On October 9, 2015, a former Philadelphia altar boy reported to the office of Dr. Stephen Mechanick to undergo a court-ordered forensic psychiatric evaluation. It took nearly three hours because the two men had a lot of ground to cover. Daniel Gallagher is a slender 27-year-old with a wispy beard who is better known as “Billy Doe.” Under that pseudonym, he made national headlines in 2011 when he claimed to have been serially raped as a fifth- and sixth-grader at St. Jerome’s parish by two priests and a Catholic schoolteacher.
Gallagher subsequently became the Philadelphia district attorney’s star witness at two historic criminal trials. His graphic testimony helped convict three alleged assailants, as well as Monsignor William Lynn, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s former secretary for clergy, who was found guilty of endangering the welfare of a child. The monsignor became the first Catholic administrator in the country to go to jail for failing to adequately supervise a sexually abusive priest.
The Billy Doe rape story was so sensational it attracted the attention of crusading Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely. She described Billy Doe in a 2011 story, “The Catholic Church’s Secret Sex-Crime Files,” as a “sweet, gentle kid with boyish good looks” who had been callously “passed around” from predator to predator. According to the charges recounted by Erdely, two priests and a Catholic schoolteacher “raped and sodomized the 10-year-old, sometimes making him perform stripteases or getting him drunk on sacramental wine after Mass.”
Erdely is the same reporter who later wrote about “Jackie,” a University of Virginia student who claimed she was gang-raped by seven men at a fraternity party. The 2014 story, which dominated headlines and cable TV news for weeks, was subsequently exposed as a hoax by “Jackie,” retracted by Rolling Stone and is now the subject of a couple of libel suits.
Judging from Mechanick’s report, Billy Doe has as much credibility as Jackie. In a 40-page report obtained by Newsweek, the forensic psychiatrist recounted Gallagher’s test results from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test known as the MMPI-2:
“The client is apparently immature and self-indulgent, manipulating others to his own ends…. He refuses to accept responsibility for his problems. He may have an exaggerated or grandiose idea of his own capabilities and personal worth. He is likely to be hedonistic and may overuse alcohol or drugs. He appears to be quite impulsive, and he may act out against others without considering the consequences…. Paranoid features and externalization of blame are likely to be present…. His manipulative and self-serving behavior may cause great difficulties for people close to him…. An individual with this profile is usually viewed as having a Personality Disorder, probably a Paranoid or Passive-Aggressive Personality. Symptoms of a delusional disorder are prominent in his clinical pattern.”
On top of bombing out on the MMPI-2, Gallagher admitted he lied and provided “unreliable information” to Mechanick about his substance abuse and psychiatric history, as well as his personal and medical background…
Talk to the eight defense lawyers in the criminal cases and they’ll all tell you Daniel Gallagher is a chronic liar, a junkie hustler and a confabulator. They can’t believe how lucky he’s been. After the DA got Gallagher out of jail so he could tell his stories of sexual abuse, he was arrested twice on charges of drug possession, including one bust for possession with intent to distribute 56 bags of heroin. But, thanks to his criminal lawyer, that heroin was thrown out of court as evidence. A subsequent drug bust, on charges of possession of a controlled substance, also disappeared after nine continuances in 18 months, when the DA let Gallagher into an accelerated rehab program for which he ordinarily would not have been eligible.
Today, Daniel Gallagher is a free man with a clean record living in Florida with his new wife, who’s expecting the couple’s first child. And, thanks to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, he’s also a multimillionaire.
Posted inAbuse, Journalism|Comments Off on More fallout from ‘crusading Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely’
BERLIN — The European Union’s top court put its thumb on the scale of one of the bloc’s most divisive issues Tuesday, ruling in effect that richer countries can limit access to welfare benefits for citizens from poorer ones.
In the decision, the European Court of Justice ruled that a Romanian woman [gypsy] who had immigrated to Germany was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she had made no effort to find a job.
While the ruling is limited in scope, it may provide some political cover to governments, like those in Britain and Germany, that have complained of “welfare tourism” and faced strong opposition at home over immigration policies because of it.
The decision may also provide a safety valve of sorts to relieve pressures within the European Union over immigration, which have grown more profound during the long economic crisis and as the bloc has expanded to include poorer members, like Romania and Bulgaria.
Posted inGypsies|Comments Off on Court Lets E.U. Nations Curb Immigrant Welfare
* People can readily accept that different selective pressures are responsible for their favorite breed of dog’s distinctive appearance and general personality traits, but we can’t notice the same effects in humans. And naturally, any evolutionary differences that might exist could not possibly extend to the organ that consumes the biggest share of the body’s energy.
* We keep hearing of the power of A.I., about how artificial intelligence is going to overtake humans–at least in figuring out stuff if not in political power–in everything.
I’m thinking that in the future, A.I. will be able to take in all the data and advise people on what must be done.
Now, suppose A.I. is fed all the raw data on race and were to rely purely on its computational skills to assess the problems of human society.
Given the facts of reality, won’t A.I. be politically incorrect in noticing all the things that we are not supposed to notice.
So, what is going to be done? Are they going to program A.I. to be politically correct?
If so, A.I. would, on the one hand, be programmed to be purely factual, logical, and analytical. Surely, a computer can be made to do that. But its PC programming would do what? Not connect the dots on certain issues? Overheat and shut down when the findings might be ‘racist’? Or, will A.I. consciousness be instilled with a form of ‘guilt’ complex?
What if A.I. were to observe that the reason that black students are suspended more is because they happen to be more unruly, disruptive, and violent?
What happens when SJW-types accuse computer engineers of having created a ‘racist’ artificial intelligence? Will the engineers then be required to install some PC program into the computer where the A.I. understands that it is not supposed to notice or report on certain things? Or even lie? I suppose A.I. could be programmed to lie.
—————
As for PC and art, the above story is a good example of how PC can be censorious and stupid.
But censorship isn’t necessarily anti-art. In some ways, limitations on artistic freedom forces the artist to sublimate his ideas and expressions in more interesting ways.
Most artists all through history never had the freedom of modernist artists, but they did remarkable work despite or even because they weren’t allowed to do anything.
Who knows? If Renaissance artists had been allowed total freedom and lack of restraint, maybe they would have been just a bunch of homo pornographers. Someone like Robert Mapplethorpe might have been more like Caravaggio had he lived centuries ago, whereas some Renaissance artists might have been like today’s self-indulgent pervs had they been lived in our times.
John Simon once said of Roman Polanski that he actually benefited from communist censorship because it put a cork on some of his more self-indulgent tendencies.
And more violence, more curse words, and more sexuality haven’t necessarily made for better cinema since the 70s. More freedom is great for the artist if he knows what to do with it. But it has a tendency of making some people just self-indulgent and excessive. I think Tarantino would have made better films in the 50s and 60s when no one in Hollywood could be as excessive as Tarantino soon became. An earlier period would have restrained his worst infantile & sadistic tendencies or forced him to find subtler means of expressing them. Much of Hitchcock’s art developed from limits on what could be shown. It forced Hitchcock to be more suggestive, subtle, and insidious, which proved to be more fun. Hitchcock could finally show more sex and violence with Frenzy, but it wasn’t necessarily better.
Limitation of artistic freedom also has a way of forcing the artist to find a compromise between personal vision and the conventionality of the tried-and-true.
While mere conventionality is the same old same old, a purist commitment to personalism has the tendency of making the artist self-indulgent oblivious of the audience and what has been proven by time to work.
In this sense, Shostakovich might actually have benefited from Stalinism. His considerable talent was in the service of creating music that was accessible and meaningful to large number of people. He had to make people’s music, just like most Renaissance painters has to make religious art, and he had just enough freedom to imbue it with his unique vision and touch.
Many critics in the past denigrated Shostakovich for his compromises while favoring the more pure avant-garde composers, but as time passes, Shostakovich endures and looms larger whereas many of the more pure experimentalists have been forgotten.
Likewise, it’s not surprising why THE GODFATHER is Coppola’s greatest film. He applied his talent in the service of really solid story material. He had to focus on something other than his artistic ego. Now, Coppola will insist that his best films are really One from the Heart and Rumble Fish, but NO ONE agrees with this.
And the best films of Polanski are KNIFE IN THE WATER — where artistic license was somewhat restrained under communist rule — and CHINATOWN where his talent was in the service of a killer noir genre script.
His more personal films range from interesting to downright ludicrous.
It’s like Brian Wilson did his best work in the midpoint between populism and personalism. When he completely lost himself in his own artistic universe while working on SMILE, he sort of went nuts.
* It’s like David Mamet said some degree of ‘genre’ is crucial to art because art needs form, structure, conventions, expectations, rules. Now, an artist can play with those rules. After all, if a work is purely conventional and obeys every rule, it is just the same-old-same-old. It is more a piece of machinery or furniture than personal expression.
So, the artist plays with the rules, bends them, remolds them, and even breaks them on occasion. But he cannot totally dispense with them and just do whatever he feels like. That is creative breakdown or orgy or chaos, not art. The result is like some of Fellini’s later films where rule is “I’m Fellini the genius, so whatever I do is art.”
Peggy Goo isn’t like that. It works on pretty decent genre material, and Coppola did what was necessary instead of over-layering it with excessive stylization
Coppola’s worst failures were when he over-indulged in personal projects that were all fireworks and no substance. There is no core in One from Heart and Rumblefish. It’s style-as-movie than style-serving-story.
Coppola’s other problem was his over-stylization of thin material. The Outsiders might have made a decent youth movie, but Coppola tried to turn it into Gone with the Wind. It is so bloated and overdone.
Same with Cotton Club. It might have been a fun breezy movie with dance and gunplay. The story and script simply weren’t up to Godfather standards. And the movie has some good things in it. But Coppola went for something grand and epic, oblivious to the material’s insufficiency in that department. It is so confused and compromised. (Compromise: throw in a white character in the form of Richard Gere to pull in white audiences. Confusion: a movie about thugs and gangsters turns into a NAACP speechifying about ‘racism’. Black gangsters as civil rights leaders. As for the Italian, Irish, and Jewish gangsters, they are pure hokum drawn from old Hollywood movies. Hokum can be fun, but Coppola goes for gravitas of Godfather with some of them, and it doesn’t work.)
Peggy Goo and Gardens of Stone work better because the styles fits the subject.
One is light-hearted comedy with some pathos, and the other is straightforward drama. Coppola did no more than he needed to.
Tucker is pretty good too. Manner matches matter. Finally, Coppola made peace with himself and accepted that not everything he makes has to be important or a masterpiece. If the script calls for a good movie, just make a good movie. It’s like if the recipe calls for hamburger and fries, make hamburger and fries instead of trying to turn it some fancy French dish. I think all the attention he received in the 70s, the decade when American cinema finally became ART, really messed up Coppola’s head for awhile, and he couldn’t accept anything less than being the new Welles-Fellini-Kurosawa rolled into one.
But then later came the obnoxiously over-directed Dracula, but then it turned out to be a hit.
As for Godfather III, the crime wasn’t over-direction but over-writing. Puzo and Coppola turned a crime drama into something bigger than the Fall of Roman Empire, Reformation, Hundred yrs war, the Cold War, etc.
You’d think that the Corleones became so important to world history that the fate of Western Civilization hanged in the balance of which bunch of greaseballs stood standing after the latest round of bloodshed.
* See Chris Rock’s documentary “Good Hair” about all the expensive hair care behavior black women engage in due to differences in hair texture.
Steve Sailer writes: The article is of course about why there are only 5 black NFL head coaches instead of why there is only 1 Hispanic coach. There are now far more Latinos than blacks in the U.S., but nobody seems to be able to pay them more than just cursory attention.
It’s interesting whether in the future we will see more hoopla about underrepresentation of Latinos or Asians, or if blacks will continue to hog all the diversity attention. I could see it going either way. I’m sure irate Asian overachievers will continue to beaver away on their standardized op-eds complaining about the Media Myth of the Model Minority, but probably nobody except me will bother to read them. But will the Hispanic Sleeping Giant awake? Or will nobody much care?
Comments:
* First of all, NFL football is a business and to make money you have to remain competitive. Teams with consistent losing records cannot fill their stadiums and this costs the owner/s money. To date, only two black NFL coaches have brought their teams to the Super Bowl and that was in 2007 when Tony Dungy’s Colts beat Lovie Smith’s Bears. Both coaches were black.
The point is that black NFL coaches are held to the same standard as whites ( with perhaps a small racial bonus in that they, ceteris paribus, are more likely to get a head coaching job. Dungy quit coaching to become a network TV analyst, a decision a number of other successful NFL coaches have also made. Smith was fired this year after a horrible ( 6-10 season) at Tampa. It wasn’t just the losing record though. It was how Tampa lost many games. The team wasn’t just bad it was also poorly prepared as it often killed its own chances with stupid penalties and poor execution. The kind of stuff head coaches are supposed to manage.
* If Belichick had realized in 2000 that he was TOM BRADY he wouldn’t have let him linger until the 6th round.
But Belichick later picked up Matt Cassel, who had been stuck on the bench for 4 years at USC behind a couple of Heisman Trophy winners, never starting a game in college, in the 7th round, so he’s good at noticing quarterbacks who didn’t get a fair shake in college. Pete Carroll, who isn’t quite Belichick in career achievement but has won NCAA and NFL championships, didn’t think Cassel was as good as Carson Palmer or Matt Leinart. In 2016, we realize Carson Palmer really has been awfully good.
It’s enough to make you sympathize with Malcolm Gladwell saying nobody can tell anything about which college quarterback will be any good.
* If you haven’t seen it yet, watch NFL Films’ short documentary about the Patriots’ 2014-2015 season, Do Your Job. Most of the Patriots’ assistants seem like they’d be out of place in corporate management. The burly guy with the beard, d-coach Matt Patricia, has an aeronautical engineering degree from Rensselaer. Football research director Ernie Adams is a Northwestern grad.
The scene at the end of the film, the closing moments of the Super Bowl, shows that clock management is never cut and dried. When Seattle was second and goal at the one to take the lead with time running down, Patricia was asking Belichick if he wanted to call time out to save some seconds for the offense in case Seattle scored. The assistants in the press box were asking the same thing. Belichick just stared across the field at the Seattle sideline, saw some confusion, and decided he was not going to give Seattle time to get more organized. The personnel package the Patriots had on the field for the defining play of the season hadn’t been used all year.
The documentary’s coverage of that 30 seconds gives an idea of the frenetic back and forth that goes on on both sidelines. Assistants yelling in the headsets, players shuffling in and out; like Steve says, sitting on the couch at home is a great vantage point from which to say the coach is an idiot.
* How dominant have the Patriots been? Tom Brady is going to his 10th conference championship game. There are 27 NFL teams that haven’t gone to 10 conference championship games.
* The Buffalo Bills have not made the playoffs in 16 years and ticket sales fell off. They even tried to field one game per season in Toronto and that was a dismal attendance failure. Last year, the new owners hired Rex Ryan, recently released by the NY Jets. Rex’s flamboyant personality and “guarantee” of making the playoffs led to record season ticket sales. The fans started calling for Rex’s head after the first two back to back losses and didn’t stop until the end of this year’s 8-8 season. Last week Rex hired his twin brother, Rob (fired mid season from New Orleans) to be his assistant head coach ( a position that appears no where else in the league) Today the Bills announced the hiring of a woman ( former administrative assistant) to be quality control coach-special teams. First woman ever to be an NFL coach, at any position. So now blacks have to worry about being beaten out for coaching jobs by “white wimin!” Good to middling coaches seem be a common commodity, great coaches a rarity. Belichick finds players who will fit his schemes and commit to the team, one fuck up and you are gone. Jonah Gray scored 4 TDs and gained 200+ yards in a game against Indy (I think) missed a team meeting and adios. Belichick also game plans for specific opponents, giving offensive and defensive looks they have not seen before, and then makes adjustments on the fly. I remember a playoff game (against the Ravens?) where on the first play he split Gronk out wide, had Welker in the slot, Hernandez at RB and the other TE, whose name I can’t spell or pronounce, at FB. The defense took one look and called a time out. No snaps yet and you are down a time out. Hernandez lined up often at RB in that game and gained 100+ rushing yards. Against another team he had a tackle line up at the TE spot and then covered him with an split end, making him ineligible, but the defense still covered him. The opposing coach, one of the Harbaughs, was apoplectic, demanding a flag. The ref explained that he player never left the line of scrimmage, and dropped back to block, so no foul. A couple of plays latter New England used the same formation, the ref announced over his mic that the player was ineligible and Harbough still covered him with a linebacker. Brady made a pass behind the linebacker for a big gain. Rex Ryan also had the team with the most penalties, which shows poor coaching. Fans want wins, they don’t care if the coach is white, black or brown. NFL fans willing accept convicted miscreants onto the team as long as they can block or run or catch. The bar for coaching is already low, Tom Coughlin, at about 50% wins, resigns from the Giants and interviews days later….but he has two Rings. The NYT should take their diversity quest to the NCAA, where there are 100s of teams and not too many black head coaches. Problem is, not too many college coaches transition successfully to the NFL. Chip Kelly, has two winning season then Philly tanks this year and he is gone. One last thing about Belichick, according to a documentary on TV that I saw about Julian Edelman, Edelman stated that the Pats only watch Low-lights films, that is the mistakes they made in their previous game. High-lights are just the expected results of doing their job.
* What Daniel Jeremiah and Bucky Brooks on the “Move the Sticks” podcast say about the Patriots as a coaching staff is they go out and get players who do one thing VERY well, and then develop schemes that allows those players to be successful in doing what they do best. The two (they are scouts for NFL teams and Brooks played in the NFL, Jeremiah at QB in College) note that the highest ranked players do everything well, but are hard to draft and expensive to sign. That the Patriots, who they directly attribute this to Belichick, find undervalued players who can only do that one thing but don’t try and mold them as other teams do to existing schemes and make them do things they are not very good at compared to the superstars.
I don’t know what I would have done — Belichick is smarter than me in assessing football talent that’s for sure. I love how contempt just drips off him during press conferences — his dismissal of “Cry Brady” working the refs in the NY Post as “hot air” and “we’re focused on the Broncos” was pure gold. According to Brooks and Jeremiah, who both worked for a while at the Patriots, that office complex is very quiet and focused. Apparently everyone works very hard there, not much fooling around like in other franchises.
Look at Stan Kroenke. He’s borrowing a billion to finance the stadium in Inglewood. Will he retain Fischer? My guess is no, but it won’t be Jim Caldwell replacing him. Right now the Rams are basking in being the first team to move back to LA. But a few 6-10, or even 8-8 seasons and all of a sudden those corporate luxury boxes may be empty. Local ratings down. Lesser interest in a Rams cable network, with lesser money.
* Has Matthew Stafford progressed as a QB? How have the Lions done overall? Both the Detroit Lions and the New England Patriots got hit by the injury bug, but the Patriots are in Championship Weekend and the Lions did not make the playoffs after exiting in the first round last year.
You could argue the principal reason that Peyton Manning has only one Superbowl ring and his brother two, is that Caldwell and Dungy were inferior coaches to cagy old Tom Coughlin.
By contrast, look at Andy Reid with Alex Smith. Smith went from not being good enough to beat out Kaepernick, to getting his team fairly deep in the playoffs. While Smith is a “game manager,” i.e. takes the check down, etc. and doesn’t put balls in “mailboxes” down the field, he won’t give up too many stupid plays, and gives his players chances to make plays and win. As Brian Billick said, there are not 32 men on the earth with the ability to play starting QB in the NFL.
I haven’t seen much of Caldwell improving Stafford, rather the reverse — wild plays, pushing it, not knowing when to be aggressive and when to back off and take the checkdown or throw the ball out of bounds.
* Matthew Stafford did indeed improve mightily – in the second half of the season, after Caldwell was forced to fire his OC, Joe Lombardi (grandson of Vince) and hired the infamous Jim Bob Cooter as his OC.
That’s right, the Lion’s OC is a guy with a Dukes of Hazard name. And guess what? He was great!
Stafford’s second half stats?
17 TD’s and only 2 int’s.
2,500 yards and a QBR of 115.
Unreal, and it nothing to do with Caldwell. Everything to do with getting the right (unappreciated and pale-skinned) guy who could actually recognize Stafford’s innate ability, which is astronomical.
Posted inFootball|Comments Off on Will Blacks Hog All The Diversity Attention?
* In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.
Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.
The choices that Germany faces are difficult.
Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.
Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no “family reunification”) and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico’s Mestizo “Raza Cosmica”.
It is interesting to consider the American example.
Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.
A half century later it was Massasoit’s own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in “King Philip’s War”. Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.
There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as “Americans”.
Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.
The historical parallels are fascinating.
* Cambridge is in the south. There’s an obvious difference between northern and southern English. The north has high unemployment and lackluster post post industrial cities while the south is the dynamic economic engine of the country.
I remember from Outline of History by HG Wells (1920), he noted that there were probably racial differences in origins of northern v. southern English. Further exploration nowadays might have been suppressed by the PC climate.
* I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”). The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)
Posted inImmigration|Comments Off on Invaders Tend To Be Male
Women are more sensitive to social cues. They’re less likely to act independently from their group. What women most want is for other women to like and admire them. So when white women adopt black kids, what’s going on? They’re reading the social cues that this is cool.
In pre-1960s America, this wouldn’t happen.
Adoption of non-Jewish children by Jews is considered a big problem by many of the leading rabbis (such as the late Lubavitcher Rebbe).
You know what might be even more sickening than White male (one can’t call them men) race cucks? White females (one can’t call them women) who gleefully raise the cuckoo’s young as though it were their very own.
Take Charlize Theron as a case study. A truly gorgeous woman. At her peak, a definite 10. Now, in any kind of sane society, her life would have followed two possible paths:
A: Married and had kids at her physical peak (say, 18-25)
B: Acted/modeled until she was maybe 30, then, just as the bloom starts to fade, marries and has kids.
In either case, she would have put her solid-gold vagina to good use by marrying an Alpha White man and pumping out 3-4 (minimum) White children.
WASHINGTON — Despite deep divisions over capital punishment, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that in the case of some particularly heinous Kansas murders, death was the appropriate penalty.
The court ruled 8-1 that death sentences handed down against three men in what became known as the “Wichita Massacre” in 2000 should not have been tossed out for procedural reasons by Kansas’ highest court. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the decision, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor the lone dissenter.
So who committed the Wichita Massacre? Reginald and Jonathan Carr.
I’m not a rocket scientist, but people who look like this should not be allowed around civilized people. These guys have a feral look in their eyes.
The Carr brothers, 22-year-old Reginald and 20-year-old Jonathan, already had lengthy criminal records when they began their spree based on robbery. On December 8, 2000, having recently arrived in Wichita, they committed armed robbery against Andrew Schreiber, a 23-year-old assistant baseball coach. On December 11, three days later, they shot and mortally wounded 55-year-old cellist and librarian, Ann Walenta, as she tried to escape from them in her car; she died three days after the shooting.
Their crime spree culminated on December 14, when the Carrs invaded a home and subjected five young men and women to robbery, sexual abuse, and murder. The brothers broke into a house chosen nearly at random where Brad Heyka, Heather Muller, Aaron Sander, Jason Befort and his girlfriend, a young woman identified as ‘H.G.’, all in their twenties, were spending the night. They were all working adults: Befort was a local high school teacher; Heyka, a director of finance with a local financial services company; Muller, a local preschool teacher; and Sander, a former financial analyst who had been studying to become a priest. H.G. is a teacher.
The Carrs initially scoured the house for valuables. H.G. learned of Befort’s intent to propose marriage to her when the Carrs discovered the engagement ring he had hidden in a can of popcorn. After the search, the Carrs forced their hostages to strip naked, bound and detained them, and subjected them to various forms of sexual abuse, including rape and oral sex. The brothers forced the men to engage in sexual acts with the women, and the women with each other. They drove the victims to ATMs to empty their bank accounts, before taking them to a snowy deserted soccer complex on the outskirts of town. There they shot the five execution-style in the backs of their heads. The Carr brothers drove Befort’s truck over the bodies and left them for dead.
H.G. survived her head wound at the soccer field because her plastic barrette deflected the bullet. After the killers left, she walked naked for more than a mile in freezing weather to seek first aid and shelter at a house. Before getting medical treatment, she reported the incident and descriptions of her attackers to the couple who took her in, even before the police arrived.
The Carrs had returned to the friends’ house to ransack it for more valuables, and while there killed H.G.’s dog Nikki, which was muzzled. The next day the police captured the Carr brothers. Reginald was identified by both Schreiber and the dying Walenta. The District Attorney said that, based on evidence in the case, the Carrs’ motive was robbery.[1]
With the help of HG’s testimony at the trial, the Carr brothers were convicted of nearly all 113 counts against them, including kidnapping, robbery, rape, four counts of capital murder, and one count of first-degree murder. Reginald Carr was convicted of 50 counts and Jonathan Carr of 43.
If we can locate the genes of people likely to commit such rape, torture and murder, what should we do? How should society react to such people before they commit crimes?
Posted inBlacks, Crime|Comments Off on Supreme Court restores death sentences in heinous Kansas murder spree
I think it is a great idea to give all girls Norplant starting about age 11 and it should remain mandatory for any citizens until they are given permission to go off it. Getting pregnant is a privilege and only those who are cut out for raising children should be allowed to get pregnant, i.e., those with no criminal record, no welfare taking in their family, IQs over 100, and are married to the opposite sex.
At present, the US has a myriad of problems all of which are linked to the big problem of devolution and decline. We might need to expand our horizons, think differently and look for stones that would kill multiple birds. Connecting multiple threads, the US (and world) has an education problem as well as an underclass problem as well as a social dysfunction problem as well as a social welfare expenditure problem that all seem to tie back to a dysgenics problem due to lax morals and unrestrained impulses of teens. It is time Americans get real about the problems around us and as governor, I would propose a “Norplant or No Welfare” policy.
To use the words of President Obama, a pregnancy is a punishment for young girls. Abortion is framed as a really difficult decision that young women need in order to alleviate the burden of a child (adoption = too hard). Birth control is a near scared “right” that women will vote for over all other issues, including civilizational decline. I’ll stop mocking liberals. Pregnancy in school messes with our graduation rates. Teenage pregnancy is also one of the leading markers for someone who will drop out, live in poverty, have children that exhibit dysfunctional behavior, and a host of horrible things. Teen pregnancy also stretches the social safety net and kicks more tax dollars to people for popping out a kid while unmarried. Despite nearly universal sex education and the availability of cheap and easy to access birth control, teenagers are pretty stupid or just do not care. Norplant solves this.
Let us draft a proposal. On the 13th birthday of a daughter, the parents (or legal guardians) of said daughter have the choice of:
1. Their daughter will receive a free Norplant implant that will be effective until her 18th birthday (Norplant lasts five years). In the event that their daughter gets pregnant while on Norplant (99% unlikely), they would be eligible for welfare benefits for said child.
or
2. They decline the free Norplant. In the event that their daughter gets pregnant, they nor their daughter cannot claim any welfare benefits. They will be denied all programs and have to pay for the child themselves.
Is Norplant safe? Perfectly safe. Is it effective? Over 99% effective at preventing pregnancies, and the stupid teens don’t have to do anything. Is this admitting defeat to teenage sex? No. It is fighting the negative outcomes in a different manner. Conservatives want to gripe about free birth control? You already pay for birth control, but this one would be a small outlay for a huge savings. This localizes the consequences of choices to the teen and their parents. No one is forced to use Norplant. You reject the cornucopia of birth control around you, you will pay for the results. Teenagers are bad about maintaining schedule of pills, which is avoided with Norplant. Norplant is 99% effective and lasts five years without the teen doing anything. Through Obamacare and insurance mandates, we are already subsidizing birth control. I would hope that everyone would want to see this smorgasbord of birth control put to effective use.
In addition to these programs, I would suggest the following add-ons. If a women turns 18 and was in the Norplant program with their parents, she would have a one time option of re-upping the Norplant at age 18 to carry them through the next five years. Those feisty young women will shout that it is her body, therefore it is her decision. I’m right there with you, but with the above conditions. The other add-on would be a far more important one, but if a woman childless or with child signs up for social welfare programs, she must get a Norplant implant. Social welfare programs will last as long as her Norplant lasts. If a woman rolls off of a social welfare program and Norplant and is pregnant within one calendar year, she will be ineligible for further social welfare benefits. The progressives may be upset, but even one lonely, undergraduate voice at Harvard thought this might be a good move in 1993. This is a simple program. We just need a good propaganda campaign. A child living in poverty is a crime against that child. It is a soft form of abuse. Let us not place one more child in the clutches of an impoverished home. Think of the children.
Posted inAmerica, Nationalism|Comments Off on A Modest Birth Control Proposal
A Jewish friend says: “When is the last time Eshman ever voted for any Republican running for President? The next thing I would expect him to do is attack Cruz because his last name translates to Cross, as in the Cross where Jesus was crucified and died for our sins. It is certainly true that the phrase “New York Jew” conjures up a stereotype, but I don’t think the term “New York values” evokes Jews. This is 2016. I really detest this Jewish paranoia.”
If Ted Cruz is not anti-Semitic, this op/ed may well turn him into a raging Jew-hater. If no matter how much you support Israel and promote other pro-Jewish stuff, you still get called an anti-semite on such a flimsy pretext, then it is irrational to care about Jews and Jewish concerns. If you are going to get called slurs for trivial things, you might as well dismiss the Jews in your mind (even if you take care with your public statements for pragmatic reasons).
What’s harder to forgive is the hate.
The language Cruz uses, the images he conjures, foment hate. By deriding New York values, he short-circuits argument and appeals straight to prejudice.
That prejudice shades into anti-Semitism. Because if there is one group that overwhelmingly stands for New York, it’s Jews. Seinfeld. Woody Allen. Bagels. I rest my case.
And if there is one group that supports “liberal New York values,” it is Jews. Abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, social safety nets, environmental protection, climate change action — Jews don’t just consistently poll in favor, they often (loudly) lead the way. Cruz wasn’t aware of that? Of course he was.
Cruz doesn’t shoot from the hip, unless it’s an AK-47 and he’s trying to look macho. So he knows that by saying “liberal New York values,” he is dog-whistling the anti-Semites.
And he thinks he can get away with it for one reason: Israel.
Cruz loves Israel.
“In my view, the United States of America should remain unshakably alongside our vital ally, the nation of Israel,” he said in a speech on Sept. 11, 2013. His Middle East foreign policy could be summed up as WWBD — What Would Bibi Do?
Do you follow? Cruz loves the Jewish State, but loathes the Jewish City. By professing such deep love for the Jews of Israel, Cruz assumes he can say whatever he wants about the Jews of America.
There is a certain political logic to this. Jews who share his views on Israel will likely shrug off his thinly veiled hate speech. Jews who prefer any Republican to any Democrat will accuse those who take offense of being too P.C. — even though these are the same Jews who still obsess over President Barack Obama’s choice of a Chicago preacher 20 years ago.
But what Cruz doesn’t understand is that you can’t have it both ways. Israel exists and thrives, at least in part, because it demonstrates many of the same liberal values as New York. In its embrace of universal health care, religious diversity, artistic expression, women’s rights, gay rights and social innovation, Israel is a Cruzian nightmare.
Those values are difficult to maintain and protect in a country surrounded by enemies and often prey to its own internal dark forces — some of which are also New York imports. But, even so, Israeli society has much more in common with Manhattan than with Midland. This makes me think Cruz loves Israel in theory, just not in fact.
As for Jews, Cruz is content to see how far he can go using a select few of us as donors, and the rest of us as piñatas.
Posted inAnti-Semitism|Comments Off on Is Ted Cruz an anti-Semitic hypocrite?
According to political scientist Carol M. Swain’s unsettling new book, “The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration,” the U.S. is on the brink of an explosion of white “tribalism” that could trigger unprecedented levels of racial antagonism and an epidemic of violence. The underlying cause: a swelling “white nationalist” movement fueled by simmering resentment of affirmative action programs like those used by the University of Michigan. “The book is a wake-up call to warn people that we’re following a dangerous course by pushing identity politics and multi-culturalism,” explains the Vanderbilt law school professor. “There’s nothing special about the U.S. that says we couldn’t have ethnic cleansing and violence here like in Bosnia or Rwanda.”
It’s shocking to hear such a direct prophesy from a scholar like Swain, who is rapidly establishing herself as one of the leaders of a new, increasingly vocal neoconservative brand of black political analysis that rejects affirmative action and reparations for slavery and holds blacks responsible for their own uplift. Until recently, most left-leaning black theorists derided her as a hopeless optimist. Her previous book, “Black Faces, Black Interests,” ruffled many black politicians by dismissing their fear that a Supreme Court ruling that struck down the use of race in the creation of majority black congressional districts would be a disaster. Instead, Swain predicted, the ruling actually would be good for African Americans. As she foresaw, even in the Deep South strong black candidates were capable of winning enough support from whites to prevail in districts where black voters were outnumbered. She also argued that disbursing blacks into mostly-white districts could make it easier for liberal Democrats to compete with conservative Republicans by building multi-racial coalitions. Blacks “need more representation of their liberal views of policy than they need people who look like them” in Congress, Swain contended. Anyone looking at the toothlessness of the Congressional Black Caucus in the Republican-dominated House would find it difficult to disagree.
But, as Swain says, she “turned from a Pollyanna into a Cassandra” as her research into a book criticizing racial preferences made her aware of the spread of what she calls “the new white nationalism,” a form of racial extremism more dangerous than the Ku Klux Klan because of its veneer of erudition and mastery of the Internet. Groups such as former Klansman David Duke’s National Organization for European American Rights and the National Association of White People eschew the discredited notion of white supremacy. Indeed, they don’t claim that whites are superior to anyone else and may even be inferior to Asians.
Instead they push the notion over websites, in publications such as Jared Taylor’s “American Renaissance ” magazine and through on-campus recruiting drives that all racial groups have unique interests and the god-given right to fulfill their destiny. They see themselves, as Swain has written, as “defenders of the legitimate civil rights of white people against what they allege are a host of racial double standards.” In short, that affirmative action has made whites the most discriminated-against group in the country and that it can only get worse as a tide of immigrants transforms the U.S. from a white nation into a rickety Third World republic. The language white nationalists use to promote their insights is stunningly familiar to anyone who has listened to black nationalists like Louis Farrakhan — but that’s not surprising, since the white nationalists appropriated it. As Swain observes, “the multicultural left has provided a language that works very well for whites who want to push white-identity politics,” says Swain. “They say that if it’s good for blacks to celebrate their heritage, it’s good for whites to celebrate theirs.”
What concerns Swain the most is such groups now seem to be finding an audience among mainstream whites whose gripes about racial preferences and high crime rates among blacks have been tuned out by white liberal politicians. Though she has no proof that the membership of such groups is mushrooming, their influence is being felt widely. Indeed, some of the rhetoric used by white nationalists is indistinguishable from the verbiage used by President Bush in his assault on the “quotas” supposedly used by the University of Michigan. “If we keep going down this road, it’s going to increasingly pit racial groups against each other,” she warns. “Some white people, who are otherwise good people, who don’t hate blacks, are going to be pushed into the arms of these extremists if we don’t change course.”
Swain thinks there’s only one way out of this bind: recognizing that whites have “legitimate” beefs about race that should be openly debated by politicians and scholars. She also believes we should immediately do away with racial preferences in university admissions, hiring and government contracts that not only fuel white resentment but send the message to blacks that they can’t meet the same standards as everyone else. Swain’s detractors say such steps amount to no more than a cowardly capitulation to racism, but she won’t back down because she does not believe that blacks need the crutch provided by race-conscious policies. For Swain, a deeply devout evangelical Christian, such beliefs are not academic. Now 49, she went from being a high school drop-out and single mother in rural Virginia to a Ph.d and a chair at a leading university. “Somehow, we’ve got to embrace an American national identity that pulls us together instead of dividing us into warring camps,” says Swain, “perhaps through a renewed emphasis on the Judeo-Christian idea of a common creator and the brotherhood of man.” It’s an old-fashioned idea that could prevent Swain’s troubling predictions from coming true.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Time (2003): Whites and the Next Racial Clash in America
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
