May 22, 2016 ‘René and Juan Carlos set out to convert their Colombian megachurch to Orthodox Judaism. This is what happened.’ Luke Ford No sacred cows.

‘René and Juan Carlos set out to convert their Colombian megachurch to Orthodox Judaism. This is what happened.’

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Essay: With its decaying two-story homes and grazing cows, Bello looks like just another sleepy suburb of Medellín, Colombia. Thirty years ago, though, it was known as la capital de los sicarios, the capital of the assassins. Pablo Escobar, the leader of the Medellín cartel, which supplied most of the world’s cocaine, recruited many of his sicarios from Bello, paying them to eliminate his adversaries. Mostly teenagers, they rode motorcycles, prayed to La Virgen María Auxiliadora, and killed their victims in the streets. René Cano grew up in Bello at the height of Escobar’s reign.
Born in 1978, René was the child of a textile factory worker and a housewife, both observant Catholics. At 13, he was so tall and self-possessed that he passed for an 18-year-old and, by his own description, was sexually precocious. He could talk anyone into anything. When his father announced one evening there was no money, nothing for dinner, René ran outside with a chair and came back with cash.
His cousins were sicarios and so were his neighbors; almost everyone he knew was on drugs. His mother understood it was only a matter of time before René would join them, and she feared for his life. “Don’t hang out on the corner,” she told him one day, “because they will come.” Five minutes after she called him into the house, men gunned down seven boys on the spot where he had been standing. The stench of their deaths lingered for weeks.

Posted in Conversion | Comments Off

This Is It!

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Many would-be converts to Judaism think Judaism is it! Then they convert and their enthusiasm dies out. It’s like a man chasing a hot woman. Once he gets her he wants something else…

FFB friend: “If only you had the capability of showing these pathetic people the truth.”

Posted in Conversion | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: The O.J. Simpson Story Is About Violent White Racism Toward Black Bodies

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* To be fair, Black men beat the ever loving hell out of Black women way more than they do white women. Black women are almost totally inured to it. Many, if not most, Black women have been repeatedly beaten by one or more significant other. They also know, that most of the time, said significant other will stop short of killing them, so they don’t necessarily make the leap from jealousy based abuse to murder. That is why Blacks on O.J.’s jury were not impressed by Nicole having a few bruises on her face, that just means love to them. Black women are incredibly loyal to Black men. I often think they are trying to make up for how often they (willingly) consorted with the slave masters and the slave masters’ sons. In any case, we white women could take a leaf out of their book and be more supportive, loyal and faithful to our white men.

* When you meet a black person who was an adult at the time and the subject of the OJ case comes up, ask them 3 questions:
1) do you think O.J. did it?
2) (if they say yes) when did you arrive at that opinion?
3a) (if they said some time before the end of the trial) when did you first tell a white person that you thought he did it?
3b) (if they said some time after the trial) what new evidence changed your mind?

* I will never understand “white guilt” over slavery. Africans sold each other into slavery. They were purchased by Jews, Whites, Arabs, and other Africans. Why should only Whites be blamed?

* There’s an amusing phenomenon where young liberals assume that America was under control of a Nazi-sympathizing segregationist government until *maybe* 5 or 6 years ago, and things have only started to turn around thanks to campus SJW activists and the Black Lives Matter movement.

So you have people sharing videos of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton speaking out in favor of civil rights or feminism back in the 80s and 90s, and acting like that makes them heroic trailblazers. “OMG they were saying discrimination is bad back in the 80s! Incredible!”

* The issue concerning this trial was not whether O.J. did it, but whether an African-American, for once, could get away with it — sort of like the affirmative action of criminal justice — because white people had gotten away with it so many times. The most awkward moment in People vs. Simpson was when Simpson, after his acquittal, says “We should find the culprit, or culprits” to a room full of people. There’s an awkward silence in the room, because everyone implicitly knew that O.J. actually did it.

In his original incarnation, OJ was custom made to give proof to White America’s delusional narrative that “clean, well-spoken negros who shed ghetto culture and are ambitious” can succeed in life.

This fantasy view of an equal opportunity America was of course was forgotten the instant he was seen as an abusive, murdering thug, whose supporters were blind to justice.

* Actually the black women on the jury pretty much despised Nicole, which was well known to the defense team and missed by the clueless Marcia Clark, who fantasized she had some kind of “connection” with black women. The black women deeply resented what they saw as a white gold-digger who had ‘stolen’ a rich, successful, handsome black man from them.

* I’m sure there were some who wanted him to get off whether he did it or not. Still others tried their darndest not to think about whether he really did it. However, there was a substantial portion of the population who truly believed the LAPD set him up. Just like there are people now who think Mike Brown had his hands up and Trayvon Martin was ambushed on his way home to study for AP Chemistry, or whatever.

* And don’t forget the self-aggrandizing District Attorney who moved the trial from Santa Monica where it should have been conducted to the Central courthouse so he could be on TV regularly. The Santa Monica jury panel is wholly different from the downtown panel.

* The prosecutors decided to have the trial in the Central courthouse because (especially after Rodney King) they thought it was important to have a “representative” jury.

* I remember watching a low budget Lifetime film in the 1990s where a Mulatto woman played by an actress named Jasmine Guy, marries a White man she met in the military.

He ends up becoming an abusive alcoholic husband, beats her, and eventually murders her. It’s like the OJ case, except the races are reversed. It’s a man bites dog film.

* I was in Philadelphia the day after the verdict. All the black folks I encountered were bubbly and smiling, it was weird. I almost got mad for a minute, but then, whatever. I will say I have never invested in a capital case of any kind since then. I just assume the jury will get it wrong.

* A friend of mine, when he was a young doctor doing his residency, worked in the ER at a large public hospital in Baltimore. He used to see all sorts of victims of marital violence. One regular was an older black male who often ended up at the ER after a dust-up with his wife. He’d slap her around, and when she had enough, she’d stab him with a paring knife. The wounds were typically messy but superficial. He’d then come into the ER via the “amberlamps” to be patched up, and when the cops asked him if he wanted to press charges, he always declined.

The last time they fought, his wife’s aim was deadlier. She cut a major artery, her husband bled out, and was dead on arrival at the ER. The police went to the house to inform his wife of this, and that she was under arrest for killing him. Her response, according to my doctor friend:

“He die? He nebber do dat befo’!”

* I worked with a few blacks at that time in the 90′s. They were all convinced that OJ was innocent. Reasons? Nope, they just “felt” it. The cops were all racists. All cops everywhere are racist.

* “Everything in our age conspires to turn the writer, and every other kind of artist as well, into a minor official, working on themes handed down from above and never telling what seems to him the whole of the truth.” (George Orwell)

* Blaming everything on white people is its own kind of white supremacism – the only kind still allowed.

* What OJ Simpson taught me was that blacks do not care about justice or right and wrong, and only care about their own skin color.

* I have a friend whose wife beats on him occasionally. He said he does not fight back because 1) he was taught not to hit women, and 2) he will be the one going to jail if she calls the police. Because, as we all know, women never lie.

* Geez, talk to your friend. I supposed it’s possible that both he and his wife are on opposite ends of their respective sex’s personality spectrum, and this relationship could be “stable”. But from the huge majority of relationship observations I’ve made in life, a woman being able to roll right over her man–essentially not having a man that is her superior–is very unstable. It violates female hypergamy. Mostly when a woman loses respect, it just snowballs–gets worse and worse, onto contempt and more–into divorce.

Unless they are in some bizarre stable kink, i’d suggest when she tries to beat on him, stop her, flip her over and give her a good spanking. I think the marriage from that point on will be a lot better. It might be what she’s actually looking for from him–boundaries.

* I was happy to see OJ found not guilty. It confirmed my views of our culture while demonstrating the results of our leftist media and education complex .

In addition the trial highlighted the dangers white females face when they associate with blacks. Nicole was a gold digger, she was not a sympathetic character. In many cultures Simpson’s actions would be seen as justified. She dissed OJ, while she continued to take his money and flaunt her slutty behavior for all to see. If I was on the jury I would not have convicted OJ of murder.

* I’ve done plenty of stupid things in my life, but a default requirement for a woman is to make reasonable choices about romantic\sex partners. For a white woman, a black ex is a giant “fail” and a signal of a bunch of character flaws that you do not want in a woman you’re investing any time in.

Despite the general decline in the quality of white women’s behavior, since “liberation” or whatever you want to call it, there are still plenty of quality white women out there, who, with strong guidance from a man about what’s required to merit his continued attention, can make fine girlfriends, wives, mothers. No need for slumming.

* OJ had a young white girlfriend during and after his trial. One might think that a person who murders his significant other might be a bad choice for boyfriend. Yet here we have white women lining up to date this negro murderer. What is wrong with this segment of the white population? Their parents must be proud.

* Black women are deadlier. I remember seeing a statistics that black women kill their partners more often than vice versa. We do not hear much about it as it does not fit to the feminist narrative.

* For blacks the thinking was, “black people have been losing in America for 300 years. He’s our chance to win one for the black team.” Actual justice for Ron and Nicole was much less important to them than racial justice for all of black America. It was nothing personal. I’m sure that if OJ had been white, the black jurors would have had no problem finding guilt. Juries usually get it right but this was an unusual case in that the defense was (assisted by the idiot judge – Asians can sometimes be as stupid as Jews when it comes to these matters and the clueless prosecutors who allowed the trial to take place downtown instead of having OJ judged by a jury of his Brentwood peers) allowed to make this case about racial justice. The system breaks down mainly in these kind of high profile cases – everyday juries are usually commonsensical.

* It’s ironic because Santa Monica would have been truly a jury of OJ’s “peers”. OJ never wanted to have anything to do with black people before he was arrested.

Although leftists pretend not to notice things like black criminality, in fact they are keenly aware of them (you can see from things like their revealed preference in where they send their kids to school) and take them into account in their decision making, just not in a way that conforms with justice and common sense.

* The apple never falls far from the tree.

Nicole’s folks aren’t wholly blameless. She wanted to leave O.J. years before she did, but they pushed her to stay so they could keep on milking the Juice.

If your wealthy son-in-law were beating your daughter, would you tell her to grin and bear it for the sake of your bank account? If the answer is yes, then you’re a POS.

* “Nicole’s folks aren’t wholly blameless.”

An understatement. They pushed her to “get back together” after O.J. cut them off when they divorced.

Detectives Lange and Vanatter felt Nicole’s father didn’t accept she was dead or that Simpson was guilty.Marcia Clark was amazed that Lou Brown seemed totally indifferent to his daughter’s murder, wasn’t mad at Simpson, and refused to help the prosecution.

This is from their books. Lou Brown seems to have gone beyond what you call a “POS.”

* EVERYTHING must serve the globalist/radical agenda -Sports are the perfect place for that :

a. people who watch are ‘addicted’ and invest emotionally in ‘their’ teams. It’s worked since the roman empire. So you have a literally captive audience. and the audience, as you noted is the one that needs the most reeducation -because they have become effeminized by watching other men instead of hunting or some other character building activity , it’s the perfect place for it.

b. what better place to prove black prowess? if only whitey wasn’t keeping blacks down in the silicon valley the %s of minority startups would be as high as the black % of the NBA.

c. large number of sports journalists are …. “scots-irish” and carry the same radical politics. Also the media companies that own these sport channels are carrying out the same radical/globalist agenda literally on ‘all channels’.

* My rule is: no tattoos or piercings on a woman. Those are the marks of a slut.

* A jury in Santa Monica would very likely have consisted of pretty much the same racial mix. The city of Los Angeles is not all that black, I think even then it was about 15%. (Even less now since Section 8 plus ethnic cleansing of Blacks in Watts by Latino colonists). The jury was unrepresentatively black because the defense wanted nullification, while the prosecutors didn’t want to look like racists who had him convicted by a White jury, and figured Black women would vote guilty anyway. In LA County jury pools are drawn from very large geographic areas. I live in the Beach cities and have served on juries in downtown LA more than 20 miles away. A jury pool in Santa Monica would have had about as many black prospective jurors as one in LA and the lawyers would have empaneled the same mix.

* Read Daniel Petrocelli’s book on the civil trial. The original jury pool in Santa Monica was about 40 % black. During voir dire, nearly all the black prospective jurors were so openly pro-Simpson, they eliminated themselves and only one black made the trial panel.

* People need to remember two things:

(1) how incredibly popular “the Juice” was in 1992. He was a popular actor and was one of the greatest RB in Football history. Unlike Jim Brown, he wasn’t “angry” but came off as likable and gregarious. And non-political.

(2) how overwhelming the evidence against him was. The Bronco chase, the bloody glove, the DNA evidence, the bloody shoe prints, the expensive Italian gloves, the cut on his hand, the cap left at the scene with hair that matched his, the limo driver, the bloody sock, the lack of an alibi.
Short of having a picture of him slitting Nicole throat, there’s been few murders with so much evidence showing one man did the killing.

And therefore, how incredibly shocking the verdict was to most White Americans.

* A true story: On old guy I once knew, a retired widower, hard of hearing, Reagan conservative, got involved with a divorcee, she a Hillary / Obama supporter. She did have going for her that she wasn’t grossly fat and ten years younger. He was lonely, you know, whatever.

They didn’t cohabitate, both of them owning their own houses, but they each had a key to the other’s house and would go traveling together.

One day this nutjob divorcee got ticked off because she decided the old gent hadn’t been paying her sufficient attention and deference of late. So in the middle of the night, she unlocked his house door, crept into his bedroom where the old guy was snoring, and commenced screaming and beating him with her purse.

He woke with a start, naturally, and it being dark and him hard of hearing, he didn’t initially understand who it was or what was happening. He jumped out of bed, swinging his arms. A few seconds later, having come fully awake and realizing it was her being a wildcat, he scooped her up in a blanket to stop her whomping on him, wooshed her out his front door (him in his underwear) and unceremoniously dumped her in the snowbank.

So what does the crazy old harpy do? She goes to the D.A. and files a “domestic violence” complaint.

You’d think the D.A. would laugh, no? After all, SHE entered HIS house and started it by smacking him with her purse. Nope. D. A. took the case.

This old guy in a panic, thinking, I’m retired, she’ll take me for all I have, asked her what it would take to settle.
Her price was ten grand. So he took a reverse mortgage on his house to pay her extortion fee.

Moral of the story? Stay far, far away from libtarded divorcees, even when you’re old.

* Whites were not particularly fond of Blacks until recently. Lincoln had highly negative things to say about Blacks, perhaps Blacks trying to kill him as a young man floating logs down to Baton Rouge had something to do with that. Dashiell Hammett is in bad odor with SJW because his stories portray Blacks negatively (criminal, stupid, low time orientation). The somewhat later and more upscale Rex Stout books have Blacks portrayed positively, though still subservient and lower IQ.

I think the shift came in during WWII, when Blacks were needed as laborers and Dems needed their votes as servicemen were overseas fighting. But the inflection point was probably pro sports, not Jackie Robinson but likely the 1960s with Professional and College Football players. “Paul Kersey” at StuffBlackPeopleDontLike.com makes the point that college and pro sports are the true opiate of the people, and positive views of Blacks correlates highly with their dominance, near total, of college football and pro football.

This is somewhat of an accident, baseball was never committed as pro football was to nationally televised games on a regular basis; and college football also filled the need for programming by the networks while other sports fell by the wayside (like Boxing). College and Pro Football fed a fantasy of a “respectable” Black athletic hero who was tougher/faster/stronger than White players but just as Middle Class White in behavior and attitude.

I think this aspect is dying, rapidly:

1. Increased integration for all but the higher income SJW/SWPL elites means more thug street Blacks in real life to offset TV fantasy Blacks.
2. Whites turning off from TV mainline sports that cost as incomes decline in favor of free/low cost online stuff like racing, extreme sports, etc. ESPN has seen declines in viewership/carriage fees strong enough to push Disney stock down despite a new Star Wars movie and Marvel movie.
3. Competition for the scarcest of resources, attractive young women. Nothing can turn a young White man into hate like losing a girl to a Black man. That’s just human nature. Humans are genetically hard wired that way.

This last is key. I’ve seen more and more mulatto babies with White mothers, Black father half around, half not. With the obesity epidemic hitting White women too, just not as hard as Black women, and Black women being both generally unattractive, and the very few who are preferring violent Thug Black men and being also unavailable save to a few celebrities like Robert DeNiro or the late David Bowie, the sexual competition aspect is IMHO a main but poorly recognized or understood driver of White American (men anway) not really having favorable opinions of Blacks.

Loot at Television. That’s a female/gay ghetto, though the drive for mass in reaction to carefully quantified demos via online advertising is changing things (the new Nancy Drew reboot starring Sarah Shahi was dumped after pilot because it “skewed too female”). But for now it remains startlingly female (around 85% of sitcom audiences are female IIRC). The sexy Black love interest for the White woman remains an audience staple. One bound to offend White male potential viewers; and cord-cutting (no more lucrative carriage fees — in 2013 CBS got half its revenues from carriage fees), online competition mean the 1980s Brandon Tartikoff NBC strategy of fewer viewers but more upscale income won’t work. Not the least of which real disposable income is declining for almost all but the top few percent.

The future of Black/White approval is likely to be White women, gays, upscale elites in elite zip codes, highly approving of Blacks and desiring approval backwards, and most White men having little to no interest to outright hostility over women moderated by ever eroding social control of angry professional White women and increasingly effete and inept elites.

Posted in America, Blacks, Crime | Comments Off

Condi Rice For VP

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment:

* Does Condi Rice have much appeal to anyone but neocons? One of the problems with her is that black politicians are disinclined to stick with the program if it’s going to get in the way of their blackness. Didn’t Condi imply that she voted for Obama?

* Apart from other considerations, it would be hard to attack Hillary on her Iraq vote in the Senate with one of the major architects and promoters of the Iraq War on the ticket as VP running mate. Preposterous suggestion. As was the suggestion by the earlier poster of Newt Gingrich. While I enjoy hearing his very intelligent discussion and analysis of the political situation on Fox News, I strongly opposed Gingrich in 2012 because he was too wedded to the neocon foreign policy (he was largely financed by Sheldon Adelson after all) and too tied up with the Washington establishment. You can tell that Gingrich is dying to be named #2. A much better pick, imo, would be Mike Huckabee. Although I have never been a fan or supporter, I have long been an admirer of his political skill. He is very articulate and gets his ideas across in a very pleasant way. He was probably the best natural politician running in 2012. His religion comes across in a much more acceptable way than Ted Cruz’s. So he would be a real way for Trump to heal any problems with the evangelicals. His experience in Arkansas against the Clintons would prove handy against Hillary. He’s only 60, just the right age for a running mate. A long shot, for sure, but I hope he is on Trump’s short list. Otherwise, I am at a loss to come up with an acceptable running mate.

Posted in America, Blacks | Comments Off

Kelly Ripa’s Son Was So Over-Exposed to Homosexuals Getting ‘Married’ that He Thought Normal, Heterosexual Marriage Might Be Illegal — She Tells GLAAD

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

LINK: Kelly Ripa is in the news is for something that is–from an eternal Truth perspective–far less significant and newsworthy than the heart-breaking story below. Because this story involves the moral and spiritual confusion of a boy raised in a politically correct world gone mad–imbibing a level of cultural decadence unimaginable only a few decades ago:

“New York Values”? To get a feel for how utterly out-of-touch New York City-based media are with the average American, check out this May 2015 speech by Kelly Ripa, co-host of the ABC morning show “Live with Kelly and Michael [Strahan].” In the video, Ripa is accepting an award from GLAAD, the homosexual media pressure organization formerly known as the “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination.”

Beginning around the 5:15 mark, she shares a story about her son, Joaquin, born in 2003. The context is her family life following New York State’s legalization of homosexual “marriage” in 2011:

“A few years ago, our youngest son, Joaquin, asked me if it was illegal for me to be married to Mark [her husband]–because all of our friends at that time who were getting married were same-sex couples. And it dawned on him…that a heterosexual couple getting married might actually be illegal.”

This speech captures the zeitgeist of big-city liberalism and the New York City-dominated media’s radical pro-“gay” embrace better than almost anything I have seen. Ripa praises her good friend and open homosexual Anderson Cooper of CNN, and is hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court would make same-sex “marriage” the law of the land–which it effectively did with its nature-defying Obergefell v. Hodges ruling shortly after this event, on June 26, 2015.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off

NYT: At Warby Parker, a Sense of Exclusion in a Low Price

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment: This NYT article At Warby Parker, a Sense of Exclusion in a Low Price about ‘cheap’ glasses reminds me of Steve’s country club exclusion theory of Jewish projection vexation.

Ginia Bellafante writes:

The story of Warby Parker more or less conforms to this narrative: One of the young student-founders lost his glasses on a backpacking trip, discovered that they were too expensive to replace, squinted for months and then, with friends who could relate, built a company in 2010…

The actual founding (and founders) omitted from Ginia’s article (from Wikipedia):

The company was founded in 2010 by Neil Blumenthal, Andrew Hunt, David Gilboa, and Jeffrey Raider, and is headquartered in New York City. The name “Warby Parker” derives from two characters that appear in a journal by the Beat Generation writer Jack Kerouac.

Too bad “Stratton Oakmont” was already taken. Wikipedia:

The company was started in the Venture Initiation Program of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where the founders all studied.

This WASPy-sounding company has been wildly successful. However, there may be some casualties among humble descendants of poor, huddled masses. NYT again:

Imagine how you would feel, though, if you had been selling eyewear for decades, and your origin story dated not to the era of Malia Obama’s middle-school years but to the period of Ellis Island arrivals and mass emigration from Minsk. Both Moscot and Cohen’s Fashion Optical are New York institutions that began as pushcart businesses, with immigrant founders — Hyman Moscot and Abe Cohen — selling eyeglasses on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the early 20th century. Their flagship stores are cater-corner from each other on Orchard and Delancey Streets. Moscots and Cohens still run the businesses, and they have been forced to respond to Warby Parker’s Occupy Eyewear agenda.

I hate it when the ‘little guy’ gets squeezed by snobby Haven Monahans:

Cohen’s faces the challenge of trying to seem hip as a franchise business with 130 stores.

Here I agree with Ginia, antifa can go to hell:

As an aesthetic, antifashion as fashion is annoying and alienating

Ultimately, it comes down to feelings, nothing more than feelings:

A store like Cohen’s never makes you feel like a loser. Maybe it should post that outside of every branch, and declare a social victory.

* I don’t get the snark aimed at Warby Parker. I’m not a customer, but I give the founders credit: They started a hugely successful company, that lowered prices in an industry dominated by one manufacturer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica), and the donated lots of eyeglasses along the way (they donate one pair for every pair sold). What exactly is your problem with them, that they didn’t use the founders’ names as the company name?

* I think Errican’s point was that the anger at Warby Parker expressed by Ginia Bellafante is due to the fact that a WASPy-sounding company is outcompeting a Jewish-sounding company (Cohen’s Fashion Optical), even though at least one of the company’s founders (Neil Blumenthal) is Jewish.

Assuming that Errican is saying that Ginia Bellafante is Jewish (her appearance would suggest that, although the name doesn’t sound Jewish to me and I can’t find anything saying that she is Jewish), the point appears to be that she is trying to blame WASPs for intra-Jewish competition.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

“We are Assata’s Daughters”

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment: If you think the Trayvon Martin Foundation was named in bad taste, I present to you Daughters of Assata:

http://www.assatasdaughters.org/

“We are Assata’s Daughters”

Who is Assata? Full name Assata Shakur, born JoAnne Deborah Byron. From wikipedia:

In May 1973, Shakur was involved in a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike, in which she was accused of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and grievously assaulting Trooper James Harper.[6] BLA member Zayd Malik Shakur was also killed in the incident, and Shakur was wounded.[6] Between 1973 and 1977, Shakur was indicted in relation to six other incidents—charged with murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, bank robbery, and kidnapping—resulting in three acquittals and three dismissals. In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout.[7]

Shakur was incarcerated in several prisons in the 1970s. She escaped from prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba in 1984 after living as a fugitive for a few years, and received political asylum. She has been living in Cuba ever since. Since May 2, 2005, the FBI has classified her as a domestic terrorist and offered a $1 million reward for assistance in her capture. On May 2, 2013, the FBI added her to the Most Wanted Terrorist List; the first woman to be listed.[8] On the same day, the New Jersey Attorney General offered to match the FBI reward, increasing the total reward for her capture to $2 million.[9]

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off

Hillary’s Master Plan to Lose the Election: Campaign for Gun Control as Anti-white

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “…the Democrats’ problem with gun control is that they just can’t stop themselves from portraying the gun problem as evil white men shooting innocent black baby bodies.”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* The obvious riposte to the Hildebeast is, if course, Switzerland.

By law, every adult Swiss male citizen is obligated to keep a pretty heavy caliber arsenal in his home, yet, (I wonder why?), Switzerland has but a minimal level of gun related homicides.

* But in Switzerland immigrants need to get a license to own a weapon, and citizens of certain countries, including Turkey, Bosnia, Serbia, Algeria and Albania, are explicitly forbidden from owning weapons. Also every gun is registered with the state and there are restrictions on citizens with criminal records or mental illness. The NRA and the liberals would scream bloody murder if we tried to institute the Swiss system of gun ownership in the US, but it is probably the most commonsensical in the world.

* If you search a popular rap lyrics website for the keyword “choppa” there are over 2700 results. A choppa of course refers to an AK-47. I haven’t read the lyrics, but I’m sure most of them are about insane rednecks gunning down black children, or perhaps about rappers valiantly defending their communities from marauding Klansmen.

* From your Baby Gap article:

“Besides, in sparsely populated Republican areas, where police response times are slow and the chances of drilling an innocent bystander are slim, guns make more sense for self-defense than in the cities and suburbs.”

Wherever you happen to be, guns make equal sense for self-defense. If you are in a legally defined “in fear for my life” hostile situation that one can’t escape from, police response times mostly don’t matter, unless one happens to be in line of sight of a nearby witnessing officer. As far as drilling a bystander, most states have laws putting the blame on the criminal whose actions precipitated the event. Cops sometimes shoot bystanders, but that’s no reason to disarm city cops. Both police and armed civilians should train as much as possible.

* The gun control issue, even more than immigration, is a heaven-sent issue for Trump to beat her on.
After all was it two or three years ago that a couple of Colorado democrats were recalled from office over the issue? I hope the Donald reserves some time at a gun range, and gets some of his lackeys to bring him some back issues of Guns and Ammo so he can just beat her over the head with this.
The “prison to pipeline” stuff won’t sell as well because it’s been 20 or 25 years since violent crime was a super serious problem in this country. I’ve talked to numerous strait-laced older people who are convinced that hundreds of thousands of people (given some they would not like) are doing long stretches for simple drug possession.

*
(1) When did urban white liberals ever really care about white racial solidarity in any way? If there were actually any public expression of white racial solidarity, these same urban white liberals would show up in force to protest; they call them “Anti-Fa.”

(2) I also find it amusing that a white liberal Manhattanite actually is mad that ramshackle white people in West Virginia won’t let the white liberals in Manhattan disarm dangerous blacks in Harlem. Are we supposed to think that Manhattanites think that West Virginians have veto power over New York City gun laws? The Federal judiciary has gotten a lot more pro-2A in the last two decades, but that has barely impacted NYC gun laws, which white liberal Manhattanites still have at their disposal.

Of course, I say that like I already don’t know the answer, like I don’t already see an analogue at work in my own back yard all the time. If I had a dollar for every time I saw, read, heard, urban officials, politicians, law enforcement, prosecutors, from St. Louis and Kansas City blame outstate voters and politicians for their supposed inability to disarm the thug blacks in their own confines and the supposed lack of laws that give them the legal latitude to do so, I could afford to live in Manhattan. However, urban politicians either directly seek votes in urban areas or work for those that do, and while black thugs hardly every vote, their grandmothers do. Meanwhile, outstate white people don’t get to vote in St. Louis and Kansas City muni elections. Plus, as we all know, there’s a War on Noticing Things. Therefore, instead of telling the truth and naming the Dindu, the Ook, the Africanus Bellcurvius, it’s very easy to blame far way mysterious people.

Posted in America | Comments Off

LAT: Why the Expo Line to Santa Monica marks a rare kind of progress in American cities

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

How happy will residents of Santa Monica be when their city is inundated with residents of South-Central?

These questions don’t get addressed in all the media coverage of LA’s light rail extension to the coast.

Christopher Hawthorne writes:

The 1.5-billion second leg of the Expo Line, which opened Friday from Culver City to Santa Monica, adds seven light-rail stations and more than six miles of track to the growing Los Angeles County transit network. That’s on top of the six stations and 11.5 miles that came on line when the Gold Line extension, connecting Pasadena with Azusa, opened in March.

In the immediate context of L.A.’s attempts to turn its public-transit network from national punch line to something that increasingly resembles a mature system, 13 new Metro stations in less than three months qualifies as a pretty dramatic upgrade. (New York City has added exactly one subway station over the last 25 years, the Bay Area’s BART system fewer than a dozen stations over the last four decades.) The investment county voters made in approving the Measure R sales-tax hike in 2008 is showing dividends for the first time — and suggesting some progress in chipping away at the dominance of the car.

But if you step back and take a longer historical view, one that acknowledges that Los Angeles didn’t just exist but in many ways fundamentally shaped and defined itself before the rise of the freeway system, the new rail routes begin to take on a different character. Their arrival is part of a larger restoration, an attempt to dust off and build on a long-buried transit history that makes up much of the basic DNA of L.A. urbanism. That effort, for all its incompleteness and halting progress over the last three decades, is by the standards of American urban history unprecedented in scope.

Posted in Los Angeles, Santa Monica | Comments Off

Does The Bible Favor Diversity?

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek writes:
What is the Torah’s position on diversity? It seems not to favor it, given all the prohibitions on mixing different crops in one field or cross-breeding cattle (Leviticus 19:19). And then there is this, from Joshua 10:
Southern Cities Conquered
28 That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.
29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it.
30 The LORD also gave that city and its king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.
31 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it.
32 The LORD gave Lachish into Israel’s hands, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah.
33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left.
34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it.
35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.
36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it.
37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.
38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir.
39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.
40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.
—————-So what we see here is that Joshua did not embrace diversity as a source of strength, but rather as something to be blotted out. Similarly, when one species of ant takes over territory from another species of ant, it wipes them out entirely. Is this God’s plan for humanity?

* I still can’t reconcile the basic biblical commandment not to add or subtract from the Torah with the rabbi’s prohibition on eating chicken and cheese. I get the whole fence around the torah thing, but that is most exactly literally adding to the torah what it does not have
Also, even in the wilderness, God explicitly tells the Jews to keep Passover for seven days. Not eight. Seven. Even in the wilderness. It must really anger God to see these rabbis ignoring His will and turning it into an eight day holiday.
No wonder there is so much mixed dancing in the world
The Quran has much criticism of the Jews for adding endlessly to what the Torah teaches. And I think some of that criticism is valid.

* What happens to Yidden when they go Hollywood, and support the Hollywood agenda against God? Deuteronomy 28 spells it out:
15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:
16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.
17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.
18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.
19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.
20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.
21 The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess.
22 The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish.
23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron.
24 The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.
25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth.
26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away.
27 The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured.
28 The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind.
29 At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.
30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit.
31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them.
32 Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand.
33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days.
34 The sights you see will drive you mad.
35 The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.
36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your ancestors. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone.
37 You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the LORD will drive you.
38 You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it.
39 You will plant vineyards and cultivate them but you will not drink the wine or gather the grapes, because worms will eat them.
40 You will have olive trees throughout your country but you will not use the oil, because the olives will drop off.
41 You will have sons and daughters but you will not keep them, because they will go into captivity.
42 Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.
43 The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower.
44 They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail.
45 All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the LORD your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you.
46 They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever.
47 Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity,
48 therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.
49 The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand,
50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young.
51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined.
52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the LORD your God is giving you.
53 Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you.
54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children,
55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities.
56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter
57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities.
58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the LORD your God—
59 the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses.
60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you.
61 The LORD will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed.
62 You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the LORD your God.
63 Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.
64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known.
65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart.
66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life.
67 In the morning you will say, “If only it were evening!” and in the evening, “If only it were morning!”—because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see.
68 The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.

* Roman Catholic Goyim – BEHOLD YOUR POPE! Listen to his words! Gape with amazement at how such a man as this could be leading Christendom! Scroll down on the link for English language translation.

* Today’s Quranic verse comes from Surah 29:
29:46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, “We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).”

* Tons of interesting stuff in Deuteronomy, much of it antithetical to free market fetishists.

* Hot chicks won in battle. What to do with them. From Deuteronomy 21. Likely this was an improvement over prevailing practices of that time:
Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

* We need this rule. From Deuteronomy 19:
Witnesses
15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime,
17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time.
18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite,
19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.
———————
[Thus, if, for example, a woman is found to have falsely accused a man of rape, she should be sentenced to serve a like amount of time in a similar setting.]
20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.
21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

* Deuteronomics. Most definitely not in accord with Reaganomics.
From Deuteronomy 15:
The Year for Canceling Debts
1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.
2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.
3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you.

* Torah Says: Do Not Worship Ayn Rand or the Free Market!
Deuteronomy Chapter 13:
1 If a prophet [e.g., Ayn Rand], or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder,
2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” [e.g., free markets and open borders]
3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. . . .
5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God . . . . You must purge the evil from among you. [This is what Donald Trump is doing to the conservative establishment.]

* Today’s Quranic verses. From Surah 24:
26. Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honourable.
And here is a very different translation of the same verse (Sahih International version):
Evil words are for evil men, and evil men are [subjected] to evil words. And good words are for good men, and good men are [an object] of good words. Those [good people] are declared innocent of what the slanderers say. For them is forgiveness and noble provision.

* What about the children? Won’t anyone think of the children? From Deuteronomy, chapter 3:
3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors.
4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan.
5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages.
6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children.
7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

* What should a Torah Jew do when learning Torah makes him increasingly skeptical that it is the word of God? Should he stop, and switch to more secular pursuits? Or should he explore other religions? Asking for a friend.

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off