February 28, 2016 Malcolm Turnbull under pressure after George Christensen likens Safe Schools program to paedophile grooming Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Malcolm Turnbull under pressure after George Christensen likens Safe Schools program to paedophile grooming

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is under pressure to slap down a conservative Coalition MP who has likened the Safe Schools anti-bullying program to grooming undertaken by sexual predators.

Outspoken Queensland backbencher George Christensen on Thursday claimed the program recommends pornographic content, sex shops, sex clubs and adult communities to schoolchildren.

He also said it directed students to websites that advise students on sex toys and sadomasochism. He singled out the website of LGBT youth organisation Minus18 for particular criticism.
The website has advice on chest binding, penis tucking and sex toys and links to other sites that promote pornography, group sex and gay bars, he claimed. It also gives children advice on how to cover their tracks by hiding their browser history.
“This material is putting children at risk of being sexualised at an early age,” he said.
“If a man exposed a child to these websites, sex clubs, sex shops and online communities on the internet we would call this a paedophile grooming a victim.”

Posted in Abuse, Australia | Comments Off

Republican Establishment’s Open Borders Lifeboat Sinking with Rubio

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Tom Tancredo writes: The establishment media won’t tell you this Tuesday, but the Republican Party civil war is over and the establishment lost. Both of the remaining front-runners, Trump and Cruz, are outsiders, and the insider, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
is history.

Meagan Kelly, call your agent. Your lame horse cannot finish the race.

When Jeb Bush left the presidential race last week after two humiliating out-of-the-running finishes in New Hampshire and South Carolina, the open borders wing of the Republican Party establishment all ran to the Rubio lifeboat. In their haste, they did not notice the Rubio lifeboat — so sad!–had gaping holes in it.

What the establishment media will not tell you after the Rubio campaign follows Bush, Kasich, Christie, and ten others into the history books is that all of them had one thing in common: none of them offered a bold or convincing program for ending our nation’s catastrophic 30-year experiment with open borders. Only Trump and Cruz have done that, and only they have survived the “epidemic of voter anger.”

Have you noticed how quickly the media rallied around “voter anger” as the explanation for the anti-establishment mood of the 2016 electorate? The genius of this label is that it allows the pundits from answering the obvious question—why are people so angry? It suggests that voters rejecting establishment candidates are behaving like children throwing a temper tantrum.

No. That’s not what is happening. Sovereign citizens are waking up and saying, “Enough, already!”

But Marco Rubio didn’t get that memo or didn’t read it. Rubio has been too busy concocting still one more smokescreen defense of his 2013 co-authorship and steadfast support of the infamous “Gang of Eight” Senate amnesty plan. In fact, even today, three years later, he has not yet fully repudiated it.

Rubio’s latest explanation of why that 2013 amnesty bill failed, offered in the debate before the South Carolina primary, is that after it passed the Senate, “the House refused to take it up.” Duh! The Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate with a majority of Republican senators voting AGAINST the bill – an embarrassing fact hardly reported by the media. It was NEVER a Republican immigration reform plan; it was a Democrat open borders plan that Rubio was suckered into supporting.

Facing a broad grassroots rebellion over the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, the Republican leadership in the House was smart enough to bury the dead skunk in the back yard. They began talking about immigration reform as a series of “small bills,” but certain Democrat rejection in the Senate blocked meaningful action.

Yet, Rubio’s stupid support of the Democrats’ Gang of Eight bill had been tattooed on his forehead, and he never had the tattoo removed. In fact, Rubio, like other Republican establishment candidates, still clings to its main, devious feature—amnesty now, enforcement later.

And THAT, my friends, is the main reason Republican voters are angry—not just at Rubio but at all establishment candidates. Two years after Republicans won control of both houses of Congress, they have yet to send Obama a Republican plan for securing the borders and have instead continued to fund the existing open borders status quo. And that is why the two “last man standing” contenders are two outspoken critics of open borders, not the establishment apologists for national suicide.

After Bush’s crash and burn, Rubio became the establishment’s lifeboat to survive the populist tsunami. Ooops. It’s now time for Plan B – or actually, it is now “Plan X.”

Plan X calls for co-opting Donald Trump: the establishment hopes he can become a Trojan Horse. Once inside the gates, he can reveal himself as the “deal-maker” who can “work across the aisle” to “get things done.” In their fanciful fantasy, now being crafted by turnaround exerts, Trump can engage in symbolic acts to please the troops while expanding legal immigration, legal guest worker programs, and foreign aid to Mexico.

The really good news is, Republican voters now have a real choice between two “outsiders.” In the next four months they will decide which one is the best hope for reversing the course of a ship of state heading toward bankruptcy and cultural suicide. Marco Rubio will not be one of those two candidates.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
is hated by the Washington establishment of both parties because he actually has a record to prove his conservative principles. He fought on the Senate floor for conservative principles, and they hate him for that– for repeal of Obamacare, for secure borders, for defunding Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders.

The other candidate riding the “tsunami of populist anger” is, we all know, Donald Trump. Both candidates have tapped into the public anger, but they did not create it– the establishment did by its foolish policies.

Whatever the outcome of this contest, Americans are guaranteed of having a clear choice in November. That is new, and that is progress.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

Another Jewish Neo-Con Panics About Donald Trump

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Eliot A. Cohen writes:

How on earth did this happen? Some, like Robert Kagan, think it is solely the result of a prolonged self-poisoning of the Republican Party. A number of shrewd writers—David Frum, Tucker Carlson, Ben Domenech, Charles Murray, and Joel Kotkin being among the best—have probed deeper. Not surprisingly, they are all some flavor of conservative. On the liberal (or, as they say now, progressive) end of the spectrum the reaction has been chiefly one of smugness (“well, that’s what the Republicans are, we knew it all along”), schadenfreude (“pass the popcorn”), and chicken-counting (“now we can get a head start on Hillary’s first Inaugural”). Their insouciance will be stripped away if Trump becomes the nominee and turns his cunning, ferocity, and charm on an inept, boring politician trailing scandals as old as dubious investments with a 1,000 percent return and as fresh as a homebrew email server. He might lose. He might, however, very well tear her to pieces. Clearly, he relishes the prospect, because he despises the politicians he has bought over the years.
The conservative analysts offer a number of arguments—a shifting class structure, liberal overreach in social policy, existential anxiety about the advent of a robot-driven economy, the stagnation since the Great Recession, and more. They note (as most liberal commentators have yet to do) Trump’s formidable political skills, including a visceral instinct for detecting and exploiting vulnerability that has been the hallmark of many an authoritarian ruler. These insights are all to the point, but they do not capture one key element.
Moral rot.
Politicians have, since ancient Greece, lied, pandered, and whored. They have taken bribes, connived, and perjured themselves. But in recent times—in the United States, at any rate—there has never been any politician quite as openly debased and debauched as Donald Trump. Truman and Nixon could be vulgar, but they kept the cuss words for private use. Presidents have chewed out journalists, but which of them would have suggested that an elegant and intelligent woman asking a reasonable question was dripping menstrual blood? LBJ, Kennedy, and Clinton could all treat women as commodities to be used for their pleasure, but none went on the radio with the likes of Howard Stern to discuss the women they had bedded and the finer points of their anatomies. All politicians like the sound of their own names, but can anyone doubt what Trump would have christened the Hoover Dam—or the Washington Monument?
That otherwise sober people do not find Trump’s insults and insane demands outrageous (Mexico will have to pay for a wall! Japan will have to pay for protection!) says something about a larger moral and cultural collapse. His language is the language of the comments sections of once-great newspapers. Their editors know that the online versions of their publications attract the vicious, the bigoted, and the foulmouthed. But they keep those comments sections going in the hope of getting eyeballs on the page.
Winston Churchill recalls in his memoir how as a young man he came to terms with hypocrisy, discovering the “enormous and unquestionably helpful part that humbug plays in the social life of a great people.” Inconsistency between public virtue and private vice is not altogether a bad thing. No matter how nasty the realities are, maintaining respectable appearances, minding the civilities, and adhering to the conventions is part of what keeps civilization going.
The current problem goes beyond excruciatingly bad manners. What we increasingly lack, and have lacked for some time, is a sense of the moral underpinning of republican (small r) government. Manners and morals maintain a free state as much as laws do, as Tocqueville observed long ago, and when a certain culture of virtue dies, so too does something of what makes democracy work. Old-fashioned words like integrity, selflessness, frugality, gravitas, and modesty rarely rate a mention in modern descriptions of the good life—is it surprising that they don’t come up in politics, either?
William James, a pacifist who understood this point, argued in “The Moral Equivalent of War” that “intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command must still remain the rock upon which states are built—unless, indeed, we wish for dangerous reactions against commonwealths fit only for contempt.” Just so. Trump might have become a less upsetting figure if he had not wriggled through the clutches of the draft in the 1960s.

Max Blumenthal wrote in 2012:

In 2005, a group of graduate students at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced and International Studies (SAIS) participated in the school’s annual diplomatic simulation. The high-pressure scenario required the students to negotiate a resolution to a standoff with a nuclear-armed Republic of Pakistan. Mara Karlin, a student known for her hawkish politics on Israel and the Middle East, played President of the United States.

Though most of the participants were confident they could head off a military conflict with diplomatic measures, Karlin jumped the gun. According to a former SAIS student, not only did Karlin order a nuclear strike on Pakistan, she also took the opportunity to nuke Iran. Her classmates were shocked. It was the first time in 45 years that a simulation concluded with the deployment of a nuclear weapon.

That year, Karlin received a plum job in the Bush administration’s Department of Defense where, according to her bio she was “intimately involved in formulating U.S. policy on Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel-Palestinian affairs.” Lebanon was a special area of focus for Karlin. She claims to have helped structure the Lebanese Armed Forces and coordinated relations between the US and Lebanese militaries.

According to the former SAIS student, Karlin was a favorite of Eliot Cohen, an ultra-hawkish professor of strategic studies at SAIS, which is regarded in American foreign policy circles as a training ground for the neoconservative movement. Through Cohen’s connections among the neocons occupying key civilian posts in Bush’s Defense Department, the former student claims Cohen was able to arrange an attractive sinecure for Karlin. Besides Karlin, the ex-SAIS student told me Cohen has promoted the career ambitions of many former pupils, including Kelly Magsamen, who worked under Cohen in the Bush administration and now oversees the Iran portfolio in the Obama administration’s State Department.

Today, Cohen is among Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney’s top campaign advisers. He is the primary author of Romney’s foreign policy white paper, which attacks Obama for “currying favor with [America’s] enemies” and “ostentatiously shunning Jerusalem.”

The paper urges a policy of regime change in Iran including possible coordination with Israel on military strikes to prevent the Iranian regime from developing a nuclear weapon. It is an aggressive Republican election season document presenting a concoction of post-9/11 unilateralism and unvarnished neo-imperialism as the antidote to a sitting president Cohen accused of “unilateral disarmament in the diplomatic and moral sphere.” More importantly, it suggests that a Romney administration’s foreign policy might look remarkably similar to – and perhaps more extreme than – that of the Bush administration.

Cohen rose through the ranks of the Republican foreign policy elite as a protégé of Paul Wolfowitz.
Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University’s School of Government who has been on the receiving end of aggressive attacks by Cohen, called Cohen “a classic neoconservative.” Walt said, “He is constantly fretting about alleged U.S. vulnerabilities, consistently supportive of increased defense spending, and generally inclined to favor U.S. intervention in other countries. Second, like virtually all neoconservatives, he is also deeply attached to Israel, as well as to the United States. I do not question his patriotism, but I think he tends to see U.S. and Israeli interests as more-or-less identical and doesn’t see a trade-off between support for one and support for the other.”
Cohen rose through the ranks of the Republican foreign policy elite as a protégé of Paul Wolfowitz, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense who is credited with playing a central role in the push for invading Iraq. In 1990, Wolfowitz secured a position for Cohen working beside him on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Three years later, when Wolfowitz was appointed dean of SAIS, he began using his influence to propel Cohen’s career. According to a former State Department official who graduated from SAIS, it was through the beneficence of Wolfowitz that Cohen earned an endowed teaching position at SAIS as the Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies.
In 1997, Wolfowitz and Cohen joined forces to form the Project for a New American Century, a neoconservative umbrella group that served as the key non-governmental vehicle for promoting the case for invading Iraq after 9/11. In the immediate wake of al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., Cohen took to the media to map out the next phase of a grand global military venture that he coined, “World War IV.”
Describing Iraq as “the big prize,” Cohen urged a unilateral invasion of Iraq that would advance the ambitions of the now-discredited political charlatan Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. Like so many of his neoconservative peers, Cohen claimed Saddam Hussein’s regime maintained “a connection with the 9/11 terrorists.” With the war deteriorating into a chaotic bloodbath and as his own son was called up for duty, Cohen criticized the Bush administration for “happy talk and denials of error.” However, he refused to admit fault for his role in selling Americans on the invasion.

Despite mildly dissenting from the White House line, Cohen continued his ascent, replacing Philip Zelikow as counselor to then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in 2007. According to the former State Department official, Rice had almost no role in Cohen’s appointment. Instead, Cohen was recommended for the position by Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz. Cheney’s daughter headed the Iran Syrian Operations Group, a newly created, neoconservative-inspired initiative burrowed within the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. At the time of Cohen’s appointment, Rice was attempting to open diplomatic lines to Iran, North Korea, and Syria – a move Cohen and the Cheneys fiercely opposed.

A few months after Bush left office, the former State Department official said Cohen and Wolfowitz rewarded their neoconservative fellow traveler Eric Edelman – a former Defense Department official during the later Bush years – with a visiting scholarship at SAID. In private, Johns Hopkins alumni expressed outrage at the installment of Edelman, a career diplomat with no academic background, accusing the neoconservatives of exploiting SAIS to create a system of political patronage.

Cohen advised that the “US actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic…through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard.”

Cohen’s extensive web of foreign policy and military connections forms a seamless line to Tel Aviv. There, on the top floor of one of the office buildings known as “HaKirya,” is the office of one of Cohen’s former pupils,Aviv Kochavi. Kochavi is now the director of Israeli military intelligence, making him one of the most quietly influential figures in the country. In 2006, Kochavi, who also holds a philosophy degree, boasted to the Israeli architect and anti-occupation activist Eyal Weizmann about how he and his troops crushed Palestinian resistance cells in Nablus through the use of “inverse geometry” and “micro-tactical actions” inspired by the theories of post-structuralist philosophers like Deleuze and Guattari. On February 2, Kochavi appeared at the annual Herzliya Conference to issue grave warnings about the rapid progress of Iran’s nuclear program, suggesting that sanctions and diplomacy have failed, and that more aggressive action might be required.

Despite Cohen’s deep Israeli ties, he has proven extremely sensitive to critiques of the connection. When Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the latter a professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago, published their widely debated paper on the Israel lobby in 2006, Cohen authored one of the first attempts to discredit their thesis about a loose coalition of individuals and organizations creating political pressure to move US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. In an op-edin the Washington Post, Cohen accused the authors of “kooky academic work” and “obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews.”

“Cohen’s rather hysterical reaction to our work was both typical and easy to explain,” Walt remarked. “Given that he and other neoconservatives had played a key role in convincing George Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, he was understandably upset when we pointed this out and provided extensive documentation of their role in the run-up to this disastrous war. He could not refute our logic or our evidence, however, so he chose to misrepresent our views and smear us falsely as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.”

With the last battalions of US troops preparing to redeploy from Iraq to other conflict zones, Cohen is homing in on Iran. In a September 2009 editorial for the Wall Street Journal, he dismissed diplomacy and sanctions as feasible means of curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program,” he wrote. “The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.” While not ruling out the necessity of an American strike on Iranian facilities, Cohen advised that the “US actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic…through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard.”

As tensions between Israel and Iran rise to unprecedented levels, and Israel’s leadership beseeches the US to join a military strike on Iran, Cohen’s visions of regime change seem closer to realization than ever before. For him and the neoconservative policy elite, a Romney victory in November might deliver the next “big prize.”

Posted in Donald Trump, Neoconservatives | Comments Off

Ben Shapiro on Free Speech, College Campuses, and The Regressive Left

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ben Shapiro says we must destroy the careers of racists:

From a Twitter thread:

* “We should find real racists and destroy their careers.”

* He agrees we should destroy the lives of “Racists” – he just wants to make sure he’s the Destroyer, not the Destroyed.

* He’s not a cuck, he’s just Jewish, it’s in his own interests.

* Israel’s widespread racism is their most endearing trait.

* Reminds me of one con (I think it was Dennis Prager) talking up how he would ASSAULT anyone calling a black man “Boy.”

* These people in power would nuke countries for the offense of going against left morals and call it conservative.

* @benshapiro doesn’t care about free speech. He wants the same as the left. To be the authority in charge to define what racism is.

* His loyalties were never with the American people, but with Israel and the tribe. Thus he did not cuck. He’s a Jew.

* This is the same kid who filed a police report because a tranny put his hand on his shoulder and said some mean words.

Posted in Ben Shapiro | Comments Off

Key Quotations from ‘You Gentiles’ — by Maurice Samuel

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Lasha Darkmoon:

Maurice Samuel (1895 – 1972) was a Romanian-born Zionist Jew whose most influential book, You Gentiles, was published in 1924. This offered a penetrating analysis of the Jewish psyche and made the important point that Jews were altogether so superior and spiritually advanced compared to gentiles that there was no possibility of the two groups getting on together. Owing to the baser nature of the gentiles, and the fact that they did not take God seriously like the Jews, it was inevitable that Jews and gentiles should be at loggerheads for ever. (LD)

Here are some key quotations from the book:

I. The Question

“Wherever the Jew is found he is a problem, a source of unhappiness to himself and to those around him. Ever since he has been scattered in your midst he has had to maintain a continuous struggle for the conservation of his identity.” (p. 10).

“Years of observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief that we Jews stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts; that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences among you gentiles are trivialities compared with that which divided all of you from us.” (p. 12).

“You may even have Jews in your midst who did not learn their way of life from us, and did not inherit it from a Jewish forebear. We may have authentic gentiles in our midst: these single protests are of no account; they are extreme and irrelevant variations.” (p. 21).
“I do not believe that the primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever – not a mere conviction, not a mere language, not a mere difference of national or religious allegiance.” (p. 23-24).

“You have your way of life, we ours. In your system of life we are essentially without ‘honor’. In our system of life you are essentially without morality. In your system of life we must forever appear graceless; to us you must forever appear godless.” (p. 34).

“We belong to the One mastering God: you belong to the republic of playful gods. ” (p. 36).

“These are two ways of life, each utterly alien to the other. Each has its place in the world – but they cannot flourish in the same soil, they cannot remain in contact without antagonism. Though to life itself each way is a perfect utterance, to each other they are enemies.” (p. 36-37)

II Sport

“THE most amazing thing in your life, the most in contrast with ours, is its sport. By this I do not mean simply your fondness for physical exercise, your physical exuberance, but the psychological and social institutionalization of sport, its organization, its predominant rôle as the outlet and expression of your spiritual energies.” (p. 38)

“Your spirit is sport: particularly your young men, who are not yet absorbed in the struggle for existence, and whose emotions are therefore for the largest part free, must find in sport, in games, in contests, the most satisfactory expression of their instincts.” (p. 40)

“The contention of the majority of your educators, that the moral instinct is trained on the football and baseball field, in boxing, rowing, wrestling and other contests, is a true one, is truer, perhaps, than most of them realize. Your ideal morality is a sporting morality. The intense discipline of the game, the spirit of fair play, the qualities of endurance, of good humor, of conventionalized seriousness in effort, of loyalty, of struggle without malice or bitterness, of readiness to forget like a sport – all these are brought out in their sheerest and cleanest starkness in well-organized and closely regulated college sports. And on the experiences and lessons which these sports imply your entire spiritual life is inevitably founded.” (p. 42)

“Sport is for you a serious spiritual matter. It is the proper symbolization, the perfect ritual, wherein your spiritual forces, finding expression, also find exercise and sustenance.” (p. 43)

III Gods

“Our Jewishness is not a creed, it is ourself, our totality. Indeed, it may be fairly said that the surest evidence of your lack of seriousness in religion is the fact that your religions are not national, that you are not compromised and dedicated, en masse, to the faith.” (p. 73).

“But in the Jew, nation and people and faculties and culture and God are all one. We do not say: ‘I am a Jew’, meaning, ‘I am a member of this nationality’: the feeling in the Jew, even in the free-thinking Jew like myself, is that to be one with his people is to be thereby admitted to the power of enjoying the infinite. I might say, of ourselves: ‘We and God grew up together’.” (p. 74).

“You have had patron or appropriated gods: we have a national God. In the heart of any pious Jew, God is a Jew. Is your God an Englishman or an American?
There is no real contradiction between this confessed anthropomorphism and my claim that we Jews alone understand and feel the universality of God. In anthropomorphism we merely symbolize God: we reduce the infinite, temporarily, to tangible proportions: we make it accessible to daily reference. ” (p. 75).

IV Utopia

“We are not free to choose and to reject, to play, to construct, to refine. We are a dedicated and enslaved people, predestined to an unchangeable relationship. Freedom at large was not and is not a Jewish ideal. Service, love consecration, these are ideals with us. Freedom means nothing to us: freedom to do what?” (p. 88)

“For us the end is ecstatic unity, the identification of man with God. Your ideal is eternal youth, ours lifts toward an unchanging climax of adult perfection. You would like to play with your gods forever: we will return to God, to the universe. Yours is a sunlit afternoon, with the combatants swaying forever in a joyous struggle. Ours is a whole world, with the spirit of God poured through all things.
Your Ideal is Plato’s Republic: ours is God’s kingdom.” (p. 89-90)

V Loyalty

“For your system of morality is no less a need to you than ours to us. And the incompatibility of the two systems is not passive. You might say: ‘Well, let us exist side by side and tolerate each other. We will not attack your morality, nor you ours.’ But the misfortune is that the two are not merely different. They are opposed in mortal, though tacit, enmity. No man can accept both, or, accepting either, do otherwise than despise the other.” (p. 95-96)

VI Discipline

“In the colleges, in the street, in the army, we betray ourselves. Indeed, your very breaches of discipline differ from ours by a certain conscious rebelliousness which is partly homage: our breaches of discipline are off-hand, unconscious, insolent.” (p. 110)

“The fact is, of course, that in true discipline, en effectiveness, we are by no means your inferiors. No one would dream of asserting that our religion is not more effective than yours in compelling obedience, or in perpetuating itself. The mere fact that we have persisted for eighty generations in maintaining a racial and spiritual identity in the face of so much persecution (and, more significant, of so much infiltration of blood) bespeaks essential discipline of amazing rigor and power. […] Yet I have no doubt that when Germany and England and America will long have lost their present identity or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours.” (p. 111).

VII The Reckoning

“I say, therefore, that in the conflict between us you have fought us physically, while our attack on your world has been in the spiritual field. It is the nature of the gentile to fight for his honor, in the nature of the Jew to suffer for this. […] And so, since we have lived among you, you have instinctively appealed to brute force in combating our influence.” (p. 128)

“We are a disturbing influence in your life not through our own fault. First: we are not in your midst by our own will, but through your action; and second (which is more to the point): we do not attack you deliberately. We are unwelcome to you because we are what we are. It is our own positive way of life which clashes with yours. Our attack on you is only incidental to the expression of our way of life. You too have this field open to you. As surely as we are a spiritual discomfort to you, you are a spiritual discomfort to us: as surely as we attack you peacefully, so you waste us peacefully and weaken our numbers.” (p. 129-130)

VIII But as Moderns

“I have already said, anticipating this objection, that there is the same difference between the Jewish atheist and the gentile atheist as between the orthodox Jew and the believing gentile: I have said or implied that the religion itself is but practical expression of the difference between us, not the cause of it. It is true that the expression of a view serves to strengthen it, as the exercise of a faculty serves to develop it. But expression does not create a view nor exercise a faculty. Even conscious adherence to the Jewish people is but partial expression of our Jewishness: it was not the conscious desire to remain a people which gave us the will to endure: it was our unavoidable commonalty of feeling which made us and continued us a people.” (p. 136-137)

“Repudiation of the Jewish religion or even of Jewish racial affiliation does not alter the Jew. Some of us Jews may delude ourselves as some of you gentiles do. But in effect modernization seems to have done nothing to decrease the friction between us. The dislike continues: and though your masses may not know why they dislike us, there must be a sufficient reason: it is Germany, the mother of the modernized Jew, that gave birth, with him, to modern anti-Semitism. Where the old ostensible reasons for disliking the Jew collapsed, new ones, more self-conscious, were substituted. When modernization removed the old, superstitious form of expression, the professor replaced the priest, science religion. We are disliked on ‘scientific’ grounds, as we were disliked on ‘religious’ reasons were rationalizations. The true reasons underlay these analyses.” (p. 137-138)

“We fail to be gentiles.” (p. 140)

“Our best work has been the old, true work of our people – fundamental and serious examination of the problems of man’s relation to God and humanity. In the arts we have been second-rate, third-rate. While in the moral effort we have exceeded any living race and have produced an overwhelming number of revolutionaries and socialists and iconoclasts of the true prophetic type, we have, in science, belles-lettres and the plastic arts been a thoroughly minor people.” (p. 141)

“We have joined your capitalistic world in deliberate emulation and rivalry: yet Jewish socialism and Jewish socialists are the banner bearers of the world’s ‘armies of liberation’.” (p. 142)

”We modern Jews of the Western world are in this fundamentally different from you. The occasional in you (revolution against the Game) is the dominant in us. Your instinct is truer than you know. The dislike of your modern world for the modern Jews is as relevant as the dislike of your for the orthodox Jew.” (p. 142-143)

IX We, the Destroyers

“IF anything, you must learn (and are learning) to dislike the modern and ‘assimilated’ Jew, for he is more dangerous to you. At least the old Jew kept apart from you, was easily recognizable as an individual, as the bearer of the dreaded Jewish world-idea: you were afraid of him and loathed him. But to a large extent he was insulated. But as the Jew assimilates, acquires your languages, cultivates a certain intimacy, penetrates into your life, begins to handle your instruments, you are aware that his nature, once confined safely to his own life, now threatens yours. You are aware of a new and more than disconcerting character at work in the world you have built and are building up, a character which crosses your intentions and thwarts your personality.” (p. 144-145)
“The Jew, whose lack of contact with your world had made him ineffective, becomes effective. The vial is uncorked, the genius is out. His enmity to your way of life was tacit before. To-day it is manifest and active. He cannot help himself: he cannot be different from himself: no more can you. It is futile to tell him: ‘Hands off!’ He is not his own master, but the servant of his lifewill.” (p.145)

“For when he [the Jew] brings into your world his passionately earnest, sinisterly earnest righteousness, absolute righteousness, and, speaking in your languages and through your institutions, scatters distrust of yourselves through the most sensitive of you, he is working against your spirit.” (p. 145)

“I do not believe that we Jews are powerful enough to threaten your way of life seriously. We are only powerful enough to irritate, to disturb your conscience, and to break here and there the rhythmic rush of your ideas. We irritate you as a sardonic and humorless adult irritates young people by laughing at their play. For the real irritation lies in the fact that to our queries regarding your life there is no answer on our level: as to yours regarding our life there is no answer on yours.” (p. 146)

“We Jews are accused of being destroyers: whatever you put up, we tear down. It is true only in a relative sense. We are not iconoclasts deliberately: we are not enemies of your institutions simply because of the dislike between us. We are a homeless mass seeking satisfaction for our constructive instincts. And in your institutions we cannot find satisfaction; they are the play institutions of the splendid children of man – and not of man himself. We try to adapt your institutions to our needs, because while we live we must have expression; and trying to rebuild them for our needs, we unbuild them for yours.” (p. 146-147)

“Because your chief institution is the social structure itself, it is in this that we are most manifestly destroyers.” (p. 147)

“Dislike of the Jew in business springs from the feeling that we regard all your play-conventions with amusement – or even with contempt. Our abominable seriousness breaks jarringly into your life-mood. But you feel our disruptive difference most keenly, most resentfully, in our deliberate efforts to change your social system. We dream of a world of utter justice and God-spirit, a whole world which would be barren for you, devoid of all nourishment, bleak, unfriendly, unsympathetic. You do not want such a world: you are unapt for it. Seen in the dazzling lights of your desires and needs our ideal is repellently morose.” (p. 148-149)

“We do wrong to thrust these ideals upon you, who are not for justice or peace, but for play-living. But we cannot help ourselves: any more than you can help resenting our interference. While we live we must give utterance to our spirit. The most insistent effort on our part will fail to change our nature.” (p. 149)

“He [the Jew] is a citizen of the world; he is a son of humanity; the progress of all humankind, and not of only of any single group of it, is in his particular care.” (p. 150)

“The unbelieving and radical Jew is as different from the radical gentile as the orthodox Jew from the reactionary gentile. The cosmopolitanism of the radical Jew springs from his feeling (shared by the orthodox Jew) that there is no difference between gentile and gentile. You are all pretty much alike: then why this fussing and fretting and fighting? The Jew is not a cosmopolitan in your sense.” (p. 150)

“He is not one who feels keenly the difference between national and nation, and overrides it. For him, as for the orthodox Jew, a single temper runs through all of you, whatever your national divisions. The radical Jew (like the orthodox Jew) is a cosmopolitan in a sense which must be irritating to you: for he does not even understand why you make such a fuss about that most obvious of facts – that you are all alike. The Jew is altogether too much of a cosmopolitan – even for your internationalists.” (p. 151)

“Nor in the handful of you who, against the desires and instincts of the mass of you, proclaim social justice as the life aim, is the Jew any more truly at home, at one with his milieu, than the old-time Jew in his world. Our [Jews’] very radicalism is of a different temper. Our spur is a natural instinct. We do not have to uproot something in ourselves to become ‘radicals’, dreamers of social justice. We are this by instinct: we do not see it as something revolutionary at all. It is tacit with us. But with you it is an effort and a wrench. Your very ancestry cries out against it in your blood… And you become silly and enthusiastic about it, with flag-waving, and shouting, and battle-hymns, and all the regular game-psychology proper to your world and way of life. Even of this you make a play.” (p. 151-152)

“But such as these radical and international movements are, the modern Jew (the best and most thoughtful modern Jew, that is) is nearer to them than to anything else in your world. He is the only true socialist and cosmopolitan – but in such a true and tacit sense that he is completely distinguished from all of you. It is one of many vital paradoxes – a thing illogical and yet true to life. It is our very cosmopolitanism that gives us our national character. Because we are the only ones who are cosmopolitan by instinct rather than by argument we remain forever ourselves.” (p. 152)

“In everything we are destroyers – even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief. The very socialism and internationalism through which our choked spirit seeks utterance, which seem to threaten your way of life, are alien to our spirit’s demands and needs. Your socialists and internationalists are not serious. The charm of these movements, the attraction, such as it is, which they exercise, is only in their struggle: it is the fight which draws your gentile radicals. And indeed, it is only as long as there is an element of adventure in being a radical that the radical movement retains any individuality. And it is only in the fierce period of early combat that you welcome us Jews – as allies. You are deluded in this – so are we. You go into the movement boldly, adventurously; we darkly, tacitly. You make it a game; we do it because we cannot help ourselves. And sure enough, in the end, the split comes again. The liberal and the radical are as apt to dislike the Jew as the reactionaries are. The liberal and the radical do not use the weapons of the reactionaries: but the dislike is there, finds expression in anti-Semitic socialist and workers’ movements and in the almost involuntary contempt which springs to the lips of countless intellectuals.” (p. 152-154)

“Philosophies do not remold natures. What your radicals want is another form of the Game, with other rules. Their discontent joins hands with Jewish discontent. But it is not the same kind of discontent. A little distance down the road the ways part for ever. The Jewish radical will turn from your social movement: he will discover his mistake he will discover that nothing can bridge the gulf between you and us. He will discover that the spiritual satisfaction which he thought he would find in social revolution is not to be purchased from you. I believe the movement has already started, the gradual secession of the Jewish radicals, their realization that your radicalism is of the same essential stuff as your conservatism. The disillusionment has set in.” (p. 154)

“A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews access to your world. In that period the great attempt was made, by advance guards of reconciliation, to bring our two worlds together. It was a century of failure. Our Jewish radicals are beginning to understand it dimly.”(p. 154-155)

“We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you do will meet our needs and demands. We will for ever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build. Beyond all temporary alliances with this or that faction lies the ultimate split in nature and destiny, the enmity between the Game and God. But those of us who fail to understand that truth will always be found in alliance with your rebellious factions, until disillusionment comes. The wretched fate which scattered us through your midst has thrust this unwelcome rôle upon us.” (p. 155)

XI The Masses

“The nature of things cannot be solved because we partake of that nature. We can never get round ourselves: we can only turn round. Your world spins in a joyous illusion of progress; we, untouched by that illusion, destructive of your mood, stand aside, static, serious. We will be satisfied with nothing but the absolute.” (p. 186-187)

XII Solution and Dissolution

“Does the situation which I have described constitute a problem? Or is it merely one of the insoluble difficulties of life which, being insoluble, should be understood as such and suffered tacitly? Death is not a problem, being inevitable. Is this struggle between our two worlds as inevitable? Shall we resign ourselves to the struggle and do what we can to mitigate its worst effects, or shall we continue the search for a complete solution?
The one solution which is generally offered as complete and satisfactory, is quite apart from its feasibility, not a solution at all: only a dissolution. The disappearance of the Jewish people by complete submergence in the surrounding world would not, in reality, solve the problem; any more than one solves a chess problem by burning chess-board and figures. But it would seem to do the next best thing: it would apparently destroy the situation which creates the problem. The problem, without having been solved, would at any rate cease to exist.” (p. 188-189)

“And by the dissolution of the Jewish people can be meant only one thing – the disappearance of Jewish identity in individuals or amasses, the complete obliteration of Jewish self-consciousness, down to the very name and recollection. When it will be impossible for any man to say of himself, ‘I am a Jew’, or ‘My father or grandfather was a Jew’ this consummation will have been achieved.
There is only one instrument to this end: free and unrestrained intermarriage. This act or fact alone will count. The mere changing of names, the substitution of religious forms, the so-called ‘liberalization’ and ‘modernization’ of Judaism is ineffective: it is a matter of common observation that there is no inverse ratio between the Westernization of the Jew and anti-Semitism. And this very fact will have to be considered again in its relation to the feasibility of this proposal. If we talk of the submergence of the Jew we must not play with words: words alone cannot submerge the Jew. If there is anything in what I have said you cannot make a gentile of a Jew by arguing with him any more than by lynching him. You can make his children half gentile, his grandchildren only a quarter Jewish – and so on till the balance is perfect.” (p. 189-190)

“Will the ‘dissolution of Jewish identity’ by free and prolonged intermarriage resolve the struggle of the two types? Or will the struggle continue in another form, less obvious but equally uncomfortable? Will the struggle center round isolated individuals, recurrent types? Or will the final product be homogeneous and, in relation to this particular struggle, static?”
Both the negative and affirmative answers to this question are unsatisfactory. Suppose, on the one hand, the struggle continues? Suppose the Jewish character persists in strains, breaks out in individual atavisms, long after the Jewish name has perished? The problem will be the same: your world will be confronted with recurrent instances of alien and destructive types, all the more dangerous because they are not isolated in recognized, repudiated group. Their power of destruction will be the greater because they will work from within. The ‘Jewish’ problem will have disappeared, but the gentile problem would remain as bitter as ever. (p. 193-194)

“Let us examine the negative answer. Suppose there are no ‘reversions of type’. Suppose the Jew is so completely absorbed as to be lost beyond possibility of detection in the surrounding world. Such a consummation, if possible, calls for one inevitable condition; that is, the proportionate Judaization of your world. It is unthinkable that so vivid an element as the Jewish people should be absorbed into your world without producing an appreciable alteration in its constitution. A world that has absorbed the Jews will to that extent be a Jewish world.
And this is precisely the condition which you refuse to admit. You want no tampering with your identity; you want to remain what you are. You have no intention of meeting us at the point of balance. You do not want a world tinged with Jewish blood. You want us to be absorbed in you without leaving a trace. And with the best intentions in the world we cannot oblige. We can, in that sense, no more destroy ourselves than we can destroy a single particle of matter.” (p. 194-195)

XIII The Mechanism of Dissolution

“Among yourselves assimilation is problem enough. The birth and death of nations is attended by wars, pains, humiliations. But what you have done a dozen times over in the last four thousand years we have not done once.” (p. 208-209)

“We cannot assimilate: it is so humiliating to us that we become contemptible in submitting to the process: It is so exasperating to you that, even if we were willing to submit, it would avail us nothing.” (p. 209)

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

LAT: What a Donald Trump presidency might actually look like

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

I was friends with Rob Stutzman at Placer High School. He was a couple of years behind me. We worked on the school newspaper together for a couple of years. When I graduated, he became the Editor.

Even in high school, Stutzman had his head screwed on straight. While I was constantly saying and doing things that I would regret, sometimes within seconds, he was always centered and living his Christian values. He didn’t make needless enemies and yet he never backed off what he stood for.

It was then and remains today very hard to dislike Rob Stutzman the man, however much you may hate things he supports.

A year ahead of me at Placer (and my predecessor as Editor) was a similarly impressive Christian headed for success and power — Eric Schulzke (now a political science professor at BYU).

Schulzke, Stutzman and I were all Christian conservatives and all fans of Ronald Reagan. Schulzke was the most right-wing. Stutzman and I were more OK with Reagan’s need at times to compromise with Democrats. I was the most bizarre of the three, the most troubled, the most likely to go off in weird directions. Schulzke and Stutzman had the stuff of future Republican leaders. I was always going to be disreputable and embarrassing.

Stutzman supports Marco Rubio and he wants America to take in Syrian refugees and other immigrants.

Los Angeles Times:

In contrast to his vagueness on the size of government, Trump is absolutely clear on the central theme of how he sees the presidency: the personal use of executive power.
In almost every statement he makes, Trump depicts the presidency as an arena in which he would fix problems through the exercise of his will and negotiating ability.
A characteristic comment came in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” in response to a question about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“I have been an extremely successful deal maker. That’s what I’ve done over years,” Trump said. “And I know people, because deals are people. And I think I’ll get along very well, for the good of our country…. I’ll get along fine with Putin.”
Trump’s rivals in the GOP race routinely denounce President Obama as having exceeded the powers of his office. Trump says Obama acted “stupidly” and made the wrong decisions, but he’s less likely to emphasize the claim that Obama has tried to make the office too powerful.
Even the most forceful modern presidents, however, quickly discover the limits of what they can do.
“It’s not that he can come in, start with a clean sheet of paper,” said Andrew Card, who worked for the last three Republican presidents, including 5 1/2 years as George W. Bush’s chief of staff. Congress, the courts and the bureaucracy of federal agencies guard their own prerogatives.
“Governors tend to understand that better than CEOs,” who have far more authority over their companies than a president has over the government, Card said.
“When you’re the president, you’re not a dictator.”
That’s not to say a president lacks power. Some of Trump’s most controversial plans could be carried out by executive authority. Many legal experts believe, for example, that Trump could impose his plan to bar most foreign Muslims from entering the U.S., at least for a while, because the president has broad authority over immigration, particularly where it intersects with national security.
“He will have a very easy time doing whatever he can do through executive authority alone. That includes the conduct of foreign relations, up to a point,” said William Galston of Washington’s Brookings Institution, who worked in the White House under President Clinton.
By contrast, “he would have a hard time doing anything that requires the cooperation of Congress.”
If elected, Trump would take office after what amounts to a hostile takeover of the Republican Party and over the opposition of Democrats. He probably would not be able to count on much support from either side on Capitol Hill. That would mean trouble for his promises to build a wall along the Mexican border or to round up and deport the roughly 11 million people currently in the U.S. without legal authorization. Both would require Congress to approve billions of dollars in new appropriations even if Trump could pressure the Mexican government into reimbursing the U.S. for the cost of the wall, which Mexico says it won’t consider.
On foreign policy, a President Trump would face a different set of constraints — other countries…
“You have to tell people ‘no’ all the time” in government, said Rob Stutzman, a Sacramento-based political consultant who worked as a top advisor to another larger-than-life figure, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and who backs Rubio. “It ultimately is a business where you disappoint people.”
That fact hits all presidents, eroding their popularly over time, but it might particularly affect Trump because he has built his campaign around personal dynamism and promises that few think are possible to fulfill.
“There’s never going to be a wall. Mexico is not paying for anything. Apple’s not building iPhones in the United States,” said Stutzman. “My guess is he’ll hire very well — hire very capable people — and he’ll take their counsel, but then I think he finds himself in a difficult position of trying to sustain political capital because he’ll have to start explaining why he can’t.”

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off

According to Marco Rubios ex-teammate…

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

LINK: A man who played football and went to Tarkio College with Marco Rubio just called into the Finebaum show and said the following…

(paraphrasing)

1) Rubios bio claims he went to Tarkio College on a football scholarship. That is a lie as they did not give football schollys at that time, to anyone.

2) Rubio was in our team photo but that’s as close to the field as he ever got. He never played, much less on scholly. He was barely there one semester.

3) He approached several players on the team and convinced many of them (myself included) to give him $200 each and he would make a run to Florida to get us some good “supplements” aka steroids from a guy he knew. He took our money and no one ever saw him again.

4) I’m only telling this story because during the debate he proudly told Trump, “I guess there’s a statute of limitations on lies”. If that comment is true then he’s a hypocrite and should practice what he preaches.

Posted in America | Comments Off

‘A Racial Program For The 20th Century’

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

I just read this comment on The Realist Report and thought to myself, this does not seem right:

The Jewish lobby should be worried because their true agenda is coming into view of the American public more and more everyday. Here’s what Jewish author Israel Cohen write in his 1912 book “A Racial Program for the 20th Century”. As quoted by Congressman Abernathy on the Congressional Record at page 8559, in 1957:
“We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them into the program of the negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”
So there you have it in a prominent Jews own words and this is just one example but there are many more. So white people protect your race, your families, and your countries from Israel and the Jewish agenda.

So I did some research and found out that the book “A Racial Program for the 20th Century” is a hoax.

From Wikipedia:

A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century (occasionally A Radical Program for the Twentieth Century) is an antisemitic hoax promoted by Eustace Mullins. It is often cited as “proof” of a Jewish and/or Communist plot against white Americans, in much the same way as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, another forged document, is used as “proof” of a Jewish global domination conspiracy.

Allegedly written in 1912 by Israel Cohen, a British Jewish Communist, the text first gained public notoriety on June 7, 1957, during a debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when Rep. Thomas Abernethy of Mississippi read a reputed quotation from it into the Congressional Record:

“We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”[3]

Abernethy had found the quotation in a March letter to the editor of the Washington Star; he claimed it as proof that the civil rights movement was a foreign Communist plot. However, the Washington Star soon apologized for having printed the quotation without verifying its authenticity and, on February 18, 1958, published an article entitled “Story of a Phony Quotation–A Futile Effort to Pin It Down–‘A Racial Program for the 20th Century’ Seems to Exist Only in Somebody’s Imagination”, which traced the quotation to Eustace Mullins, who claimed to have found it in a Zionist publication in the Library of Congress.[1][2] On August 30 of that year, Rep. Abraham J. Multer of New York read the Star article into the Congressional Record and raised several other points challenging the quotation’s authenticity. These included the nonexistence of a British Communist party in 1912 (it was founded in only 1920), the nonexistence of a British Communist author named Israel Cohen (although a British Jewish author and Zionist named Israel Cohen did exist in that period, he had no affiliation with Communism nor is there any record of him writing the text), and the failure of a book entitled A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century to appear either in the Library of Congress or in the British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books.[1][2]

Playwright Myron Coureval Fagan claims to have met founders of the Fabian Society, Israel Zangwill, Edward Bernays, and Israel Cohen while Cohen was writing the book at a banquet thrown by Diamond Jim Brady at the Delmonico’s restaurant in New York after the opening of The Melting Pot.

Posted in Conspiracy, Jews, Race | Comments Off

Democrats Are The Black Party, Republicans Are The White Party

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “The Democrats are turning into the Black Party. Like with the Oscars and 12 Years a Slave, once you go black you are never supposed to go back.”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Most black voters don’t understand what “single-payer” means. Actually, many white voters probably don’t understand it either. So they don’t really understand it as Free Stuff. They probably just understand it as Bernie’s plan (whatever that is) and Obama’s plan (whatever that is).

* It just shows how low IQ and the inability to process information correctly plays across national politics from, er, certain communities.

* It’d be more accurate to say that the Republicans are now the white party, and the Democrats are what they’ve always been – a minority coalition party that includes a minority of whites.

* Occam’s Razor explanation – Blacks don’t like Jews.

* No, they don’t, but what in heaven’s name makes you believe they’d even know he was Jewish? Certainly not their voracious reading.

Steve has it right. Any mention of Obamacare that doesn’t make it holy is a diss of Barry. Perhaps in the General when/if Trump wishes to talk to black voters, he should speak of the ACA. They won’t know what he’s talking about and so won’t see his remarks as a diss of their savior.

* Paradoxically, when it comes to November, Trump, as the flashy big man may well get more black support than Clinton.

* Jews can’t get elected to national office in the Democratic Party nor coach NBA teams. Wonder why?

* The biggest factor is that most Blacks bloc vote according to how they are told to by their Big Men, who are their preachers in most cases. The Big Big Men, like Sharpton and Jackson, are not coincidentally preachers too.

Hillary, and more to the point Hillary’s handlers, are their handlers too. Blacks are, politically speaking , bought and paid for property. More of them than you’d think know it and don’t care.

There are exceptions, I know some of them and most of us do too, but they are few in numbers, too statistically insignificant to get anyone elected.

That the winner of the black vote always gets at least 70% and often in the nineties tells you every thing you need to know. In South Carolina, the Black Establishment made a mistake (or some badwhite slipperydicked them-sadly, there aren’t enough badwhites out there with the moxie to do it to make me think that that’s what happened) and an unheard of Black , Alvin Greene, got the Senate nomination for the Democrats.

A few blacks and a few “Latinos” -mostly high-white-content mestizos who consider themselves pretty much white-will vote for Trump, more than any other GOP candidate certainly, but that won’t get anyone elected.

Trump has to turn out the Grabowski vote-blue and working-white collar white workers-and if he doesn’t truckle to the GOP establishment he will.

* The whole point of single payer is to keep it simple and efficient. That means there are not a lot of AA or government sinecures for the black ‘elites’ which is what they really crave. They could work as nurses and orderlies but that just wouldn’t be cool baby.

* “The Democrats are turning into the Black Party.”

No it isn’t. It’s simply America’s Majority party, the party of the American Core. It is gobbling up the vast majority of New America – Asians and hispanics as well.

And it remains essentially a “White party” where it matters.

You may have noticed the exclusively White nature of this year’s Democrat presidential candidates.

White democrats are the majority of the democrat voters, candidates, office holders, hacks, consultants, rich donors, pundits, assistants, appointees etc etc.

You apparently failed to notice Hillary also won the White vote in South Carolina. So an all-White election would have meant a Hillary victory. Sorry for pointing out that trivial detail.

“Occam’s Razor explanation – Blacks don’t like Jews.”

That seems like another irrational interpretation. How many black voters see Sanders as a jew and how many see him simply as “Another old White man”?

Your extreme interpretation seems like Whiskey’s Razor – White women hate hate hate average “white guys” and only want alpha guys, black guys and jerks. Le sigh!

One old White non religious nearly closeted Jew loses to America’s most famous political woman and you view it as a shinning example of rampant black Jew hatred. Not smart.

“Obamacare”

Republicans could have labelled it Reid/Pelosi Care but no that might be too much for them. So instead of tying it to two unappealing members of congress they chose to flatter Obama and give him credit and thereby make the criticism more “problematic”, as they say.

Because that’s what goofy “white guys” in the Republican party do.

* Many White Republicans are emotionally bonded to GW Bush not unlike how black Democrats are emotionally bonded to Obama.

* I’m disappointed Trump didn’t buy all the remaining Jeb! Guac Bowls and have his staffers stack them in a pyramid like the skulls of the vanquished.

* Sanders’ aides ought to have framed the problem as “Sanderscare” vs. “Hillarycare”. It’s not only that Blacks are too stupid to see the advantage of Sanderscare (for them), it’s that Sanders’ aides are too stupid to understand how the Black mind works.

* US Blacks are basically anti-communists. Sure many like bennies, but they’re trying to move up.

When I meet them, that’s what they say about Bernie: He’s a BS-ing Commie traitor out to do us all in and take away their cousin’s low-paying job that’s giving her a hand up for $15 /hr pie-in-the-sky. Then draft the newly unemployed.

* ¿Are you loco? I’m not too stupid to understand. I go to the ER when I want and I pay nada. Only gringos care ’bout this “healthcare” or a “healthcare system.“¡Bájate de esa nube!.

* Supporting Bernie Sanders most definitely is an implicit diss on Obama.

If you think Obama has done such a great job, why not vote for his ideological clone, Hillary Clinton?

The few blacks who have endorsed Sanders are the ones who have been sharply critical of Obama.

* It’s very interesting how Rubio’s reputation as a football player has changed over the years. When he ran for the Senate in 2010, I seem to recall stories extolling his skills as a hotshot QB. In recent years, the story has been gradually pared back to the point that your post makes that he wasn’t even a QB in college. Do we even know what kind of QB he was in high school?

* I think Bernie’s big mistake was not referring to himself as “Colonel Sanders.” That might have gotten him more black votes.

* More evidence of Obama as #peaknegro.

* Yes, if Bernie would have dressed up in that Kentucky Colonel outfit and handed out free buckets of chicken…hell, I’d have voted for him!

* Whenever I hear the name Tarkio, I think of Brewer and Shipley, who played there often and gave the name to their album.

Their signature phrase was “One Toke Over the Line.”

* Black churches are extremely influential, and the Clinton campaign knows this and has cultivated relationships with the local big men/clergy that Sanders could not. It’s transactional politics – support me and we’ll make sure public money finds its way into your hands or neighborhoods, and that is way more appealing than Sanders’ abstract promises about Wall Street.

Also studiously ignored is the phenomenon of “walking around money” in black politics, a tool I have no doubt the Clinton campaign is using and Sanders is not.

* There was an interesting moment after Clinton won the Nevada caucuses. Jim Cramer, the Mad Money guy, was saying how investment bank stocks were going to go back up, and Big Pharma stocks were “going to get their multiples back” because people figured that Hillary was going to beat Sanders. Big Pharma is very happy today, I’m sure.

Posted in Blacks, Democrats, Jews | Comments Off

Bill Mitchell: The thing that frightens me the most about this video is that Rubio clearly thinks he looks good…

Posted on February 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

The thing that frightens me the most about this video is that Rubio clearly thinks he looks good…pic.twitter.com/qnsjgT9gHd
— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 28, 2016

Posted in America | Comments Off