as the woes of life.

* Steve Sailer wrote in 2005:

I recently pointed out that even though actress Jodie Foster reportedly had carefully searched out a sperm donor with an IQ of 160 to father her two children, the expected boost in her kids` IQ over what she would have gotten from a typical 100 IQ donor would fall in a range centering around merely 12 points. This is due to a pervasive phenomenon that its discoverer, Sir Francis Galton, called “regression toward mediocrity” and we now call “regression toward the mean.”

Interacting with John Podhoretz, the son of long-time Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz, inevitably calls to mind Galton`s great discovery.

Last week, I noted on my iSteve.com blog some of the younger Podhoretz`s bumptious comments on National Review Online`s “Corner” free-for-all. In reaction to John Derbyshire`s concerns about the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, Podhoretz blustered:

“Sorry, pal. You`re born here, you`re a citizen here. Period. That`s how it works, and thank God for it, otherwise a great deal of the advances made in the 20th century by immigrant children to the United States would not have come to pass…”

I suggested this “birthright pundit” might extend his logic like this:

“Sorry, pal. If you`re born a Podhoretz, you get to make a living offering your opinions, no matter how big of a jerk and fool you are. Period. That`s how it works, and thank God for it, otherwise a great deal of the money made in the 21st century by Podhoretz relatives would not have come to pass.”

Later, out of the blue, I received an email from Podhoretz reading:

“Please keep attacking me. It`s how I know I`m not a bigoted, racist scum.”

Peter Brimelow has observed how often a “racist” turns out to be someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. But with a neocon of Podhoretz the Lesser`s quality, well, you don`t even have to be arguing with him to be “a bigoted, racist scum.” I`m not exactly sure what “a … scum” is, but, clearly, Pod No Like. I replied:

“Such wit, such eloquence, such insight!”

He fired back:

“If you think I lack them, I imagine you think I have too much melanin in my skin.”

Hoo-boy! You got me there!

Thoroughly enjoying shooting fish in a barrel, I answered:

“How do you come up with such devastating comebacks? Do you keep a half-dozen Nobel Laureates on staff, or do you, somehow, just make these up all by yourself?”

While Podhoretz Minor might be an extreme example, he reflects the intellectual decline of neoconservatism from the first generation to the second. While the formidable father has often provoked fury, the son has mostly elicited laughter. Hanna Rosin reported in 1998:

… around the Washington Times offices, the [Podhoretz] column was often read out loud in Podhoretz`s absence, for comic value, in a ritual famously called Podenfreude ….

Posted in Homosexuality, John Podhoretz, Neoconservatives | Comments Off on Trump +6

Mondoweiss: Jeffrey Goldberg will be silent till he finds a way to spin all the bad-for-the-Jews news from Israel

Mondoweiss: What was Benjamin Netanyahu’s erstwhile partner in crime Jeffrey Goldberg up to this weekend with all the excitement going on on his Jewish/Israel beat?

Last week, the most influential Jewish journalist in America was trying to lose the nickname his journalism over the years had won him– “Netanyahu stenographer” — by calling Netanyahu a bad name. He gratuitously called Netanyahu “manipulative” in one of his articles, thus distancing himself from the prime minister as well as announcing his availability as a stenographer to Ehud Barak, Moshe Ya’alon and maybe most importantly the upstart Israeli politician Yair Lapid.

Then the news hit. Netanyahu’s “No Jews” video dropped Friday, and ethnic cleansing charges flew in all directions. In Haaretz, Barak Ravid wrote that this Netanyahu video might even be a game changer. White House and State Department officials were “livid.” They viewed Netanyahu’s remarks as “targeting them.” The prime minister might have antagonized Washington one time too many and pushed Obama “to the Security Council.”

J Street leaped on the video, while Donald Trump’s adviser on US-Israel relations, David Friedman, in an interview with Haaretz, took great umbrage at the Obama administration’s statement. Friedman did one better than “No Jews” or even “ethnic cleansing.”

“Prime Minister Netanyahu makes exactly the right point. The Palestinians…..their so-called ‘state’ is required to be, as the Nazis said, Judenrein (devoid of Jews).”

And every article written about this video expressed the same bewilderment: why did Netanyahu do it? The video made sense to nobody. Ravid quoted some Washington official wondering why Netanyahu would “spit in their faces” when they’re trying to be so nice to him and to Israel. William Booth in the Washington Post said: “Why did Netanyahu issue this video now?” And what about the fact that Netanyahu was repeating the Republican pollster Frank Luntz “almost word for word”?

There is no one more suited than Jeffrey Goldberg to explain to Americans how to understand these events.

After all, one of Goldberg’s claims to fame is his unique gift in understanding the personal/political nuances that elude everyone else. Recall that just a couple of years ago, Goldberg chastised Andrew Sullivan for not understanding Netanyahu:

“The politics, contradictions and motivations of Netanyahu’s approach to Obama do not interest Andrew. Netanyahu’s apparently self-evident evilness is what interests [Andrew]”…

Now that is exactly what the whole world was waiting for Jeffrey Goldberg to explain. What exactly were the “The politics, contradictions and motivations of Netanyahu’s approach to Obama” with his video that all of Washington and Jerusalem were talking about?

But Goldberg’s tweets reveal something very surprising: there is no mention of Netanyahu. No mention of the “no Jews” video, or the State Department rebuke, or even Trump’s adviser’s “Judenrein” reach. Why is Jeffrey ignoring these major stories?

The answer could be that Goldberg was holding firm to his one journalist ethic, that he never compromises on, no matter how big the the story. And that is (as Gideon Levy noted): to never write anything that would make neo-Nazis happy.

Certainly Goldberg would be right to think so. All this craziness coming from Netanyahu, and the back and forth with Washington and the Trump campaign– it is sure to make a few neo-Nazis somewhere very happy.

I don’t think that’s what’s going on. There is now a lot of news coming from Israel that Goldberg hasn’t explained. His non Nazi twitter followers are beginning to wonder, why isn’t he commenting. Yes, we have received guidance already from Goldberg on many important stories: that BDS=ISIS, and J Street=Hamas, and the British Labour Party= Nazi party c 1938.

But there is other news in the world besides those Israel haters, and lately his followers might have been getting a sense that Goldberg is withholding something. That he has been keeping secrets from them about Israel/Palestine.

I think what is actually preoccupying Goldberg and keeping him silent is not the fear of giving comfort to the neo-Nazis, but concern about non-Aryans, including himself.

With each new story from Israel that Goldberg ignores he knows he is jeopardizing his reputation as the go-to Israel expert for the US establishment. But alas Jeffrey has no choice. Because until Jeffrey Goldberg discovers the words, the language, the spin, the narrative, that changes the relentless “bad for the Jews” news coming from Israel, the voluble Goldberg will find silence a virtue. Until he figures out for himself the “words that work” (to quote Frank Luntz), his vow of silence about all things Israel must continue.

This weekend was no exception. Jeffrey Goldberg is in trouble. What is the right hasbara for the execution of a Palestinian lying incapacitated on the ground and the trial of the Israeli killer-sergeant that is now dividing Israel’s establishment with some saying the society has become fascist? It doesn’t exist. But that is on the test! It is happening in real life, and Goldberg can’t figure out what to say. He still can’t think of any spin to change the recent Zionist reality.

And when Jeffrey Goldberg is stumped about what to say about Israel, he finds it most comforting to talk about neo-Nazi Trump supporters and the antisemitic British Labor party for good measure. And that’s exactly what he did again this weekend.

And this:

The eyes of the world are on Jeffrey Goldberg. He has told us so much, but we are still greedy for more. We know what he thinks about Donald Trump. We know what he thinks about David Duke. We know what he thinks of Walt & Mearsheimer. We know what he thinks about BDS. We know what he thinks of the self hating Jews at Haaretz.

But it’s not enough. We would love to know what he thinks of the Elor Azaria execution video that is now the focus of Israel and the General Yair Golan Holocaust memorial speech that said that Nazi trends were recurrent in Israel, and Netanyahu’s replacing Defense Minister Ya’alon with Avigdor Lieberman and Ya’alon warning about fascism.

We would even be happy if Jeffrey just shared his thoughts on ex Mossad head, Ephraim Halevy. Goldberg must have seen his interview where he mocked the notion that Iran was an existential threat to Israel? (“maybe in a thousand years”) And when he told Al Jazeera viewers “a secret”– that every Israeli commander on the border with Gaza believes Israel should negotiate with Hamas. Or what about his belief that there “is a link between Israel’s occupation and Palestinian violence” and that Israelis should “expect” that Palestinians feel they “have to fight against it?”

We trust Goldberg understands the situation in the Middle East better than the ex-Mossad chief does. We know Goldberg doesn’t agree with self-hating Jews like Halevy. We are just waiting for him to enlighten us.

Posted in Jeffrey Goldberg | Comments Off on Mondoweiss: Jeffrey Goldberg will be silent till he finds a way to spin all the bad-for-the-Jews news from Israel

Forward: How BDS Is Pushing Jewish Students Out of Social Justice Activism

Steve Sailer writes: Last year I wrote in Taki’s Magazine about how the rise on campuses due to increasing nonwhite enrollment of the movement to use Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions to pressure Israel was starting to open Jewish eyes. Now, from The Forward, an article about how this pattern is moving from the playpen of campus politics to the real world of Social Justice Warrior jobs.

How BDS Is Pushing Jewish Students Out of Social Justice Activism
Seffi Kogen September 4, 2016

A Barnard College sophomore recently articulated the sad choice many progressive Jewish students face on campuses around the country. In a Columbia Spectator op-ed, she called on Barnard’s student government to not support a sexual assault prevention group — a group she herself had once helped lead.

She took this stand because the group had “officially taken on an anti-Israel stance… publicly denounc[ing] Israel on social media and collaborat[ing] with anti-Israel student groups, such as Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine.” By choosing to condemn Israel, the group had “effectively politicized anti-sexual violence work on this campus,” she wrote. “Doing so is detrimental to the cause and unfair to pro-Israel survivors.”

Much has been written about the rise of intersectionality, and how the academic theory claiming that all forms of oppression are connected, when applied to the real world, has encouraged the formation of coalitions between American progressives and pro-Palestinian activists. But it has also led to the erosion of traditional ties on which Jews have long relied.

For the first time, American Jews are beginning to see real ripples of BDS — the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel — take hold off campus. …

And perhaps most prominently and provocatively, the Movement for Black Lives, a coalition of 50 Black Lives Matter groups, released a platform calling Israel an “apartheid” state guilty of “genocide” against the Palestinians, and endorsing BDS.

… Today, to be a social justice advocate of any kind on many U.S. college campuses requires a sort of litmus test. Do you believe that your university should divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies to help fight global warming? Then you also have to support divestment from private prisons. Do you want to fight the epidemic of campus sexual assault? Good, but you must also support BDS. And, if you believe that women on U.S. campuses shouldn’t have to fear rape each time they venture out at night, but don’t want to sign on to an anti-Israel agenda, you might just find yourself pushed out of the sexual violence advocacy arena.

BDS has not led to a change in Israeli policy. It won’t. But it has slowly but surely begun to freeze American Jews out of the crucial social justice conversations of our time. As one student attendee at the AJC Global Forum 2016 put it: “I want to be a part of the progressive fights my generation is currently waging, but I am deeply troubled and challenged by the anti-Israel sentiment rising amongst the far left.”

For a decade, Jewish students have been the canaries in our coal mine. No, they are not persecuted or under assault, as some would have you believe. But they suffer nevertheless as their peers make it clear to them that their Zionism disqualifies them from the progressive activist community and, in some instances, from campus leadership roles in general.

Now, as former campus activists graduate to activism in the Black Lives Matter movement, in progressive political parties and in their churches, we are getting a taste of what ails our campuses.

Screenshot 2016-09-15 03.30.35In other words, it’s getting harder for Jews to get paying Social Justice Warrior jobs after college unless they denounce Israel. Granted, those kind of jobs generally don’t pay well, but lots of young Jewish Americans have affluent parents and grandparents to help them out while they find themselves.

In any case, a real line in the sand in 21st Century America, a taboo that’s so strictly enforced that most people don’t even recognize it exists is: No job discrimination against Jews.

On the other hand, the Diverse people who are using BDS to bar their Jewish rivals from jobs they want are Diverse and therefore Good, so there will be much cognitive dissonance among Jews in the future.

COMMENTS:

* Israel and Zionism should literally be the biggest issue for the Left and SJWs, there is nothing more practically evil than a profoundly racial settle-colonialist project (Partly sanctioned by thousands of years old religious texts!) that uses it’s influence to dismantle an entire region of the Earth. That gleefully has a ‘fuck the world we hate them all anyway’ attitude.

Every day this doesn’t happen more people become deeply anti-semitic. Because there can be no other explanation.

* Ben Shapiro has admitted on Gavin McInnes that the vast majority of anti-Semitic insults he has received on college campuses were not from WASPs, they were from racial minorities. These militant La Raza and Black Lies Matter students on college campuses despise Israel. It also doesn’t help that most of them incorrectly believe George Zimmerman is a Peruvian Jew, so more reason for them to hate The Tribe. I have seen Negro discussion boards where conspiracy theorists believe George Zimmerman used his powerful Jew connections to avoid going to prison.

* Hey now, many of those social justice jobs are pretty cushy if you rise up the ranks. The heads of these organizations are making six figures, and the next level below is high five-figures or more (depending on how big the organization). They don’t advertise those amounts, of course.

And the jobs offer the people working there a threefor: (1) get to brag about doing charity work for a living and put down your rich relatives who “exploit the working class” ; (2) no success necessary at what you ostensibly are there to do; and (3) get to rub elbows with rich and powerful people at the fundraising events (many rich women who do charity work get that way by finding a rich donor husband at a charity event they were working when they were younger).

The only things you have to do well are: (1) rake in the donations; and (2) make some big loud public splashes that get your org. in the news so the donors don’t feel cheated (even easier if your cousins work at the media outlets and are sympathetic to your org’s political views).

They seem like good jobs for those bleeding heart folks who don’t have quite the nose for business or law or medicine but still want to have a career that is their life and secretly pays well. Or perhaps for the preachy people who didn’t want to go into religion.

And, quite frankly, the non-profit folks are miserable, awful people the higher you go up—the people at the tops of charities and “non-profits” and the like often are the nastiest of human beings, using their “charity” work as an excuse to be nasty everywhere else (“How dare you criticize my behavior. I’m saving abused mothers!”)

* Jolly good.

Jewish “progressives” often want to have their cake and eat it as well – being anti-nationalist, anti-racist etc goody two-shoes on all the usual issues in the West, whilst being shamelessly ethno-nationalist and “reactionary” when it comes to their own special country Israel.

And it’ll be a cold day in Hell when I respond with anything other than real pleasure to hear of any SJW type suffering a small taste of his or her own medicine in being frozen out of some aspect of “polite society” for his political views – exactly their own modus operandi for dealing with “racist”, “sexist”, “antisemitic”, “homophobic” etc dissidents.

* There seems to be a First Law of Jewish Politics … and that is to never criticize another Jew, Jewish organization, or Israel in public regardless of how reprehensible the behavior. Tribal solidarity. Hence, Jews in America might object to one thing or another regarding Israel, but they tend to bear it in silence. Their silence is assumed to be implicit support of Israel, especially when the behavior is reprehensible.

iSteve is right about cognitive dissonance among Jews. Call this the Israeli Exception. This comes from trying to maintain two clearly logically contrary positions in mind and emotion at the same time; that is, advocating against apartheid and discrimination everywhere else in the world … except Israel. In these cases, silence is explicit support.

If Jewish SJWs are being denied leadership positions or membership in advocacy groups, it is because people are progressively less intimidated by Jewish cultural and political power. They are calling on the Jewish SJWs to put their “cards on the table” with respect to the Israeli Exception. If they declare the Exception, the Jewish SJWs are justifiably reasoned to be unfit to be in the company of those who are purer of heart and logically consistent on the issues. They can’t be trusted.

* Demographic change is what’s hurting Jewish power at places like UCLA. When Henry Waxman and Howard Berman teamed up in UCLA student politics in the early 1960s, putting together a political organization that got them 70 years, between them, in the House of Representatives, Jews made up a very large percentage of UCLA students. Now, however, whites in total are down to 27% of UCLA undergrads, so the Jewish percentage at UCLA is some fraction of 27%. All sorts of immigrant groups that don’t much like Jews are feeling their oats at UCLA these days.

* After much faffing about, Kogen finally lets the cat out the bag. ” Jewish students….suffer …. as their peers make it clear to them that their Zionism disqualifies them the progressive activist community……”
Zionism is not a “progressivist” political movement, far from it. How you reconcile support for Zionism with support for general “progressive” policies seems very difficult if not impossible. Unless of course you regard following such policies as in your direct personal or group interest.
It looks like following such policies in future will no longer be in this group’s interest. May their wailing and gnashing of teeth be long and painful.

* Jews are in the process of being evicted from the Broad front. They will find out in time that the WASPs they so detested (while desperately trying to emulate) were in fact their protectors and boosters. Now the WASPs are out and its the wild wild west out there. Unfortunately, America 2: The Brownening doesn’t care about the Jews and the Jews dont have the numbers. Bit by bit they will be driven from leadership positions in the left, and forced to find refuge right back with the remaining WASPs on the right.

Can’t say they weren’t warned.

* There is an ocean of money flowing into these organizations. A friend of mine from college, in addition to working for the State, is also a paid employee of the local BLM group, the Latino racial agitation groups, etc. The real perks she seems to get from her local, minor activist celebrity seem to be 2-3 weekend per month trips to D.C. or elsewhere for conventions, meetups, whatever, of all the organizations and other paid activists.

* If you think White Jews being kicked out of the sympathy-realm is lovely, how sweet will it be when it is noticed by “Diversity” that the White Feminist Supremacy Movement (NOW, Planned Parenthood, Feminist media and all the rest) is composed completely of White, upper class women of “education”? Look at the upper-crust of the DNC, NOW and all the rest. All White. They can sweep out all the privileged White homosexuals and lesbos and trannies while they’re at it, Blacks and Hispanics hate those people anyway.

When the hell are the races going to go after the hellish, rich, White bitches of modern Feminist, Inc.?

Liberal Jewish (All-White) media and White Feminists have been shitting on me, White WASP Male Veteran Heterosexual for 50 years. Time for all of the Whites-that-hate-Whites in media and academia that started all this to be kicked out of their place to be shamed for their privilege, to bow for being, well, White-with-vagina.. When they get a taste of their own medicine, perhaps finally, we join up and take it all back. Once White women are thrown off their privileged perch by the races, they’ll be looking about madly for a rescue. No more racist a group than White Feminists exists in the world today, except they’ve gotten away with it to date.

This is gonna be good.

* It’s been my impression that the majority of Jews who go in for SJW-ism hate Israel and would love to see it destroyed. This is the first time I’ve heard of any activist Jew specifically choosing Israel over the Leftist agenda.

* I worked with a Mexican guy who would go on and on about how “Hitler was right, Jews do own every thing!” “Even in Mexico!”

* The more savvy Jews I know have been on to this for years. While a vocal minorty of Neocons have made a big show of backing Hillary, Orthodox-leaning Jews (including the semi-normal looking ones, not just the caftans-beards-and-hats crew) back Trump overwhelmingly for just this reason. According to the Times of Israel, they break 3 to 1 for Trump in Florida, where they are quite numerous.

* American Jews haven’t figured out they are white people.

* Jews don’t really care about helping blacks and Hispanics or any other minority group. They just want to use these groups to undermine white gentiles. This is why Jews love having Muslims in Europe and the United States but not in Israel.

* Progressive is just a word for someone who hates people of European Christian ancestry. That is why Jews never saw a conflict between their progressive agenda and their Israeli ethno-nationalism.

* Non-Jewish SJW are ignorant of the consequences of their victim cult supremacy ideology.

The consequences of SJW ideology is to emulate the nation of Israel in your own nation.

Emulation of Israel includes all of these consequences:

Super-Majority of voters are a organized, professional victim cult
National socialism
Victim cult people entitled by law
National representative democracy
Dominant 2-party system
Republican = Likud = Conservative Judaism
Democrat = Labor = Secular Judaism
No constitutional limits on national government law-making power
Fascism for victim cult supremacy ideology
Extensive crony capitalism and MIC
Anti white-straight-healthy-Christian-male ideology advertised as anti-Nazi or anti-white supremacy
International pariah state
Immigration policy biased for victim cult people
Noncitizen victim cult people can vote in elections

* If the Left becomes truly hostile, Jews will just take over the right. Here’s how iSteve serial commenter The Undiscovered Jew describes the game plan elsewhere:

Jews should break off from the altright and purge antisemites and paleocons from a nationalist movement.

With our superior talent there’s no need for us to tolerate antisemites while we takeover the far right movement.

* American Jews are mostly past the stage where they have to interact with dindus on a daily basis. All the little grocery stores and other ghetto businesses that used to be run by Jews are now run by Asians or Arabs. They have moved out of the slumlord business too. Public school teacher used to be a popular job for Jewish women – now they can do things like going into i-banking instead. In any event, that kind of lower class anti-Semitism is different from the fashionable elite anti-Zionism of the “sophisticated” left.

* This is what happens when you pretend to be white sometimes, and pretend not to be white other times.

It’s also the result of exibiting a blatant double standard. People hate that. They get particularly peeved when they realize how long they’ve been snookered and unaware of this.

Posted in Jews, UCLA | Comments Off on Forward: How BDS Is Pushing Jewish Students Out of Social Justice Activism

Freedom Of Association

Jews could be excluded from coops, hotels, country clubs, yes, if we restored freedom of association and (over time) states rights, but more important to us should be freedom of association. The cost of potentially being excluded from a few coops and restricted hotels is such a small price to pay for the joys, quiet, and safety of segregated restaurants, bars. And especially public bathrooms.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Freedom Of Association