May 25, 2016 Who Was The First American President To Bomb White People? Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Who Was The First American President To Bomb White People?

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

* One recalls the comment about Bill Clinton being the first American President since FDR to bomb white people, as if that was a good thing.

Now he is bombing people in Paris by proxy.

* The photograph of the statue of Bill Clinton in front of a pawn shop in Rapid City is priceless. I don’t know how much better it could be, unless it was in front of a massage parlor in Reno.

* Here’s a question for Donald Trump to bring up on the campaign trail: If the First Amendment – in it’s present “Separation of Church and State” interperetation – is taken to mean that state and local governments and the federal government can not subsidize the practice of religion, then why do we permit foreign governments to do so?

* Forget about Clinton – what this shows is that Saudi Arabia is the #1 driver of Islamic terrorism. The most insane thing that the West has done in the last 100 years was to take a fanatical but impoverished desert cult, promote them to the leadership of an entire country in favor of the traditional (and relatively moderate) Hashemite dynasty and then given them TRILLIONS of dollars of oil money with which to spread their crazy version of Islam and then allow them to open mosques and madrassahs to spread their hateful ideology all over the world (especially in places with vulnerable Islamic youth) in the guise of religious freedom. Each step along the way made sense (sort of, not really) but when you combine all of these factors together you get global terrorism on steroids and yet the Saudis are still supposed to be our “friends”.

And due to the impoverishment of most Muslim populations (except where there is oil) which in turn caused by their low IQ and inbreeding, high birth rates, corruption and overall failure to thrive in conditions of modernity, there are vulnerable Muslim youths all over the globe, both in Muslim majority countries and also in alienated Muslim populations in the West.

The statues of Clinton all look like department store dummies. It shows you how hard it is to do realistic representational art well without it looking like kitsch.

* The hatewaves emitted by Trump’s moratorium on all Muslim immigration, in addition to radicalizing every Muslim in the present, have (because of their extreme high-energy) also gone back in time and radicalized the Muslims of the past, making him ultimately responsible for the thwarted Fort Dix attack planned by several Albanian Muslim (illegal) immigrants in 2007.

A bit off-topic, but another animal satisfaction I’ll get from Trump thrashing Hillary in the general election, should it so transpire, is the reverse revision of Bill’s status as a smooth, glamorous, latter-day Don Juan, beloved of all desirable and good women. This notion got going in the afterglow of his post-impeachment “victory” and the general peace & prosperity “era of good feelings” ambience of late 90′s America.

I don’t know how much of this was astroturfing by feminist freaks of the “I’d blow him if he keeps abortion legal” variety, but I do remember many fawning lifestyle pieces on Clinton in the early 2000′s showing him in the company of several different (relatively) attractive women not his wife, and it was all wink-wink, nudge-nudge, if-Hillary-don’t-mind-who-are-we-to-judge, and ain’t-he-just-the-world’s-biggest-dreamboat!

The recent “hit-piece” on Trump and his womanizing in the NEW YORK TIMES by two nerdy Millenials, and Camille Paglia’s excellent rebuttal to it, instantly jarred me from the ain’t-Bill-just-the-sweetest-heartthrob media programming of the last 15 years. Take a look at that banquet photo of Trump and Rowanne Brewer. Now that is star power! That is glamour! It exposes Bill’s womanizing with frankly unattractive, overweight, and under-age females- many of whom he had to borderline sexually assault- as the unsmooth moves of the creepy, pathetic loser he really is.

Yeah, none of this should matter if we lived in Plato’s ideal philosopher-king republic, but we don’t, and the propaganda that so many Democratic Presidents have been glamorous ladykillers and that- by extension- you, Republican primary voter over there- must be some kind of bitter, woman-hating loser, has high-time reached the point where it deserves demolishing.

* I am feeling awfully fuzzy and optimistic today as I contemplate the fact that we may be less than a year away from having a president who will end Muslim and other dysgenic immigration, opposes stupid middle east wars but loves our military and loves Israel, and will stop the left from taking over the Supreme Court and the few remaining Circuit Courts they do not control.

Trump is now, for the first time, officially in the lead with poll averages!

These are all things Trump can do his first 100 days. For the Supreme Court, he may have a Dem senate majority stopping him from appointing a young Scalia, but there are plenty of other bland and inoffensive Republicans who can get the mere 1 or 2 or so Dem votes to be approved.

For the wall, he already has a great plan to start: immediately impose fees of Mexican remittances and use them to fund the parts of the border fence that are authorized to be built but were never provided funding. Maybe other standard immigration process fees can be increased. As long as the law does not have a specific amount, the implication is the amount is set by the exec branch.

Likewise, current law already gives the president the power to suspend immigration from specific countries. I doubt Trump can specifically get away with “no Muslim immigration.” But 98% as good is “no somalia, saudi, yemeni, syrian, pakistani, etc immigration.”

I just had a look at Hillary’s campaign website. Yuck, the design and colors are really bad. Even worse is the content of her agenda. My comments in CAPS, everything else is a direct quotation from her “issues” pages.

—

– MAKING AMERICA LESS SAFE, SIDING WITH CRIMINALS OVER CITIZENS –

1. FORCE BUSINESSES TO HIRE FELONS, AND LET THE FELONS AND GOVERNMENT SUE BUSINESSES THAT DON’T HIRE THEM

Taking executive action to “ban the box” for federal employers and contractors, so that applicants have an opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications before being asked about their criminal records.

2. LET RAPISTS AND MURDERERS CANCEL OUT YOUR VOTE

Supporting legislation to restore voting rights to individuals who have served their sentences.

3. IMMEDIATELY RELEASE MANY “NON-VIOLENT” FEDERAL PRISON INMATES (DON’T FORGET MANY VIOLENT FELONS TAKE A PLEA DEAL FOR A NON-VIOLENT OFFENSE THAT STILL PUTS THEM AWAY FOR A LONG TIME.)

Applying Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactively to allow current nonviolent prisoners to seek fairer sentences.

4. PORK SPENDING FOR TOUCHY-FEELING LEFT-WING INDOCTRINATION OF POLICE

Doubling funding for the U.S. Department of Justice “Collaborative Reform” program to provide technical assistance and training to agencies that undertake voluntary efforts toward transformational reform of their police departments. Across the country, there are police departments deploying creative and effective strategies that we can learn from and build on.

5. INCREASE FEDERAL HARRASSMENT OF LOCAL POLICE, FORCING THEM TO RESPOND TO MORE FEDERAL SUBPOENAS AND COLLECT MORE DATA TO BE USED IN ANTI-POLICE LAWSUITS

Strengthening the U.S. Department of Justice’s pattern or practice unit by increasing resources, working to secure subpoena power, and improving data collection for pattern or practice investigations.

6. PROUDLY ANNOUCES SUPPORT OF VIOLENT DRUG DEALER TRAYVON MARTIN’S MOTHER

Read more: Sybrina Fulton shares why she’s supporting Hillary

7. DO AN END-RUN AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT BY LETTING PEOPLE SUE GUN COMPANIES OUT OF BUSINESS

Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.

– DEMOGRAPHIC DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA –

1. DEFEND OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE AMNESTIES OF ABOUT 60% OF CURRENT ILLEGALS, AND “EXPAND” THEM FURTHER

Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.

2. IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF UNACCOMPENIED MINORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH CHILDREN WHO ILLEGALLY ENTER THE USA AND MAKE A BS ASYLUM CLAIM (MOST DO NOT EVEN SHOW UP TO THE FIRST ASYLUM HEARING, THEY JUST DISAPPEAR AND START WORKING ILLEGALLY OR COMMITTING CRIME)

End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.

3. SIGN A RUBIO STYLE IMMEDIATE AMNESTY FOR ALL ILLEGALS PLUS A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP

As president, Hillary will fight for comprehensive immigration reform that provides a full and equal path to citizenship, treats every person with dignity, upholds the rule of law, protects our borders and national security, and brings millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.

4. CHANGE THE RULE THAT VIOLATORS OF IMMIGRATION LAWS CANNOT APPLY FOR CITIZENSHIP UNLESS THEY GO HOME FIRST

End the 3- and 10-year bars. Current immigration law forces families—especially those whose members have different citizenship or immigration statuses—into a heartbreaking dilemma: pursue a green card by leaving the country and your loved ones behind, or remain in the shadows. Hillary will call on Congress to repeal the 3- and 10-year bars to keep families together.

5. MAKE MORE POOR PEOPLE WHO DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH CITIZENS SO THEY CAN CANCEL YOUR VOTE AND COLLECT ALL WELFARE BENEFITS

there are an estimated 9 million lawful permanent residents (green card holders) in the United States who are eligible to become U.S. citizens. Hillary believes we need to do more to help the millions of people who are eligible for citizenship to take that last step. She will work to expand fee waivers so more people can get a break on costs, increase access to robust language programs to help people boost their English proficiency, and enhance outreach and education so more people are informed about their options and engaged in the process.

– HILLARY’S PLANS TO TAX-N-STEAL THE MONEY YOU EARNED AND SPEND IT ON CRONIES, PORK, AND THE ANTI-WHITE/ANTI-AMERICA EDUCATION-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX –

1. $20 BILLION IN “JOBS” WELFARE THAT IS “TARGETED” TO RACISTLY EXCLUDE WHITES AND ASIANS

Her plan includes $20 billion to create youth jobs, particularly for African American, Native American, and Latino youth;

2. $5 BILLION FOR MAKE-WORK JOBS FOR CRIMINALS

$5 billion to create reentry programs that will help formerly incarcerated Americans get back on their feet when they return to society

3. $25 BILLION IN SMALL BUSINESS LOANS FOR “UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES,” AKA, “NONE FOR YOU WHITE BOY”

$25 billion to support entrepreneurship and small business growth in underserved communities.

4. YET ANOTHER $25 BILLION IN TAXES TAKEN FROM WHITES AND GIVEN TO MINORITIES FOR HOUSING PROGRAMS

$25 billion to remove blight from neighborhoods, remove barriers to sustainable homeownership, and connect affordable housing to economic opportunity. Centuries of housing discrimination have excluded people of color from the mainstream mortgage market and cut families off from communities with high-performing schools, safe streets, and good-paying jobs.

5. YET ANOTHER $25 BILLION TAKEN FROM WHITE TAXPAYERS AND RACISTLY EXCLUDE THEM IN FAVOR OF “HISTORICALLY BLACK” AND “MSI” COLLEGES (MSI MEANS MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS)

A $25 billion fund will support HBCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs serving a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients to help lower the cost of attendance and improve student outcomes at low-cost, modest-endowment nonprofit private schools.

* Trump is walking a fine line now that he’s in General Election mode, he was hardline on immigration in the primaries and now he’s going to try to sooth feathers, which means that his rhetoric is going to be softer and this is going to worry the immigration hardliners. Mickey Kaus is already worried about Trump backtracking on immigration like he’s doing with the Muslim Ban. Add Kobach to the ticket and Trump’s choice sends a signal on immigration that personnel are key, so along with Kobach there will be Stephen Miller and Senator Sessions. This troika is not going to roll-over on immigration thus giving Trump a freer hand to talk gently with all the hothouse flowers out there.

From Kobach’s perspective, I’m thinking that this results in him leapfrogging hundreds of aspiring politicians and because it’s the Don’s doing, loyalty to the Don is expected on whatever it is that Trump actually wants to do with Trumpism.

The VP slot is a weird position. High in symbolism, low in operational authority. Having watched Kobach debate on immigration, I don’t have any doubt that he’d be formidable in the VP debates and on the campaign trail.

Everyone with stature comes with baggage and because Trump is trying to distance himself from Establishment Republicanism, the last thing he needs is baggage. That appeals to the non-Republicans. What appeals to the Republicans is that Kobach hits many of their ideological sweet spots without bringing national recognition and baggage. People already have opinions on Gingrich, Portman, Christie and I’m not sure what these guys bring, in terms of political capital, that appeals to people who are being swayed by Trump for they represent the old Republican Party that alienated these very voters. The Democrats have a harder time attacking someone like Kobach because he doesn’t have a high profile. The lack of high profile is immaterial to Trump because a nomination gives him de facto high profile plus it guarantees weeks of talking heads talking about Trump reaching down below the top tier and pulling out a star player. Moreover, it let’s Trump set the media agenda after the announcement because the media is unprepared for someone like Kobach and so while they’re scrambling to develop a narrative, Trump is already pushing out his narrative.

I can’t see any upside for Trump in choosing an established politician, now he takes on the baggage of whomever he chooses and they have an independent power base and they could undermine Trump within the Party.

Posted in Europe | Comments Off

Zakia Belkhiri Took a Selfie of anti-Semitism on the Left

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Another Jewish woman has a hard time understanding that different groups have different interests.

The Coalition of the Fringe (the make-up of all left of center parties in the West) may be fraying.

From Haaretz:

Last week a Belgian Muslim named Zakia Belkhiri posted a cheeky selfie that nearly broke the social justice internet. Belkhiri, an attractive young hijab-wearing woman, took a picture of herself flashing a peace sign in front of a wall of anti-Muslim protesters. Her sly smile in the face of overwhelming hate caught the attention of millions and the picture went viral. Her message was powerful — the antidote to hate was not more hate, but laughter.
I was one of thousands who shared Belkhiri’s snap on various social media platforms. I’m a part of the Jon Stewart generation. When confronted with the fact-resistant, primal pleasures of hatred (so notably practiced by Fox News) the obvious answer is righteous laughter.
Belkhiri’s photo wasn’t just funny in the way it cut anti-Islamic protesters down to size. There was something moving about the image. The French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas wrote that it is the face-to-face encounter that makes us responsible to each other — “the face is what forbids us to kill.” Belkhiri’s selfie hinted at a vulnerability in tension with the frivolity inherent in the selfie, something that might make each side see each other as human, rather than monolithic. It was a deeply hopeful moment of distinctly contemporary resistance.
Only a few beats in the news cycle later came the disappointment. The inevitably incriminating social media was dug up, complicating the nervy woman in the selfie. Numerous tweets and Facebook posts showed Belkhiri might be against Islamophobia, but also unashamedly dabbling in anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Her most devastating tweet being “Hitler didn’t kill all the Jews, he left some. So we know why he was killing them. #fuckrs.” As the news filtered out about Belkhiri, I was disappointed, but not surprised.
The Belkhiri story illustrates the failure of intersectionality, perhaps the most important critical tool of the New Left.
Intersectional analysis understands oppression as multi-dimensional and privilege as contingent. A white Jewish woman in America may experience white privilege, but she still has to fight against sexism and global anti-Semitism.
Yet, over and over, Jews and Jewish oppression get left out of that intersectional analysis. Jewishness is conflated with whiteness, with the bizarre results of seeing the Holocaust described (and dismissed) in certain circles, as “white on white” crime.
Belkhiri’s stumble wasn’t an exception in the contemporary social justice narrative, it was another example of how the global Left systematically fails to include the Jewish struggle for self-determination both cultural and political within its framework of national and personal liberations.
After World War II, particularly in America, anti-Semitism was often seen as no more than a distasteful kind of bourgeois country club exclusion, a result of Jews’ perceived operationalizing of postwar economic mobility and white privilege. It was not taken seriously as a real threat to individuals, their bodies and livelihoods, or as a threat to a minority group’s right to practice its religious, cultural or national expression.
The New Left has always had its ‘Jewish problem’, something we’re seeing in the latest flap within the British Labour Party. Today it’s often boiled down to the question of whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. But the problem isn’t anti-Zionism, it’s the obsessive focus on the Jewish state to the exclusion of much else.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off

REPORT: Migrants Committing Disproportionately High Crime In Germany While Media And Govt Focus on ‘Far Right’ Thought Crimes

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Breitbart: A massive, migrant crime wave is surging across Germany according to figures buried in a new report released by the country’s Interior Ministry. The data reveals that without migrants considered, crime rates in Germany would have remained roughly static since 2014. But, in fact, the country recorded an extra 402,741 crimes committed by migrants.
While much of this criminality concerned illegal border crossings, German authorities instead talked up a “record surge” in crimes by “right wing radicals”.

Concerning statistics from the 135-page report reveal that 70 per cent of pickpocketing, one of the crime types on the rise, was committed by non-Germans. Of this figure, 34 per cent was committed by recent asylum seekers, with the rest committed by “non-Germans”.

Foreign nationals are thought to account for around 11 or 12 per cent of the total population of Germany, but were over-represented in every area of crime.

Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers account for around 2.5 per cent of Germany’s population, but were also massively overrepresented.

Amongst total offences, non-Germans accounted for 27.6 percent while illegal immigrants and asylum seekers accounted for 5.7 percent. Of homicides, the figures are 29.3%/8.2%, and of sexual assaults, the figures were 20.5%/4.8%.

In all of these cases as well as those indicated in the chart below, non-Germans and illegal migrants outstripped their proportions of crime to their representation in German society.

Non-Germans accounted for 38 per cent of all robberies, 38 per cent of thefts, and 43 per cent of thefts that involved a level of aggravation such as assault or force.

They accounted for 40.2 per cent of burglaries, 43.5 per cent of shoplifting, and a whopping 75.7 of pick pocketing or purse snatching.

Posted in Germany | Comments Off

Tabletmag: ‘Austria’s Incredibly Narrow Escape From Neo-Fascism’

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

That’s a tad hyperbolic, no?

The Austrian president is a largely ceremonial position.

Subhead at Tabletmag: “Dispatch from Vienna, where a closely contested presidential election may be a bellwether for an increasingly xenophobic Europe”

Has the writer ever studied Torah? It tends to have frequently a xenophobic attitude to non-Jews. Every proud group has a somewhat xenophobic view of strangers. If you want to protect something, you must discriminate.

Tabletmag: “Austria has dodged a bullet after voters elected the Green Party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen to be their next president over the nominee of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), Norbert Hofer. In a contest that sharply divided Austria along gender, educational, and geographical lines, Van der Bellen beat Hofer in the closest presidential contest in Austrian history. Thirty years after Kurt Waldheim—a former member of the SA and an accomplice to Nazi war crimes in Serbia as a Wehrmacht intelligence officer during the Second World War—was elected to the same post, Austrian voters narrowly prevented a neo-fascist from entering the Hofburg.”

And we all remember the genocides that Kurt Waldheim launched while president.

Tabletmag seems to be displaying a real xenophobia against many of the non-Jews of Austria who wish to preserve their heritage and their gene pool just as much as Torah wants Jews to preserve their heritage and gene pool.

Posted in Europe | Comments Off

America’s Bright Transgendered Future

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment: …sort of mind boggling:

A newly formed pro-transgender political action committee has sent out a questionnaire to each of the major 2016 presidential candidates — but only Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has responded.

The Trans United Fund, launched in April with the goal of building the transgender community’s political power, sent out a questionnaire to campaigns for both Hillary Clinton and Sanders. Although the Clinton campaign initially signaled it would answer the questions, the campaign has yet to return the questionnaire, the committee says.

The 15-page questionnaire prepared for the candidates covers a range of transgender issues, seeking candidate’s positions on transgender employment as well as access to transition-related health care, education and housing.

Why do transpeople need education and housing? I mean, anymore than anyone else?

In his responses, Sanders affirms support for trans rights in each of these areas. Additionally, he volunteers a proposed executive order requiring all federal employees to have access to workplace facilities consistent with their gender identity and to establish an interagency working group to increase opportunities for the trans community.

Okay, bathrooms again. How do we increase opportunities for transpeople?

The candidate also recommits himself to fighting HIV/AIDS in response to questions on the epidemic and pledges to work to reform state HIV criminalization laws, which to varying degree penalize the transfer of HIV.

WTF, I thought knowingly transferring a deadly infection was criminal, and it should be.

Sanders identifies as his greatest achievement for transgender people his role in enacting the Affordable Care Act, which he says secured $11 billion to expand the network of Federally Qualified Health Centers to assist minority communities like transgender people.

$11 B is not enough.

But Sanders didn’t respond to all of the questions. One on whether he has employed a transgender person to work for him in a government and business context, and another on whether he supports the legalization of sex work were left unanswered.

What does TG have to do with prostitution (sex work)? Apparently, a lot; perhaps these are the opportunities previously referred to. I was right, others were wrong: legalized prostitution is apparently next, call it WWP.

Many of Sanders’ answers reflect his responses during an interview last year with the Washington Blade in which he promised to make transgender people visible in his administration and became the first presidential candidate to endorse openly transgender military service.

How do you make TG’s “visible” in your administration? As for the armed services, I have my doubts.

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/05/24/sanders-but-not-clinton-responds-to-trans-group-questionnaire/

Posted in Trans | Comments Off

The War Over Language

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* In my lifetime, the politically correct term for black people has changed maybe four or five times, from colored people to Negroes to black to African-American to people of color (which is good but colored people is bad – go figure). I may have missed a couple in there – I think there may have been a short period where it was Afro-American instead of African-American. A lot of this is just shit testing for loyalty to the party line – the powers that be change the acceptable name and you have to signal your virtue and hipness by following the party line that is current this week. Maybe next week the correct term for blacks will be “sun people”. If you don’t follow along with this, you can be accused of being racis’, not to mention “childish, passive aggressive, and effeminate”. Maybe some people don’t want to play this game anymore.

* The reason these names keep changing is because a word designates an object, and if an object accrues bad associations, then by re-naming the object, it is thought that you remove the bad associations. But the bad associations always come right back, because it is the object, not the word, that is creating the problem. The first person I know to point this out was Schopenhauer, 150 years ago (Section 285a in the Parerga and Paralipomena).

All social justice re-naming (including the current jihad against “oriental”) is similarly motivated and will require similar re-naming every cycle.

There’s an amusing anecdote from the Falkland Island War that recaps this: Supposedly the British troops began referring to Falkland Island natives as “Bennies”, which was a way of calling them idiots, and the high command got word of this and commanded that they stop using that word. So they started calling them “NB’s” with the same disparaging tone. A commander asked, “what does NB stand for?” “Not Bennies” replied the soldier.

* Liberal love blacks, browns and Muslims so long as they act just like white liberals. Otherwise, liberals get very frustrated and, most often, move to a less diverse neighborhood. Funny that.

* One of Fox News Channel’s token liberals is one of its celebrity Blacks, Juan Williams. He is actually an immigrant from Panama! Nonetheless, he is usually referred to as “African American”– as are people like Colin Powell, whose parents were from the Caribbean. Juan Williams is actually a Black Hispanic, or an Hispanic Black, but I never have heard anyone refer to him as such.

My problem, however, is not with immigrants who are naturalized, much less the native-born children of immigrants, being called “African American” (i.e., despite their not having any ancestors who were slaves in America). My problem is primarily with people exchanging two words with seven syllables for a single, monosyllabic word– even though they call the majority “White” instead of “European American.” In the words of ‘Judas Iscariot’: “It doesn’t help us if you’re inconsistent!”

Actually, I find “African American” more objectionable than its mere length: It also is inaccurate, in that the natives of northern Africa are not black (negroid), and are (for the moment, at least) classified as “White or Caucasian” by the government itself. Even worse, of course, is the moronic use of “Asian” as a “racial” designator, as if Afghanis and Japanese were of the same race. Sigh….

* During the Winter Olympics a few years back when a Jamaican won a medal in some sport the NBC commentator described her as being “the first African American, from any country, to win a medal”.

* African American is a treadmill euphemism. When a group can’t meet societal norms they simply change their name hoping that will alleviate the stigma of belonging to the group. There is no use examining the term “African American” because it will soon fall out of favor and some other term will take its place. The New York Times now asks people, or blacks at least, how they describe themselves. In one article five people of African descent are described as black, African American, Afro Caribbean, Tunisian and Egyptian, or mother from Barbados. LINK.

The terms idiot, imbecile, and moron changed to mentally retarded which changed to special needs and in many places is now called exceptional.

* RE the group of a thousand names, I think the main thing is connotation. They want to keep the name a moving target, so the negative connotations can be ditched for a while. It’s like if Chipotle (was having much bigger problems and) changed their name and brand. It wouldn’t really promise anything new of substance, but a lot of people would fall for it. Eventually, every name given to blacks becomes a word a certain type of non-black spits. When that type hits a certain critical mass, it’s time for a brand change. African American might have staying power, because it’s long enough to appeal to blacks’ grandiose tendencies.

* Lots of interracial marriage among powerful families in America in the latest generation.

John Boehner’s daughter – black man
John McCain’s son – black woman
Al Gore’s daughter – Asian man
Barbara Bush – brown guy from Panama

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off

SJW Jett Goldsmith: ‘Oh my, and you live in the same state as me. Hold on while I capture your tweets and get you fired.’

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Here is the Twitter account for Jett Goldsmith: “News Editor at Neowin, formerly of @Conflicts. Student of international affairs. Occasional contributor to @Bellingcat. Tweets on Syria, geopolitics, and tech.”

This guy reminds me of Ben Shapiro who said: “Of course there are legitimate racists, and we should target them and we should find them and we should hurt their careers”

Posted in SJW | Comments Off

Taylor Swift Is Not a Nazi

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Some people are easy to troll.

Rachel Shukert writes: Among other stupid and hateful proclamations, a popular white supremacist blogger said Taylor Swift is an ‘Aryan Goddess’ who is ‘secretly a Nazi’

Have you ever looked at Taylor Swift’s Instagram—her ubiquitous social media feed that’s full of her tall, leggy, impossibly blonde and snub-nosed friends (your Jaime Kings, your Karlie Klosses)—and thought: Hmmm, they certainly look like they are having a lovely, female-centric, wholesome time, but they also don’t look very—how to put this?—Jewish? Well, you’re not the only one! That’s right, Neo-Nazis, too, have eyes for Swift who is apparently… a Nazi?

“Taylor Swift is a pure Aryan goddess,” white supremacist blogger Andre Anglin, of hate-rag The Daily Stormer, told Broadly in a piece titled “Can’t Shake It Off: How Taylor Swift Became a Nazi Goddess.” The article tracks the rise of this peculiar fanfare, which apparently began with a Pinterest meme in which Hitler quotes were pasted onto pics of T. Swift and vice versa. The Internet, how fun!

According to the article in Vice’s Broadly, whose bloggers have stronger stomachs than I do for investigating the murky depths of the Internet, Nazis and others persons with alt-right political leanings are inspired by Swift whom they believe, once upon the throne, could “commands us to go forth and slaughter the subhuman enemies of the Aryan race.”

Said Anglin, a charmer: “[Swift is] like something out of classical Greek poetry. Athena reborn. It is also an established fact that Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi and is simply waiting for the time when Donald Trump makes it safe for her to come out and announce her Aryan agenda to the world. Probably, she will be betrothed to Trump’s son, and they will be crowned American royalty.

“It’s incredible really that she’s surrounded by these filthy, perverted Jews, and yet she remains capable of exuding 1950s purity, femininity and innocence. She is the anti-Miley. While Miley is out having gang-bangs with colored gentlemen, she is at home with her cat reading Jane Austen.”

Obviously, these kinds of statement leads to some critical questions, to put it mildly. First of all, hasn’t Taylor Swift already been crowned American royalty? Second, go easy on Miley. Sure she’s hanging out with some questionable company, but who says she hasn’t read Jane Austen. Third, which of Donald Trump’s sons? The two older ones are both already married, and while a marriage between the 26-year-old Swift and the 10-year-old Barron Trump might emulate some of the more cynically dynastic marriages of the great European houses for which many white supremacists yearn, it sounds a bit squicky, not to mention weighted, towards reproductive challenges.

And besides, once you get rid of the Jews, who the hell do they think is going to negotiate the nuclear hellscape of that prenup?

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off

Jewish Racial Purity

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Adam Kirsch writes about tractate Kiddushin, the current portion of the Talmud studied in the daily practice of “Daf Yomi” — a folio page of Talmud a day:

…21st-century geneticists discovered what they called the Cohen Modal Haplotype, a set of genes carried on the Y chromosome, which are carried by a majority of Jewish families that self-identify as kohanim. This suggests that the priestly identity was, in many cases, accurately passed down for a hundred generations.

Strong warnings are issued against high-born Jews marrying low-born Jews: According to Rabba bar bar Chana, “Anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him [due to her lineage], the verse ascribes blame to him as though he plowed the entire world and sowed it with salt.” Such warnings are only necessary, however, because the temptation to marry “below” one’s station was often irresistible. The reason, of course, was money: It would have taken a rare commitment to lineage to reject a potential rich suitor just because he was rumored to have a mamzer or a slave somewhere in his family tree.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi hints at this dynamic when he says, “Money purifies mamzerim.” The tone of this statement is hard to parse: Is Yehoshua being cynical or sarcastic about social-climbing mamzerim, or is he acknowledging an inevitable fact of life, or is he possibly even praising the power of money to overcome distinctions of birth? At any rate, it’s clear that the rabbis do not believe in scrutinizing people’s family background too closely. “A family that has become assimilated remains assimilated,” says Rabbi Yitzchak: That is, if a family of flawed lineage manages to marry into a family with pure lineage, their descendants are considered pure. This looks like a contradiction of the stated law on the subject, which says that the children of flawed unions inherit the flaw of their parents.

But for the sake of social peace, the rabbis recognize that it’s better to draw a curtain over such questions. Indeed, the amora Ulla asked rhetorically, “Is that to say that we know where we come from? Perhaps we are from those about whom it is written: ‘They have ravished the women in Zion, the maidens in the city of Judah.’” In other words, even a pious and learned Jew might be descended from a woman raped by gentile invaders. In this way, the Talmud marks a transition from an aristocracy based on birth and lineage to one based on learning and piety.

Posted in Jews, Talmud | Comments Off

Forward: The Outrageous Jewish Hypocrisy of Ivanka Trump — Not To Mention Donald and Melania

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

For Bethany Mandel and those who share her feelings, this election is a train wreck. For about half of America, however, this election is unfolding beautifully.

Different groups have different interests. Bethany has chosen the losing side.

I wonder if Ivanka has a future in politics? Or if her brothers are more logical choices?

Bethany Mandel writes:

>What is it about Ivanka Trump? If Donald’s daughter were the one running for president, there would probably be far fewer Republicans declaring “Never Trump” as we watch the election unfold like a slow-motion train wreck. She is, simply, everything her father is not. Soft-spoken, a thoughtful listener, a self-proclaimed feminist, naturally beautiful and gentle — especially in contrast to her father’s brash, bombastic showmanship.
In The Federalist (where I am a senior contributor) Mary Katharine Ham
puts it best
: “Ivanka is a natural in the art of Kate Middletoning — being damn near perfect and likable, especially to women, even when her immense beauty and privilege have the potential to make such displays grating.”
Which is why so many fans and admirers of Ivanka, myself included, are increasingly wondering: When is it going to be enough for Ivanka? When will it come to a point where even Donald’s daughter can’t defend him any longer?
In a recent article in The Atlantic, Alex Wagner
asks just that
. How can a self-proclaimed feminist stand idly by as her father, a presidential candidate, debases not only women everywhere, but also Ivanka herself? One of Donald’s ultimate “compliments” about Ivanka is that he would date her if she weren’t his own child. If any other father in America made a similar public statement about his teenage daughter, he would (justifiably) be subject to a visit from the local division of Child Protective Services. It’s just not something a father says about his daughter — much like Donald’s compliments about the future breast size of his then-one-year-old daughter Tiffany.
Ivanka’s entire brand revolves around empowering women to be the ultimate multitaskers, taking up the mantle of Sheryl Sandberg and helping women who want to make it in corporate America “lean in.” Wagner writes, “What is undeniably true is that there is no room even in Ivanka’s brand of hyper-efficient, nonconfrontational feminism for the piggish antics and antiquated, un-hashtaggable gender tropes embraced by her father. Put another way: If the tables were turned and Donald Trump worked for his daughter, he would have been fired long, long ago.”
What Wagner wrote of Ivanka’s feminism could just as well be said of her Judaism. How long can Ivanka, herself Jewish and the mother of three beautiful Jewish children, stay silent about the vocal anti-Semitic contingent in her father’s base? Last October, I was one of the first journalists to take note of the phenomenon in these pages, asking,
“Why Won’t Donald Trump Stand Up to His Anti-Semitic Fans?”
Seven months later, I’m still asking.
Since that piece was written, Trump has retweeted more blatantly anti-Semitic accounts and selected a delegate with white nationalist ties to represent his campaign in California. In the run-up to the New York primary, Ted Cruz could be found in Brooklyn baking matzo with some Chabadniks (and me), but Trump was nowhere to be seen making similar outreach attempts to the Jewish community. The closest Trump came were his appearances at events like the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual gathering late last year, when he joked that he wasn’t going to get the support of those present because he wasn’t interested in taking their money. A very unamused crowd eventually booed the then-longshot candidate.
Now that more mainstream and liberal reporters are on the receiving end of the same deluge of tweets, messages and even calls that conservative Jews have been experiencing for over seven months, the wider media is finally beginning to pay attention. The New York Times’ Jonathan Weisman was recently subjected to a wave of hate, and before that, Julia Ioffe was targeted for a balanced profile she did of Melania, Donald’s wife, for GQ. Both incidents received a great deal of coverage and finally drew the attention of Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Donald Trump | Comments Off