Rob Eshman: Will Republican Jews dump Trump?

Posted on March 8, 2016 by Luke Ford

I think Donald Trump will win a higher percentage of the Jewish vote of any Republican presidential candidate in a century. Jewish Journal of Los Angeles Editor Rob Eshman thinks Republican Jews will dump Donald Trump (whatever that means, vote for Hillary?).

I love seeing how out of touch with reality these media elites are.

Most Orthodox Jews who vote will vote for Trump in November. In the comments section on his essay, Eshman predicts American Jews will vote 90-10 against Trump in November. I predict Trump will get more than 35% of the Jewish vote.

Rob Eshman writes:

Donald Trump will set the cause of Republican Jews back 75 years.
That’s why the leading voice of Republican Jews seems to have all but abandoned the leading contender for the Republican nomination.
Trump’s bellicose takeover of the GOP has been met with a complete and telling silence from the Republican Jewish Coalition, the largest and most active group of Republican Jews.
Trump is not mentioned on the group’s website. He and his surrogates are not listed on its calendar of events. He is not even pictured on the group’s homepage. You know who is? Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Chris Christie and Gov. Scott Walker. Two of those three men have already dropped out of the race. The leading contender for the Republican nomination? Nowhere to be found.
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks did not respond to my interview requests about Trump. Republican pollster and consultant Frank Luntz answered an email about whether Republican Jews will throw their support behind Trump with an uncharacteristically terse, “I have no idea.”
Then, on March 1, Dan Senor, the co-author of the seminal book “Start-up Nation” who served as senior foreign policy adviser to the Mitt Romney campaign, announced he would not support Trump.
“I am not voting for Donald Trump,” Senor told Bloomberg News. “I am not voting for him in the primary, and I am not voting for him in the general.”
Folks, this is big.
Yes, there are assorted Jewish Americans who like Trump and will vote for him, even work for him — and I have received spiteful emails from all three of them.
But for now, it looks like Trump will set a record for garnering the lowest Republican Jewish vote in 75 years. In 1940, Wendell Willkie received just 10 percent of the Jewish vote in his run against Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Trump could do worse.
Of course, he could still win — maybe Hillary or Bernie stumble so badly Trump looks like John F. Kennedy. But history shows that a large Jewish vote, while it doesn’t guarantee a win, inoculates a GOP candidate against loss.
“The last losing GOP candidate to get more than 30 percent of the Jewish vote was Charles Evans Hughes, in 1916,” Jewish Journal Senior Political Editor Shmuel Rosner points out in his book, “The Jewish Vote: Obama vs. Romney, A Jewish Voters Guide.”
“So you see, there’s a good reason … to invest in the Jewish vote … it is almost like getting insurance policy against losing.”
Trump has taken out no such policy. He has reversed whatever progress Republicans have made in winning over more Jewish voters. He has alienated Republican Jews looking for any reason to get behind him.
The first breach occurred last December, when Trump appeared at a high-level RJC event in Washington, D.C .
According to a report by Jewish Insider, Trump told the well-heeled donor crowd, “I know why you are not going to support me. You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money. You want to control your own politicians.”
During the Q-and-A, Trump lifted his other middle finger to the conservative Jewish establishment, saying he wouldn’t commit to the idea of an undivided Jerusalem. The audience booed.
Last month, Trump declared he would be “neutral” about the Israelis and Palestinians, another taboo idea among Republicans, who proclaim unswerving loyalty to the current Israeli government. In response, Trump’s primary opponents condemned the idea of neutrality in the last Republican presidential debate.
And over the past two weeks, Trump has equivocated on whether he would disavow the losers’ row of anti-Semitic groups and individuals who have come out in support of his candidacy. Last week, I wrote that Trump has a white supremacist problem. A week later, the problem has reached Zika proportions.
But Trump has yet to back down. Not on calling the Republican Jewish establishment rich puppet masters. Not on BS-ing his way through Middle East politics, not on quoting Mussolini or retweeting anti-Semites.
In effect, Trump has been saying, “Screw you” to the largest base of organized, loyal Jewish Republicans in American history.
And, as of now, it looks like they are poised to say it right back.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Rob Eshman: Will Republican Jews dump Trump?

Protesters As Adrenalin Junkies

Posted on March 8, 2016 by Luke Ford

Robert Weisberg writes:

Recent campus race-related demonstrations are often bizarre. Clearly, there are no rational, cost/benefit explanations for this agitation, especially considering that many student protesters are allocating time better spent on academic pursuits. Do black Cornell University protestors honestly believe, for example, that forcing their school to drop the term “Plantation” from Cornell’s botanical gardens name will help campus blacks? (This demand was part of a seven page compilation of demands.) How about the black law students at Harvard who are currently occupying the school’s student lounge so as to replace Wasserstein Lounge with “Belinda Hall,” the name of a former slave owned by Isaac Royall, a Harvard donor. Will their ongoing occupation somehow sharpen their legal skills? What can possibly explain these time-wasting theatrics?

Let me propose a mental health explanation: these activists are adrenalin junkies who suffer from a medically recognized condition though it has yet to be formally recognized in the official catalogue of psychiatric disorders. That is, when people find themselves in situation of perceived danger and excitement (e.g., extreme sports like sky diving) their adrenal glands release large amounts of adrenaline (also called norepinephrine), a chemical that resembles dopamine that plays a major role in addiction and pleasure. The chemical reaction hardly stops there—perceived threats can also trigger the pituitary gland and hypothalamus to secrete endorphins, a substance that mimics opiates such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamine (speed).

But while nearly everybody’s adrenalin level returns to normal once the danger has passed, some acclimated to this heightened level and have become addicted.

High on one’s own adrenalin can be wonderful—lots of energy, a heighted sense of competition, an upbeat mood, and a sharpened sense of humor. The addicted wake up rearing to go and, indeed, will often accomplish more. CEO’s of large firms and soldiers in elite units can virtually live on adrenalin highs.

In the case of campus activists, just compare standing on a platform, strutting about and fulminating into a hand-held megaphone, surrounded by a cheering boisterous crowed all demanding the cowering school President immediately resign with everything being covered on TV versus the lonely drudgery (and feelings of low self-esteem) of pulling an all-nighter for tomorrow’s dreaded Calculus final.

Particularly vulnerable to this chemically-induced rush as are those driven by hate and anger since increased levels of adrenaline and endorphins can soothe angst. Tellingly, as is true with many other drugs, it may require ever greater levels of dangerous excitement to “get high.” For sports junkies, sky-diving will give way to the more hazardous BASE jumping with wing suits. And, as curing drug-related addiction, recovering can be difficult, often requiring months of professional assistance. Withdrawal is also associated with depression, anger, feeling confused and low energy levels.

Treating black outrage as a chemical/medical condition offers an entirely new perspective on campus unrest. Clearly, any university administrator effort to cool tempers and negotiate reasonable compromises will be resisted for the simple reason that a rational settlement deprives activists of their adrenalin high. Quite likely, what might begin as a school administrator’s logical effort to find some middle ground will soon deteriorate to name-calling and threats of violence so as to keep glands pumping out dopamine.

Moreover, there will be a vicious cycle as activists increasingly fill their days with agitating while neglecting academic work. Hard to imagine those occupying the school President’s office taking a break to catch up on Calculus 101, so as the possibility of flunking out rises, their anxiety will correspondingly increase and thus necessitating even more soothing endorphins. It is no wonder, then, that these encounters will have black students shouting the most bizarre accusations at white administrators (“blacks built America”) while concocting even longer lists of demands.

Drug induced behavior understood, it is no wonder that appeasement strategies usually fail, especially since the menu of potential demands is almost infinite. A detailed administrative response regarding strained budgets, the illegal nature of a demand or their uncertain—if not negative—impact cannot cool the biologically-driven need to sustain the adrenalin euphoria. Concessions cannot be given fast enough so even the most hare-brained proposal is quickly put on the ever-expanding “non-negotiable” list. Who could ever predicted college students calling for written apologies for their school accepted money from long- deceased slave owners? Such behavior gives biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you a whole new meaning. That black students at one school monitor the actions of colleagues elsewhere means that any crackpot idea at some obscure college may instantly become the rage everywhere.

That university administrators are oblivious to this adrenalin-driven behavior can only exacerbate the strife. Being reasonable signifies weakness and like a dog sniffing the odor of fear, activists up the pressure and thus feel even better. Picture an alternative universe where elite schools were run by the Mafia. Students arriving with the catalogue list of frivolous non-negotiable demands would be met by “This is a nice campus. It would be a shame if you had an accident and were unable to walk to class. Do you get my message?” Under these circumstances, all the excreted dopamine would immediately inspire an adrenalin rush Plan B —run like hell, hide and never again bother Dean Gotti.

Unfortunately, the short-term prognosis, even with artful administrative deceit, is gloomy given that the root of this addiction is hard-to-reverse low academic achievement (the equivalent for marginal white students is the beer blast). On the bright side, however, the long-term diagnosis is a bit better. As with hardcore drug addicts, campus protestors hooked on attention will find it impossible to complete their academic work—so many alluring causes, so little time–and will drop out of school. Perhaps these drop-outs will join Black Lives Matter demonstrations dodging evening rush-hour traffic on Interstate highways. In any case, the results, hopefully, will be fewer of these trouble-makers on campus and, eventually, less pressure to recruit those marginal students who require endorphin highs to dull the pain of mastering Organic Chemistry. All and all, mindless student activism is just one more of today’s drug related plagues.

Posted in Academia, Blacks | Comments Off on Protesters As Adrenalin Junkies

Can An Appeal To Whites Win The Democratic Nomination?

Posted on March 8, 2016 by Luke Ford

Hillary and Bernie are splitting the white vote but Hillary is killing it with the black vote.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Bernie is basically splitting the white vote with Hillary, while losing the black vote 85-15. Meaning that, in effect, he is now the republican in the democratic primary. A liberal pundit said Bernie will have to cut that black disparity to beat the shrew, and I thought to myself, well…it’s not the *only* way for him to win. He could increase his share of white democrats.

How would a sailer strategy work in a democratic primary? My suggestion would be to stress Medicare and social security, as bernie is weak with seniors. Also, while hammering Wall Street, Bernie might want to tack to Hillary’s right a bit on immigration and crime. He needs to stop pandering to “black lives matter” thugs and start talking to those whites who are repelled by them.

Will Bernie try this? Doubtful. He’s in this to make a point, not to win. But if he did try this, he could win the whole thing.

P.S. I also think some Bernie supporters are gettable for Trump. Many Berniebros are in denial of the fact that white men have no home in the modern democrat party. But some will get, at a gut level, that Hillary despises them. They won’t say they’ll vote trump, but…

* Leftists love their ideologies more than they like their people. A dyed-in-the-wool socialist like Bernie would blanch at the thought of … gasp!…appealing to white voters. He doesn’t even know very much about them. For example, none of them are poor, and none of them live in fear of being assaulted.

Right, Comrade Bernie?

* If Bernie wanted to win, he’d be hammering on the emails. The man has never run anything bigger than a senate office. He’d be terrified in the oval office and he knows it.

* Trump said in an aside at one of his rallies that Bernie lost the nomination the minute he said that he didn’t want to talk about Hillary’s email. He had a chance to hammer Clinton on trustworthiness and electability, but he chose to take the high road. Meanwhile, the Clinton camp is labeling Bernie Bros as racist and sexist.

* It’s always dismaying to be reminded that so much about American life comes down to the Negro Question. It’s slightly puzzling (to this foreigner) that a huge influx of Hispanics doesn’t seem to have changed that.

* Former Apple CEO John Scully had an interesting theory of how Trump will win in November, assuming the oligarchy cannot stop him. He suggests he will do to Hillary what he did to Jeb Bush.
Let’s face it the Rodhamster has had it easy on the campaign trail with Bernie Sanders. Scully suggests Trump will portray the Rodhamster as an entitled low energy candidate who is out of touch with America and is nothing but a tool of Wall St plutocrats. He will ridicule her and cause the Rodhamster to lose her cool and reveal her inner shrew.

* The campesinos bum-rushing our border have a long history of flying under the radar of their corrupt governments and the violent gangs endemic to their home countries. Blacks, on the other hand, have a long history of acting out, no matter the situation.

That and the fact that our media identifies them as Hispanic in positive stories and white, a la George Zimmerman, when they commit crimes.

The 3 most violent cities in my state are 63%, 51% and 43% Hispanic, but nobody is paying any attention to it, never mind talking about it.

* The historical figure that popped into my head as I read this was Huey Long. I have read that Huey Long was the one figure FDR truly feared. A Huey Long figure could unite Trump and Sanders supporters; I think that this was sort of what George Wallace had in mind in 1972. This figure, whoever he is, will not be a creature of Washington. But if demographic changes continue as they are now trending, even this unified demographic force may not be enough past the mid-2020s.

* Poor Bernie is stuck with the unclean votes of White people. Maybe he can swing a live chicken over the ballot boxes to ritually cleanse them?

* If Booker acquires a black wife he’s serious about the national ticket.

* The USA has had the Black Question in one form or another since 1619.
After the War of Northern Aggression, the Black Question intensified with
the hilarities of reconstruction.
The great migrations brought the Black Question out of the south and into
the urban north.
The second world war put the blacks and the women to work in the factories and
created a short period of time during and after that war where all the peoples were improving.
White politicians could not accept this and in 1964 they gave us the war on the black middle class and in 1965 continued that war with the Immigration and Nationality act to minimize the black minority with a new minority.

* A black professor has been making anti-semitic rants that would get a white professor barred from academia for life. Anti-semitism is far more widespread and tolerated in the black community than white liberals want to admit. Hard to see why Sanders ever thought he had a chance.

* It is indeed interesting that 12% of the US demographic has such importance, just as it is odd that another 2% figures so prominently.

White Guilt. It takes a long time for a people to get over embarassing things some of their predecessors did, especially when they are taught from birth an incomplete version of the history.

Witness Germany, and much of Europe, prostrating itself and allowing an invasion of non-Europeans a lifetime after Hitler.

* The problem with ‘what white democrats want’ is that what they want are government jobs and we live in a time of lowering expectations and funding for that sort of thing.

Lets face it that’s Bernie’s constituency: underemployed college grads and people already working in government, largely schools, who are seeing a decrease in funding.

There’s no more room in Federal or state budgets for government workers though. More and more of the budget is going to be used to pay for retiring baby boomers pensions, health and social security costs. Any extra will, from the Dem perspective, have to be used to buy off their minority clients, not white people.

Forget about higher taxes, our country does not have the level of solidarity among citizens to tolerate high taxes – this is a product of our increasing diversity and also general self-focus. And taxing hedge fund guys – not likely as the state pension funds have plenty of $$ in hedge funds hoping to meet their delusional growth goals.

Diminished expectations, low growth, little opportunity: that’s the new norm (not looming apocalyptic collapse). And the reason for this is the demographic collapse that stems from the freedom of the sexual revolution. Time to pay the piper.

* Maybe Booker should marry Caitlyn Jenner!

* By the way googling “Cory Booker beard” brings up 269,000 results.

Top of the list is perhaps the least convincing headline of all time.

Rachel Maddow Confirms Cory Booker Is Not Gay

* Let’s drop Hillary and Bernie off at night, alone, in a vibrant African neighborhood, and see how their “loyalty to the African-’American’ community” is repaid. They’ll be screaming “But MY life matters!”

This is literally what they deserve, given that their immigration and “gun control” policies put the rest of us mere plebeians and our families in physical danger and economic difficulty.

* …as with most religious groups, ordinary Jews are much less in favor of unrestricted immigration than their leaders (self-appointed or otherwise). Jewish public intellectuals harboring secret paranoia about gentile Americans someday electing Hitler 2.0 are fervently pro-immigration; regular middle-class Jews with real jobs are not, or at least not much more so than other Americans with the same regional and class affiliations.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Can An Appeal To Whites Win The Democratic Nomination?

WP: What Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand about the KKK

Posted on March 8, 2016 by Luke Ford

Max Ehrenfreund writes for the Washington Post: “Trump has repeatedly said he disavows Duke and the Klan. The problem is, that is the only thing Trump has said. He hasn’t explained why the Klan’s white nationalism was wrong, and his disavowals are starting to sound somewhat perfunctory.”

What is wrong with white nationalism? What about Jewish nationalism? Black nationalism? Japanese nationalism? Why is only white nationalism wrong?

Does Max Ehrenfreund have a dog in this race? Jews traditionally fear gentile nationalisms (which usually exclude Jews), but white nationalism most of all (because it evokes Nazis and the Holocaust).

“New polling data from the American National Election Studies suggests a few reasons that Duke might see sympathy for his cause among Trump’s supporters. Some of them appear to be worried about their status and identity as white Americans, a concern that has allowed him to build a broad electoral coalition that crosses the usual demographic and ideological boundaries within the Republican Party.”

My God, that is horrible? Not exactly sure why, but I am sure I will be told that this is horrible. Unlike all other peoples, whites are not allowed to have group interests. They are supposed to be thrilled to turn over their ancestral homelands to other peoples. Israel is not expected to be thrilled to turn over its country to non-Jews. Why should white Protestants feel differently about the nations they created (US, Canada, Australia, England, New Zealand, Holland, etc).

Max concludes:

Trump has created a new kind of Republican primary coalition. Many of those who support him are white voters who are uncomfortable with the way America is changing demographically, and they believe that the status of people who look like them in society is in decline.

In the past, analysts have typically divided Republican primary voters into several groups: evangelical, moderate, secular and conservative, moderately conservative, and so on. In Trump’s coalition, these divisions are secondary. For certain GOP voters, racial consciousness is more fundamental than their other commitments.

As Trump’s success has shown, the faction that votes based on white racial identity — while not a majority of the party — can be the dominant one when there are several candidates competing for the nomination.

Posted in David Duke, Donald Trump | Comments Off on WP: What Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand about the KKK

Howard Kurtz: Media warnings against Donald Trump shift from aggressive to apocalyptic

Posted on March 8, 2016 by Luke Ford

Howard Kurtz writes for Fox News:

For all the talk of the Republican establishment trying to stop Donald Trump, it’s the media establishment that is cranking up the volume to deafening levels.

What’s remarkable about this sustained assault is that it comes with equal force from the right and the left, united in their passion to stop the man who is winning the most Republican primary votes.

I’m offering excerpts here to highlight how these pundits are depicting Trump as not just a bad candidate but a threat to civilization.

Slate Editor-in-Chief Jacob Weisberg says that Trump, “as a reality TV star and cyberbully on his third wife…is himself a good illustration of the breakdown of any moral order possibly remaining.” He says “Trump represents what autocratic attitudes look like in a modern American context. He is unfriendly toward the free market, the free press, and the free exercise of religion while paying lip service to these values. He is xenophobic, conspiratorial in his worldview, admiring of violence and torture, contemptuous of the weak, and unwilling to tolerate criticism or peaceful dissent—but all in the name of correcting excesses of tolerance.”

The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus says that since she last wrote about him, “Trump has proved himself to be even less knowledgeable and even more unhinged. His election would constitute a grave threat to American values and, potentially, American democracy…

“Trump is Nixon with all of the megalomaniacal willingness to abuse power and none of the crafty realpolitik.”

David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, poses this question: “How has Donald Trump, the coddled scion of a New York real-estate baron, emerged as a populist hero? How does the beneficiary of a draft deferment due to bone spurs on his feet get away with questioning the military record of John McCain, who endured five years as a prisoner of war? Trump believes that his appeal is based largely on what he calls his heroic lack of ‘political correctness’ but which is more accurately described as a breezy penchant for race-baiting, war crimes, and content-free policy pronouncements. 

Salon says that after watching Trump “spewing hate, stoking xenophobia and attacking the Washington establishment – this thought keeps coming to mind: Is Donald Trump just David Duke in a better suit?”

New York Times columnist David Brooks writes that “now finally — at long last — major Republicans are raising their heads and highlighting Trump’s actual vulnerability: his inability to think for an extended time about anybody but himself.

“He seduces people with his confidence and his promises. People invest time, love and money in him. But in the end he cares only about himself. He betrays those who trust him and leaves them high and dry.”

National Review’s Ian Tuttle challenges his credibility: “Trump believes in nothing except the force of his own personality. Often, it’s not quite correct to say he’s lying, because he never believed anything in the first place. Donald Trump is post-truth.”

Another Times, columnist, Nick Kristof, views Trump as a bad dream: “Is there any scarier nightmare than President Donald J. Trump in a tense international crisis, indignant and impatient, with his sweaty finger on the nuclear trigger?” He adds: “I’ve never met a national politician so ill informed, so evasive, so bombastic and, frankly, so puerile.”

And it’s not just the print people. CNN commentator Sally Kohn said the other day that the media are giving Trump too much attention, and “when he institutes internment camps and suspends habeas [corpus], we’ll all look back and feel pretty bad.”

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Howard Kurtz: Media warnings against Donald Trump shift from aggressive to apocalyptic

NYT: An Anti-Semitism of the Left

Posted on March 8, 2016 by Luke Ford

Tweet: “When Jews get bitten by the vile monsters they pet and feed, sympathy can be strained.”

In normal leftist thought, ethnic and religious differences are accorded no importance. It is therefore normal, natural and healthy for self-respecting consistent leftists to be opposed to ethno-states such as Israel. A Jewish leftist who is fine with a Jewish Israel is more Jewish than leftist. A Jewish leftist who is not OK with Israel as a Jewish state is more leftist than Jewish. There’s nothing more diabolical than that going. What we have here is a clash of values. You can call that clash of values all sorts of nasty names like “anti-Semitism” or “bigotry” but we are dealing here with fundamental worldviews and clashes of interest.

If Israel is the Jewish state, then Jews all around the world will suffer or benefit according to the actions of Israel. If Israel is the Jewish state, then Jews are more likely to become targets of those who hate that Jewish state than if Israel was not the Jewish state.

Roger Cohen writes: LONDON — Last month, a co-chairman of the Oxford University Labour Club, Alex Chalmers, quit in protest at what he described as rampant anti-Semitism among members. A “large proportion” of the club “and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews,” he said in a statement.

Chalmers referred to members of the executive committee “throwing around the term ‘Zio’” — an insult used by the Ku Klux Klan; high-level expressions of “solidarity with Hamas” and explicit defense of “their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians”; and the dismissal of any concern about anti-Semitism as “just the Zionists crying wolf.”

Oberlin Leaders Denounce Professor’s Remarks as ‘Anti-Semitic’MARCH 7, 2016
The zeitgeist on campuses these days, on both sides of the Atlantic, is one of identity and liberation politics. Jews, of course, are a minority, but through a fashionable cultural prism they are seen as the minority that isn’t — that is to say white, privileged and identified with an “imperialist-colonialist” state, Israel. They are the anti-victims in a prevalent culture of victimhood; Jews, it seems, are the sole historical victim whose claim is dubious.

A recent Oberlin alumna, Isabel Storch Sherrell, wrote in a Facebook post of the students she’d heard dismissing the Holocaust as mere “white on white crime.” As reported by David Bernstein in The Washington Post, she wrote of Jewish students, “Our struggle does not intersect with other forms of racism.”

Noa Lessof-Gendler, a student at Cambridge University, complained last month in Varsity, a campus newspaper, that anti-Semitism was felt “in the word ‘Zio’” flung around in left-wing groups.” She wrote, “I’m Jewish, but that doesn’t mean I have Palestinian blood on my hands,” or should feel nervous “about conversations in Hall when an Israeli speaker visits.”

The rise of the leftist Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of Britain’s opposition Labour Party appears to have empowered a far left for whom support of the Palestinians is uncritical and for whom, in the words of Alan Johnson, a British political theorist, “that which the demonological Jew once was, demonological Israel now is.”

Corbyn is no anti-Semite. But he has called Hamas and Hezbollah agents of “long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region,” and once invited to Parliament a Palestinian Islamist, Raed Salah, who has suggested Jews were absent from the World Trade Center on 9/11. Corbyn called him an “honored citizen.” The “Corbynistas” on British campuses extol their fight against the “racist colonization of Palestine,” as one Oxford student, James Elliott, put it. Elliott was narrowly defeated last month in a bid to become youth representative on Labour’s national executive committee.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on NYT: An Anti-Semitism of the Left

WP: How Israel’s Jewishness is overtaking its democracy

Posted on March 8, 2016 by Luke Ford

Western notions of democracy, or, frankly, any notions of democracy, are not important parts of Judaism.

Democracy is not that important. Wouldn’t you rather have a dictator who was on your side?

I don’t expect any group to care about outsiders. It doesn’t bother me that many Jews chant, “Death to the Arabs” and that many Arabs and Muslims chant, “Death to the Jews.” Different groups have different interests that often conflict. Life is a conflict for scarce resources such as land and water.

Washington Post: When U.S. leaders and commentators warn that the absence of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will make it impossible for Israel to be both a Jewish and democratic state, they generally mean that a Jewish democracy requires a Jewish majority; if Israel encompasses the West Bank and Gaza, Arabs will become a majority. What they may not have realized is that, in the meantime, half of Israeli Jews have come to seek not only a Jewish majority but even Jewish exclusivity…

This major study was conducted from October 14, 2014, to May 21, 2015, among 5,601 Israeli adults ages 18 and older. (Disclosure: I served as an adviser to the project). It found that 48 percent of all Israeli Jews agree with the statement “Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel,” while 46 percent disagreed. Even more troubling, the majority of every non-secular Jewish group, including 71 percent of Datim (modern orthodox Jews) agreed with the statement.

…This view has consequences for citizen rights. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of all Jewish Israelis (98 percent) feel that Jews around the world have a birthright to make aliya (immigration to Israel with automatic Israeli citizenship). But what is striking is that 79 percent of all Jews, including 69 percent of Hilonim (secular Jews) say that Jews deserve “preferential treatment” in Israel — so much for the notion of democracy with full equal rights for all citizens.

These attitudes spell trouble for Arab citizens of Israel who constitute 20 percent of Israel’s citizens. It’s true that attitudes are dynamic; they are partly a function of Jewish-Arab relations within Israel itself, but also outside, especially within the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Like their Jewish counterparts, Arab citizens of Israel (mostly Muslim, but also including Christians and Druze), identify themselves with their ethnicity (Palestinian or Arab) or religion above their Israeli citizenship. And these ethnic/religious identities intensify when conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza intensifies. There is no way to fully divorce the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict from Arab-Jewish relations within Israel.

In recent years, this latter linkage has become central for two reasons: loss of hope for a two-state solution, and the rise of social media that has displayed extremist attitudes that used to be limited to private space. In the era of Facebook and Twitter, Arab and Jewish citizens post attitudes that deeply offend the other: An Arab expresses joy at death of Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinians, while a Jew posts a sign reading “death to Arabs.” Hardly the stuff of co-existence. Leave it to opportunist politicians, extremists and incitement to do the rest.

First, there is something wrong with positing the possibility of Arabs as constituting a demographic problem for Israel. It legitimizes the privileging of Jewishness over democracy. It also distorts the reason why Israel is obligated to end occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; it has nothing to do with the character of Israel as such, but with international law and United Nations resolutions.

Second, while states can define themselves as they wish (and are accepted by the international community accordingly), the American embrace of the “Jewishness” of Israel, cannot be decoupled from the Palestinian-Israeli context, or from the overarching American demand that all states must be for all their citizens equally.

In part, this is based on the notion that the UN General Assembly (Resolution 181) recommended in 1947 dividing mandatory Palestine into an “Arab” and a “Jewish” State. In part, it’s based on the notion that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a political conflict that can be resolved through two states, one manifesting the self-determination of Jews as a people, and one manifesting the right of self-determination of Palestinians as a people. The two were bound together. An embrace of a Jewish state that excludes a Palestinian state defeats the principle.

If two states become impossible, America chooses democracy over Jewishness. In fact, this has been consistently reflected in American public attitudes across the political spectrum, most recently in this November 2015 poll; in the absence of a two-state solution, 72 percent of Americans would want a democratic Israel, even if it meant that Israel ceases to be a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on WP: How Israel’s Jewishness is overtaking its democracy

The Victimhood Addiction

Posted on March 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Somebody, through carelessness, let me down in a minor way last week and I immediately got a high from the feeling of victimhood, that people will always screw me over, poor ol me, people just trample all over me… It’s scary how powerful and intoxicating that victimhood emotion was for me. It’s shaped my life. I paused for a couple of minutes and allowed the person to rectify his mistake and I ended up without any victimization, but with a great deal of humility by realizing how much I enjoyed feeling victimized and hopeless. It’s an addiction. I started thinking back across my life how often I’ve climbed up on the cross to suffer for the sins of the world. When somebody does me wrong, I get the victimhood rush, and I am terribly reluctant to lose it, even if it means immense suffering and inconvenience. Throughout my life, I have often not allowed people to make up to me the inadvertent ways they’ve let me down. I’ve been too proud and too sure of my victimhood. It’s hard to let go of these childhood patterns.

I guess in early childhood, I got a sense of power from taking on the victim role. It was a way I could get back at those who were more powerful than me.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on The Victimhood Addiction

Kevin Roderick: How female TV journalists protect their safety after Erin Andrews

Posted on March 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

The world is often an unsafe place for women, particularly when they are around groups that commit a disproportionate amount of crime (such as young black men, et al). The world is often an unsafe place for men as well only men rarely feel comfortable expressing that. Because women feel more comfortable sharing their feelings, they complain more than men. A man who complained about feeling unsafe would usually be looked at as a wimp.

Also, most TV journalists, particularly female journalists, owe their careers largely to their looks. When you’re attractive, you receive more attention. If you don’t like that, would you rather be ugly? Pack on 50 pounds and you’ll get a lot less attention.

Erin Andrews would not have the career she enjoys today if she was not gorgeous. If she were plain, she’d be lucky to be working in journalism at all. If, God forbid, she had some disfiguring accident that made looking at her a gruesome experience, she would no longer be on TV. Perhaps she could write books instead?

I know that journalists are sometimes assaulted for things they write or for just being journalists, just as people who are written about by journalists are often assaulted as a result. I have no doubt that the fevered intensity around Donald Trump will result in people getting hurt, and perhaps some of them will be journalists.

Every articulate person can tell a chilling story about how he has suffered. Even these horrible stalkers could tell you chilling stories about how they’ve been abused and teased and treated like dirt (often by beautiful women).

We hear more about how women suffer because they are more likely to share their feelings and we hear more about how journalists suffer because they have the megaphone. Journalists are not immune from bad luck, from criminal activity, and from the consequences of their choices.

If journalists don’t like the heat, they can get out of the fire. If they gain weight and dress dowdy, they will get less attention from men. If they become paralegals instead of TV journalists, they’ll be less likely to have stalkers.

Cry me a river about the suffering of TV journalists. Erin Andrews was awarded $55 million in this case.

How do working class white people protect their safety as America becomes increasingly anti-white? Unfortunately, most of these people are not terribly articulate and nobody seems to care about their safety, except perhaps Donald J. Trump.

Kevin Roderick writes:

With Los Angeles-area TV sports reporter Erin Andrews still engaged in her Nashville lawsuit against the Marriott hotel there over the 2007 nude video of her inside her room, Sports Illustrated spoke with several other women who cover sports for TV about life for them on the road. It’s depressing. All said they take some pretty careful steps to protect themselves from stalkers, creeps and invasions of their privacy at hotels. Keeping the name of their hotels off social media is one thing; some of these women ask for a new room if the desk clerk happens to say their room number out loud, or they cover peepholes with Band-aids and keep the blinds closed, and most don’t let in maids or other hotel staffers if they can help it. One of the women says she tries not to be unclothed when in the room, just to be safe…

Here in the Los Angeles area, harassment of TV reporters on location, especially women, seems to be on the rise. As well as at venues where Donald Trump is speaking and his supporters are gathered, but that’s a separate story. I could see the issue of reporter safety at those pointless 11 p.m. stand-up shots becoming a bigger issue for the stations.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on Kevin Roderick: How female TV journalists protect their safety after Erin Andrews

The Unbearable Whiteness Of Bernie Sanders’ Support

Posted on March 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer posts Sunday: Bernie Sanders won another state today, his 8th in 19 contests.

Of course, Maine is the only state that is, arguably, whiter than Bernie’s own electoral fortress of whititude, Vermont. Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.

Here’s a question: Can Bernie and his supporters even claim a moral victory? If Bernie loses because he got his ass kicked by black voters doesn’t that automatically make him not the moral winner but the immoral loser? By definition, blacks represent morality. Hence, because blacks hate him, Bernie deserves to lose.

Comments:

* BernieLand is Portlandia writ large. Could Portland exist if it had the demographics of Birmingham? The liberals in Portland think so but I’m pretty sure that even the few remaining liberals in Birmingham probably see the folly of that vision.

* “Fundamentally, Bernie’s campaign does not seem to understand how the liberalism of black democrats differs from that of their white counterparts. Specifically, culture-war issues play a much smaller role, because that is one place where black and white Democrats do not align perfectly.”

“The reality is that “black liberalism” has historically existed hand-in-hand with religious belief, whereas “white liberalism” often exists in opposition to it.”

“Black Americans perceive – with justification – that their (our) economic standing is getting better, and therefore are more willing to stay-the-course. Bernie’s pitch misses the mark because he wants to overthrow a system that is finally starting to work, in order to help us reclaim something we never had.”

* I’d feel bad for Bernie but he is a coward who lacks basic assertiveness (see: Seattle BLM) and the courage of his convictions (see: his unbelievably cucked campaign stances on race and immigration). Part of me enjoys watching sociopath Hillary tear him to shreds.

* Perhaps my imagination is just being overactive, but if it were southern whites instead of southern blacks refusing to vote for a Jewish candidate for president, wouldn’t there have been a bunch of articles about anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head in Dixie?

* Ed Rollins regularly claimed he could buy the black vote. So what you are seeing is the astonishingly well funded Clinton campaign doing what Rollins claimed he could do, basically buy votes. As whites get poorer expect to see the same. I have to wonder what Bush spent $1200 a vote on in New Hampshire. If you are wondering why vote buying works with blacks not white, maybe black voters have more integrity.

* Hillary cannot win an election where white voters are a majority. She absolutely requires the black, “Hispanic”, and Asian vote shares of Barack Obama. But she does not attract the enthusiasm that came to Obama naturally (cf. the epic fail of Martha Coakley in the 2010 MA Senate election – the bruthas just won’t turn out for the icy white b*tch).

Therefore, Hillary! and her team will need to drive the minority vote in a way that Team Obama did not have to do. This means #BLM and all the other racial signaling they can come up with.

BUT

As the first explicitly anti-white Presidential candidate in history, running against a candidate promoting white interests in a more or less open way, she may well drive the GOP (or Trump Party) white vote share to 65% or more, finally validating the Sailer Strategy.

Will Steve Sailer be the new Karl Rove?

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Unbearable Whiteness Of Bernie Sanders’ Support