White supremacists using Twitter mentions to organize, recruit, and unify

Posted on August 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Sociologist Philip Cohen writes for the Southern Policy Law Center: These are commented excerpts from a Twitter conversation I had with a bunch of Trump-supporting racists on August 15.

It started with my complaining to Jesse Singal about a table he posted, of an analysis of body camera effects on police killings. The content isn't really important.

The response from @JohnRiversToo was a pretty random, and very typical, racist tweet about how Blacks have low IQs and commit more crime.

It’s typical and racist because it takes two disparate things – which each have their own whole set of issues and debates – and uses them to draw the obvious racist conclusion they started with in the first place: Blacks are dumb and violent. (If you don’t then “refute” these assertions then you can’t handle the truth – and if you try to respond you go down a rabbit hole of racist memes.) There is no point in arguing substance with someone who starts like this.
I didn’t even realize what JRT was responding to – I assumed it was about my latest blog post, which was about civility in cross-racial interactions at Hershey Park:

“This post combines my love of vacations (context), my habit of taking pictures of people in public places (data)*, and my sociological tendency to invent big conclusions from minor events (theory). As with last year’s selfie post , I hope you don’t take from this that I don’t really love vacations.”

Anyway, didn’t matter. He has 10,000 followers, and he summoned them with a couple common memes. One shows high Asian incomes, supposed to show that “white privilege is a lie”:

And one claiming “diversity” is about White genocide.

Posted in Alt Right, America, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on White supremacists using Twitter mentions to organize, recruit, and unify

Women Need To Be Protected

Posted on August 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Martin Van Creveld writes: Delicate souls that they are, women need to be protected against “’objectification” and “verbal abuse.” Women need to be protected against cunning pimps who first promise them the earth and then enslave them. Women need to be protected against photographers who promise to turn them into models but do not deliver. Women need to be protected against having their naked pics published on the Net (I hereby formally grant permission to anybody who has a pic of mine to do so; I shall even be happy to provide him or her with one).

Women need to be protected against “economic terrorism.” Women need to be protected against wicked, but charismatic and clever, men who first promise them marriage and then disappear with their, the women’s, money, or turn out to be married already, or both. Women need to be protected against male physicians, psychologists, gurus, university professors, teachers, coaches, and masseurs, all of whom, which God forbid, first cause them to become “dependent” on themselves and then try to “exploit them by having sex with them.

Women need to be protected against their own preference for convicted male criminals (as shown by the fact that such criminals tend to have more offspring than average, mostly because they have more partners). Women need to be protected against the possible consequences of their taste in dress and comportment (they are, it seems, too dumb to understand those consequences on their own). So stupid are some women that they only understand that they have been “raped” years after the event, and often after some lawyer tells them they can make money by suing. Once they do, they have to be protected from confronting their alleged attackers in court and also from having their own names revealed. Women need to be protected against “offensive” speech, including, no doubt, this essay. So numerous are the things women must be protected against that I found it impossible to put them in any kind of logical order. In short, women are seen—and, what is much worse, see themselves—as complete idiots incapable of looking after themselves.

However, there is a catch. Men are physically stronger than women. As the fact that they commit most violent crimes shows, men also tend to be considerably more aggressive and more assertive on the average. By some accounts, this is likely to remain the case not only in our world but even in one where our place is taken by computers. That is why, when the chips are down, only men can protect women against other men; also why, throughout history, countless men have died to protect women whereas the opposite has rarely ever been the case. The more protection women demand and receive, the more dependent on their protectors and the less equal and free they become.

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off on Women Need To Be Protected

Steve Sailer: Mexicans like keeping Mexico Mexican

Posted on August 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: You are often told that if you look at a map, you can see that it’s a law of nature that the United States of America must fill up with Mexicans. You almost never hear anybody suggest that the map implies that Mexico must fill up with Americans, which would seem more likely a priori.

How do the Mexicans keep the gringos from inundating Mexico? Some of its by law, some of its by violent lawlessness, but a lot is by a sort of passive-aggressive cruddiness: nobody is too sure who owns what land, the streets are dangerous to cross if you aren’t young and nimble, the hospitals are kind of inept, and so forth and so on.

Former foreign secretary Jorge Castaneda suggested that if Mexico were to try to make the country more appealing to American retirees, they’d find they had made the country better for Mexicans. But that idea hasn’t proven popular.

Posted in Mexican Mafia, Mexicans, Mexico | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Mexicans like keeping Mexico Mexican

Why Milwaukee Burns – Black social breakdown and anti-cop ideology put another American city to the torch

Posted on August 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

A friend says: “MacDonald writes about the rioting promoted by BLM as an attack on “White” society and civilization. I believe she is correct. The logical consequences of this are that, if this succeeds, it will force any black police officers, elected officials and perhaps even members of the military to either be considered collaborators (in the same sense that our Afghan allies are considered by the Taliban, or that Quislings were considered in the lands under Nazi occupation during WW2). This is actually much worse than the old epithet directed to Blacks as Uncle Toms, since this presumes that BLM is in fact a liberation movement, not just to empower blacks and curb perceived and actual racism, but one that seeks to overthrow the existing order since it is in their belief inherently racist and has nothing redeeming about it.”

Heather Mac Donald writes: The war on cops, ideological and sometimes lethal, may be expanding into a broader race war, in which only one side fights. The thugs who torched businesses and police cars, assaulted cops, and shot at firemen in northwestern Milwaukee on Saturday night went after “white bitches,” among other targets. (The riots were inspired by the fatal police shooting of Sylville K. Smith, a black man. Smith, who had an extensive arrest record, including for a shooting, fled from officers after a traffic stop while carrying a stolen handgun; he refused commands to drop the gun. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has activated the state’s National Guard and declared a state of emergency, but violence continued into Sunday night, with four officers injured, three squad cars damaged, and multiple businesses burned down.) The Black Lives Matter-inspired assassin who murdered five police officers in Dallas in July 2016 said that he wanted to kill white people, as well as white cops. The vitriol that officers working in urban areas now encounter on a daily basis is inflected with racism.
And if the war on cops escalates into more frequent attacks on whites and their perceived interests, the elite establishment will bear much of the blame. For the last two years, President Barack Obama has seized every opportunity to advise blacks that they are the victims of a racist criminal justice system. We should not be surprised when that belief, so constantly inflamed, erupts into violence. Even in his remarks at the memorial service for the five murdered Dallas cops, Obama had the gall to trot out his usual racial vendetta against the police, even though he was fully on notice that cops were being killed because of it:
“When African-Americans from all walks of life, from different communities across the country, voice a growing despair over what they perceive to be unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested, more likely to get longer sentences, more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime; when mothers and fathers raise their kids right and have “the talk” about how to respond if stopped by a police officer—“yes, sir,” “no, sir”—but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door, still fear that kids being stupid and not quite doing things right might end in tragedy—when all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.”
Obama’s indictment ignored, as usual, the astronomically higher rates of black crime that fully explain racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, Obama hasn’t uttered a word in condemnation of the lawless behavior in Milwaukee, two days into the events.
Hillary Clinton has been just as quick to enflame black hatred of cops and, by inevitable extension, of “white” society. She said during a January 2016 Democratic presidential debate that it was “reality” that police officers see black lives as “cheap,” adding that “there needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system.” (In fact, there is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police; tens of thousands of black lives have been saved thanks to data-driven, proactive policing.) The July 2016 cop assassinations had no more deterrent effect on Clinton’s determination to keep anti-cop tensions at a boil than they did on President Obama. Speaking at the NAACP after the Baton Rouge assassinations, which followed the Dallas massacre, Clinton said that “we cannot rest until we root out implicit bias and stop the killings of African-Americans.” Showing herself to be as statistically challenged as Obama, she continued: “Let’s admit it, there is clear evidence that African-Americans are disproportionately killed in police incidents compared to any other group.” (Blacks are actually killed at a lower rate than their crime rates would predict. And at least four studies this year have shown that police officers are less likely to shoot blacks than whites, whether armed or unarmed.)
Last week, the Justice Department emitted yet another mendacious indictment of alleged cop racism, declaring the Baltimore Police Department guilty of a pattern or practice of systemic civil rights abuses. Baltimore officers accost and arrest blacks in Baltimore at higher rates than their proportion in the population, the Justice Department’s civil rights division wrote, carefully avoiding any notice of the crime that brings cops to black neighborhoods. The Justice Department report was ecstatically received in the media, and no doubt word of the confirmed racism of Baltimore police—and by extension, all police—trickled down into northwestern Milwaukee.
These nonstop rhetorical sorties against police officers and the criminal justice system inevitably expand into a broader indictment of the society that the criminal justice system defends. The Black Lives Matter riots of the last two years are inseparable from a hatred of what is perceived to be “white” society and civilization.

Posted in Blacks, BLM | Comments Off on Why Milwaukee Burns – Black social breakdown and anti-cop ideology put another American city to the torch

What Will It Take for the U.S. Jewish Establishment to Break Its Silence on Trump?

Posted on August 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Benjy Cannon writes:

American Jews overwhelmingly oppose Donald Trump. From the 72% overall who view him unfavorably to the prominent Republicans Jews who have loudly criticized him, there’s a broad American Jewish consensus that he should not be president. So why won’t certain elements of the American Jewish establishment to break their disturbing silence on his candidacy?
It’s difficult for major, powerful Jewish organizations to take certain political stances, even if they have widespread support. As someone who spent time in college encouraging leaders in the American Jewish community to take a stronger stand for a two-state solution and against the occupation in my capacity as J Street U president, I can attest to that first hand.
Many American Jewish organizations stake their power on claiming to represent consensus positions in American Jewry. It’s no secret that on Israel, parts of the Jewish establishment are out of touch with the majority of American Jews. For years, umbrella Jewish organizations such as the Conference of Presidents have purported to represent American Jews while repeatedly refusing to take a stance on issues like settlements, which most American Jews oppose.
And yet, I’ve often met with communal leaders who understand how our community’s politics on Israel are changing, but their aversion to controversy has left them unable to tackle thorny issues such as settlement construction and Palestinian human rights. They fear donor pressure, charges of partisanship and headaches from longtime supporters. That fear makes adapting to rapidly shifting politics a struggle.
That same fear and paralysis might explain their silence on Trump. But it does not excuse it.
Many groups have done incredible work. The Anti-Defamation League, the Union for Reform Judaism and Bend the Arc have consistently challenged Trump’s racist and reckless invective. 28 American Jewish organizations signed a letter condemning racism and anti-Semitism in the 2016 campaign. But other groups – AIPAC,  the JFNA and the Conference of Presidents in particular – have remained absolutely silent.
That Trump has gotten this far should constitute a national emergency for all American Jewish organizations. Trump’s racist rhetoric and policy prescriptions threaten Muslims and Hispanic Americans, he lashes out at his critics with threats of violence and his frightening foreign policy would create a far more dangerous world.
These reasons alone should be enough for the American Jewish establishment to make every effort to stop him getting into the White House. But there are issues that speak even more directly to American Jews.
Trump directs much of his hatred toward migrants and refugees. As descendants of refugees ourselves, Jewish organizations, such as the Joint Distribution Committee – a partner of JFNA – have a proud history of welcoming the stranger and refugee resettlement.
Trump’s advisers and the GOP under him are moving away from a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a position at odds with the overwhelming majority of American Jews and the entire Jewish establishment.
Many of Trump’s vocal supporters are notorious anti-Semites. He waffled when asked to disavow David Duke – the former KKK grand wizard.  His Twitter account has re-tweeted neo-Nazis and a flagrantly anti-Semitic meme, juxtaposing Clinton, piles of money and a Star of David. There is nothing ambiguous about the vicious Jew-hatred that surrounds his campaign.
Growing up, I constantly heard that when racism of any kind gains traction, anti-Semitism is never far behind. For many of Trump’s supporters, it’s already here. Trump is the type of candidate who I assumed would have sent the entire organized American Jewish community into a tailspin.
Some groups have hidden behind their non-profit 501(c)(3) status, claiming it makes it impossible for them to speak out against Trump. That’s false. While they may not be able to endorse candidates they have every right to criticize Trump’s dangerous and outrageous statements and policy proposals. In fact, as JTA pointed out, there are some Jewish (c)(3)s who have loudly done so.
Take the American Jewish Committee (AJC), for example. They put out a strong statement in November criticizing Trump’s proposed-Muslim ban. In the months since, they have been silent, other than an op-ed from AJC Executive Director David Harris extolling the fact that both Trump and Hillary Clinton would be “firsts” for American Jews because they would bring Jewish families into the oval office.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on What Will It Take for the U.S. Jewish Establishment to Break Its Silence on Trump?