Blacks, Whites, & Milwaukee

Fred Reed writes: In Milwaukee the policeman who shot the criminal was himself black–yet the mob specifically attacked whites. A woman screamed in fluent dey-be-he-be that blacks should burn the suburbs of whites. I saw this on the video, but now read that CNN has cut that part. If you don’t admit that you have cancer, it will go away.

Perennial problems come in two flavors, those that we can’t solve and those that we won’t solve. For example the war on Afghanistan could be ended simply by bringing the troops home. We just choose not to do it.

I can think of no way to solve the country’s racial disaster. Can you?

Ritual chantings about racism, discrimination, white privilege, institutional racism, and so on are neither a program nor a solution. (Incidentally, why is “Kill Whitey” not racist?) Neither is documenting the intense racism of blacks, interracial-rape ratios, crime, and low scores on promotional examinations.

For the moment, let us assume that all of the complaints of blacks and their allies are correct. All right. We have done that. Now what?

There seems to be no solution. The underlying problem that will not go away is that blacks as a race have not shown themselves able to function in a modern society. Degrees and exceptions yes, but the central fact remains. One is not supposed to say this, and would that it were not true, but it is.

In particular they have lagged far behind academically. Attribute causation as you wish. The condition remains. It has proved impervious to every conceivable social program. For this reason affirmative action has become an entitlement rather than an entry point. For this reason the blacks in the blighted cities will never be employable. Everything works against them, most potently their own attitudes. Joblessness rises among better qualified whites. Obama brings in more Latinos to compete with blacks.

Further, those in the ghettos show little disposition either to study or to work. This also is an obvious truth that one must not utter. A Mexican woman will work as a maid until she figures out something better; a black woman will not. A young Salvadoran man will make his way up Central America, through Mexican police likely to beat him, ride the Train of Death to the US border, and sneak into a country whose language he does not understand to work construction and send money back to his family. A black in Chicago won’t buy a Greyhound ticket to the same job. Yes, there are reasons. A condition does not go way merely because there is a reason for it.

It isn’t working.

Does anyone, black or white, man or woman, Left or Right, see any hope of change? Apparently not, since discussion consists entirely of vituperation. Squalling about conservative racism or liberal hypocrisy does nothing at all to change anything at all. Blacks, the only ones who could render their schools orderly, or make their children do their homework, or persuade their women to essay matrimony, do not.

The cultural divide appears unbridgeable. Blacks are a self-aware, aggrieved, and angry people widely apart from the civilization of whites. They have little desire for assimilation and indeed actively reject it. In Mexico, blacks speak normal Spanish and, in France, normal French. In America, Dat be actin’ white. They give their children strange names, Latoyota and Keeshawn, to maintain distance from whites. Their music is both frequently obscene and frequently hostile to whites. “Acting white,” as for example by studying, is punitively disdained. This is not headed for comfortable multicultural commensalism.

The core of blackness seems to consist of, first, a belief that all of their travails spring from the malignity of whites and, second, that whites owe it to them to solve their problems.

In politics, the focus is entirely on cosmetics. For example, Obama has ordered the Justice Department to use “justice-involved youth” instead of “juvenile delinquent,” and to cease using the word “Negro.” How this will improve literacy in the ghetto is not clear. He wants schools to suspend black and white students proportionately, being unhappy that blacks are suspended at higher rates. His is the quintessential black point of view: Everything springs from racism, of which blacks don’t have any, and the solution is a federal regulation.

Obama never says that black kids ought to study more or that black women ought to behave responsibly in childbearing. He clearly believes them incapable of it, a position is indistinguishable from that of the KKK. They both seem to be right.

Why should things be otherwise? Blacks have no roots in European civilization, nor in African, if any Slavery decultured the slaves, leading to a free-floating miasma of American blacknism. This is unfortunate, which changes nothing.The denomination “African-American” serves more to separate them from whites than to link them to Africa. American African might be more realistic.

The racial experiment has failed. We must not say so, but I suspect that most of us know it. To admit it would be to concede the unspeakable. The horrible question arises again: What now?

It is apparent that nothing of any use in going to be done and probably that nothing can be done. The police? Pulling all police out of black neighborhoods would end complaints of racism by cops. It would also leave the ghettos utterly controlled by criminals. Take your choice.

The calls for the burning of white neighborhoods do not bode well. Whites often are well armed. Gun sales are way up. Men I know have no desire to shoot anyone but will do so if their homes are threatened.

What now? The Fergusons, Baltimores, and Milwaukees may calm down, but if they do, the underlying situation will not change. Nobody seems to have any more idea than I do what to do about it, which is no idea at all.

What now?

Posted in Blacks, BLM | Comments Off on Blacks, Whites, & Milwaukee

IDF’s chief rabbi-to-be permits raping women in wartime

YNET: Rabbi Col. Eyal Karim, who was announced on Monday as the IDF’s intended new chief rabbi, has provoked controversy with previous misogynistic statements, such as opposing female conscription and implying that rape was permissible in times of war.

The 59-year-old colonel was chosen to replace the outgoing chief rabbi, Brig. Gen. Rafi Peretz, who is stepping down after six years in the position. Karim has been serving as the head of the Rabbinate Department in the Military Rabbinate. He is an alumnus of the Bnei Akiva Nachalim and the Ateret Cohanim yeshivas, and he served previously as a combat paratrooper, eventually commanding their elite reconnaissance unit, before taking a break from the military and eventually returning to its rabbinate.

However, a number of Karim’s controversial statements that have come to light have cast a shadow on his impending appointment.

For several years, Karim has responded to questions posed to him on the religious website Kipa. One such question was “What are the problems with conscripting girls to the army?”

Karim replied, “In a situation that existed, such as in the War of Independence, that exposed the nation of Israel to an existential threat, and the reality is defined as actually pikuach nefesh (a Jewish concept that requires setting aside most religious restrictions in order to save a life —ed.), then women also participated in defending the people and the country, even though the reality wasn’t so modest. But currently, we aren’t in a situation of actual pikuach nefesh.

“Because the damage to modesty that is likely to be caused to a girl and to the nation is decisive, the greats of the generation and the chief rabbinate have ruled that girls serving in the IDF is completely forbidden.”

The rabbi gave a more shocking answer on the same site when asked if soldiers were permitted to rape women during war. Karim replied that, as part of maintaining fitness for the army and the soldiers’ morale during fighting, it is permitted to “breach” the walls of modesty and “satisfy the evil inclination by lying with attractive Gentile women against their will, out of consideration for the difficulties faced by the soldiers and for overall success.”

In 2011, the colonel gave an opinion that, according to Jewish law, female singers should not perform at IDF ceremonies. “It’s desirable to create a ceremonial post that respects the views of all those present at the ceremony, and, to that end, to bring a male and not a female singer,” he wrote. “When this would not be possible, due to various reasons, those whose sensitivities would be offended must be excused from attending the ceremony.”

Posted in Israel, Rape | Comments Off on IDF’s chief rabbi-to-be permits raping women in wartime

“Blacks are Cursed”—Top Israeli Rabbi

New Observer: One of Israel’s most senior rabbis who sits on that country’s supreme rabbinical policy-making council has announced that Africans are “cursed” because they have black skin.

Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein sits on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah (the “Council of [great] Torah Sages”), which is the supreme rabbinical policy-making council of several related prestigious Haredi Jewish intranational organizations.

Rabbis sitting on the Moetzes are the most prestigious rosh yeshivas (“heads”) of yeshivas or Hasidic Rebbes, and are regarded by other Jews as the “Gedolim” (“great/est”) sages of Torah Judaism.

Zilberstein is the spiritual leader of several major congregations in Israel, and his opinion is frequently sought and quoted on all matters of halakha—Jewish law.

Zilberstein’s teachings are hugely popular in Israel, and a collection of his utterances is one of the best-selling such titles in the Jews-only state.

kikar

His new comments appear in the Hebrew language Kikar news service, which boasts that it is the “world’s leading ultra-Orthodox website.”

In the article, Zilberstein is asked by a Jew if his marriage can be annulled because his wife hid her racial origin from him.

The questioner revealed that he had married a woman in America who looked “like a westerner” and claimed to be one.

However, after their first child was born with slanted eyes, the Jew confronted his wife who admitted that she had actually been born in China—and had had surgery to make her eyes round.

The Jew—an Orthodox yeshiva student—now wanted to divorce his wife because he had not known she was Chinese, and had apparently thought she was Jewish.

“The problem,” he was quoted in the Kikar news article as saying, is that the “children have slanted eyes” and that he had therefore made a “bad bargain” by marrying her.

The couple had gone on to have two more children, all with slanted eyes. After the third child, the husband decided that he could no longer remain married to the woman, and that no other Jews would want to marry these children.

His wife refused to agree to the divorce, and the Jew then approached the rabbinate with the request that his marriage be annulled.

In his ruling, Rabbi Zilberstein said that one-third of all people in the world, the Chinese, have “slanting eyes,” so he cannot claim that it is a “defect.”

The rabbi was then asked what would be the case if the child born was black (“Negro” as the article called it), and the rabbi said that the law in this case would be different, “because the Negro is cursed with the Curse of Ham” and that his black skin was therefore cursed.

The Curse of Ham refers to an edict issued by Noah in the Book of Genesis. One of Noah’s sons, Ham, sees his father naked and drunk in his tent.

Noah finds out that Ham saw him in this manner, and curses Ham, who becomes the father of the Canaanites.

Even though there is no direct reference to race or skin color in the book of Genesis, the Babylonian Talmud has God curse Ham because he broke a prohibition on sex aboard the ark and “was smitten in his skin” (Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b).

The Midrash—the collection of rabbinical literature which Jewish sages have provided over the centuries as a guide to the Talmud, states that the curse of Ham only applied to his eldest son Cush—and that Cush was an African (Yalkut Shim’oni. Noah Sec. 58). The use of the word “Cush” or “Cushite” is to the present day still a derogatory term for Africans among Jews.

The association of Ham with black skin—and being cursed for it—is therefore a uniquely Jewish religious tradition, and although often dismissed as near fable, is still believed by vast numbers of Jews, as Rabbi Zilberstein’s ruling shows.

Posted in Blacks, Israel, Rabbis | Comments Off on “Blacks are Cursed”—Top Israeli Rabbi

MSM Lies over “Allahu Akbar” Stabbing in Australia

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

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