December 11, 2015 Ann Sterzinger: Why I’m Scared of Widows & Orphans Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Ann Sterzinger: Why I’m Scared of Widows & Orphans

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ann Sterzinger writes: There’s a lot of raspberrying and dismissiveness in the debate over whether to let the wave of “Syrian” “refugees” wash up on U.S. shores. In the partisan sandbox-fights to which we tend to reduce even the most serious questions, it’s easy to forget that in a case like this, there is probably a strong moral argument to be made on either side.

And while I ultimately come down on the side of “Get these nutjobs far, far away from me!”—I continue to subscribe to the Daffy Duck school of pain—each argument in a case like this suffers greatly when it dismisses the opposition out of hand.

By now we’ve all heard the loudest argument for opening the gates: Barack Obama’s snide little speech in which he informed the GOP that they’re crybullies to sound the tocsin over a pack of harmless widows and orphans. (They may well be crybullies, but not for that.) Never mind that many of the terrorists who have been rocking European civilization are second- or third-generation immigrants.

This isn’t the first time Obama has ridden his love-unicorn roughshod over the realities of what Muslims themselves actually think and believe. In his 2009 must-read summary, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, Robert Spencer describes how in a 2009 speech Obama “proved” the peacefulness of Islam by cherry-picking a few peaceful-sounding phrases from a Koran passage that’s mostly about violence:

Obama cited verse 5:32: “The Holy Koran,” said the President, “teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” This sounds peaceful enough, but Obama studiously ignored the next verse (5:33), which mandates punishment for those whom Muslims do not regard as “innocent”—punishments including crucifixion or amputation of a hand and a foot for those who fight against Allah and Muhammad.

The “peace” that Islam promises is less like unicorn turds and more like a Muslim Pax Romana: we’ll have peace when everyone else is subjugated.

To be fair to this side of the question as a whole, however, one must remark that the welcome-wagon-in-chief has hamstrung himself in his ability to present the case. He’s stuck repeating the weakest arguments—twisting scripture and screeching “Let’s be nice!”—because, if he were to present the best argument for his side, he would have to draw attention to his own foreign policy.

To wit: while American taxpayers do not owe every foreign human being on Earth an apartment and a welfare check, it could certainly be argued that we have some moral responsibility to open our doors to people whose countries we’ve bombed the shit out of, particularly in proxy wars. (I still hold that it’s valid to bomb ISIS wherever they are on Earth, since we’re for all intents and purposes at war with that entity; but playing chicken with the Russians over Syria’s civil war? Not so much.)

However, though this argument is perfectly valid, it is trumped by two equally moral counterarguments.

First, fewer and fewer Americans want anything to do with being the world’s damn policeman anymore. But who listens to the serfs who foot the bill? I’m not willing to be dismembered in my hometown because my government keeps pretending to the rest of the world that we’re a democracy.

Second, however many stupid things our government might have done in the past, that doesn’t override our imperative to steer it to the right course whenever we see a possibility for doing so.

And d’ya know what is always the right thing for a government to do? Protecting its own citizens.

I said it about Gee-dub when he sent young men to die to avenge his father, and I’m saying it about Obama as he prepares to sacrifice his civilians so he can look charitable on the world stage: Could you at least pretend to give a shit about your subjects?

A government that doesn’t care about the lives of foreign citizens is bad, but considering the overall history of the world, it’s not particularly bad; you could even say it represents a normative dose of human evil.

But a government that’s just as glib about its own citizens’ lives is completely psychotic.

Clearly, we need to quit killing Muslims abroad, even if we think we’re doing them some sort of twisted favor; if they want to pretend it’s 700 A.D., that’s their problem. (I’ve argued elsewhere that Islamists would want to kill us even if we weren’t bombing them; as Spencer says, “[Obama] doesn’t seem to have considered that if the Koran mandates jihad against non-Muslims, displays of U.S. goodwill are unlikely to have much effect.” But even if you threw out the ethical question, this is clearly a case of “better safe than sorry” . . . and in case you hadn’t noticed, these wars have nuked the federal budget.)

But if we can’t do that, at least we need to quit importing people who hate us.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

The Leahy Amendment: ‘It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion’

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Here are the names of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary that voted in favor of the Leahy amendment and against the people of the United States. Make sure they hear from you, especially if you live in their state:

Chuck Grassley, (R-IA)
Orrin G. Hatch0 (R – UT)
Lindsey Graham (R – SC)
John Cornyn (R – TX)
Michael S. Lee (R – UT)
Jeff Flake (R – AZ)
David Perdue (R – GA)

* You know, this is what happens when your elites do their business clandestinely; nobody learns anything from history, because nobody understands history in the first place. Not only is an honest history of Islam completely off the table, the entire history of religion. People simply assume that religion just is the neutered version that exists in America (which liberals still manage to build up as some all powerful monolith in their minds) or that entering the borders of constitution-land just magically turns religion from a shared, lived, communal experience that embraces all aspects of life (hey, like liberalism!) to a set of arbitrary opinions with no relevance to the outside world except for determining which days to throw a party. The truth is, Christianity in the west, including the US was intentionally neutered by its chief competitor liberalism. Christianity in America is mostly just liberalism with tackier music.

Maybe the elites can neuter Islam too, but I doubt it. Not that Islam is less vulnerable than Christianity, but today’s elites are more clueless than yesterday’s. Yesterday’s elites knew they were engaging in a vast conspiracy. Today’s elites seem like they are only slightly more clued in than the ignorant masses that they manipulate.

You know we are in a bad state when you can’t tell if the people in charge are evil or stupid.

* This is an unbelievably scary development, one that goes right to the core of our sovereignty.

Can similar moves against our freedom of speech be far behind?

Do we still have a country? Or not?

* William Perry, an ex Secretary of Defense and leader, with ex Senator Sam Nunn, of the Nuclear Threat Initiative which has resulted in cooperation with Russia to reduce levels of nuclear weapons by factors of around ten, said about a week ago at a book signing in Washington DC that he believes a terrorist nuclear attack on a city in the United States is “imminent”.

* Countries are stupid idea. Feeds right into white privilege and white supremacy.

* Here in the U.S. we are just beginning to learn the true nature of Islam and how it differs from Christianity. Thus where Jesus taught by precept and example an ethic of self-sacrifice and nonresistance to evil, which is no threat to the other members of society, Muhammad — whom all pious Muslims are taught to revere as the perfect model of what a Muslim should be — taught political domination and submission by any means necessary, which most definitely does threaten the liberty and safety of non-Muslim members of society.

We are just waking up to the possibility that Islam may not be compatible with the liberal ideals and institutions that lie at the heart of our culture and civilization, leading to the unhappy conclusion that the only good Muslim is one that does not take his religion too seriously.

Thus a joke currently making the rounds: What is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim pursues jihad. A moderate Muslim wants radical Muslims to pursue jihad.

Unfortunately this is no joke but is accurately reflected in the five schools of Islam.

* If we didn’t have Middle East wars and Islamic terrorism to worry about, what would our political system be focused on right now? Energy? Polygamy? Even more BLM?

* What do you call a Muslim who wants Enlightenment values in Islam? Dead man walking?

* Here are the bullet points of Ted Cruz’s position on immigration.

SECURE THE BORDER

* Build a wall that works …. I will complete the wall.

* Triple the number of Border Patrol agents.

* Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border.

* Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry.

RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW

* End President Obama’s illegal amnesty. …. I will rescind each and every one …

* Increase deportations and end catch-and-release.

* End sanctuary policies, sign Kate’s Law, and deport criminal immigrants.

* Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving financial benefits and strengthen E-Verify.

REFORM LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO PROTECT AMERICANS

* Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program.

* Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high.

* Enforce the public-charge doctrine. Current law requires legal immigrants to certify that they will be economically self-sufficient. A Cruz Administration will ensure they do not receive government assistance, which defies the law and harms American taxpayers.

* End birthright citizenship. …. I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.

* When the details of the Rotherham nightmare, and Blighty’s meek acquiescence to no-go sharia zones in their own homeland, began to emerge in US media – granted we’re still waiting for 80% of that media to get around to acknowledging any of it – it became easy to whistle past the graveyard and recall Archie Bunker’s long-ago dismissal of our cousins across the pond with England is a fag country.

Easier to laugh in disbelief than begin to grasp that this most distressing/repulsive of realities: a native population cowed into lickspittle servility out of fear of its unstable and unwanted immigrants – a condition encouraged and enforced by its own quisling elites – becomes, over time, the natural order of things.

Look! We’ve already begun! Just as Rotherham was enabled by the fear of being labelled and prosecuted as ‘racist’, so the dead of San Berdoo came about partly because the Americans who knew, or strongly suspected, were too terrified of Loretta Lynch clapping the darbies on them to blow even a warning whistle…. and with Salon, HuffPo – and sooner rather than later, the NYT and WaPo – screeching for the harshest possible punishment the better to ‘send a message’, it’s hard to blame them.

The next stage – law enforcement declining to wear any sort of identifying garments out of the fear of death – is no longer an IF proposition, but a WHEN.

Don’t believe me? Go back a few days to the point where the identity of the shooters became known, and count up the articles appearing questioning what sort of knuckle-dragging white racism had prompted the massacre. When you start to see headlines – as I did – shouting “Victims had made fun of killer’s beard”, you can woof and bark all you like, because so long as it’s backed up by knock-kneed parliamentary cowardice, it’s all shadow-boxing in empty rooms. You can save yourselves a lot of time and just blow out the pilot light right now.

* You see all these Muslims worshiping at Mosques and they are all men. No women.
It is a man’s religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman’s religion. Rodney Stark made the point in the Rise of Christianity (1997) that Christianity gained adherents by paying particular respect to women(and their ideal world) and taking care of the weak.What do some people call Jesus? The bearded woman.
It’s probably only due to the success and concomitant incursions of Islam into Europe that Christianity at least paid lip service to masculinity. Bill Whittle has called the Koran a ‘manual for conquest.’ And the Muslims did a damn good job of conquering the Mediterranean rim.
Nowadays no more lip service from the pulpit.Things have changed and Christianity does not even nod its head to masculinity. Now Christians socially compete to womanize themselves and ‘give’ to the ‘other’ (the one with the beheading knife.)

* We shouldn’t bar people based on their religion because you can never really prove who is a true Muslim or a true Christian. I don’t want “Christian” Syrians admitted either because they could simply be Muslims lying to the immigration official.

We should bar people based on their country of origin. Allow no immigration from nations with significant jihadist activity. That would included essentially all of the Middle East and North Africa, and parts of Central Asia. In fact, Trump should have phrased his proposal that way to eliminate all of this hand-wringing about religious persecution. Though, I suppose Trump intentionally phrased it his way so he can dominate the news cycle and troll the media intelligentsia.

* Trump seems to have judged the moment far better than I’d initially assumed. I think the backlash is not as intense because politicians and media recognize that grandstanding comes with a significant risk. Obama’s lecture on admitting Syrian refugees was a totally boilerplate cost-free no-brainer reiteration of noble American principles but Paris and San Bernardino quickly turned it into a political liability.

Even mocking people for being afraid of women-and-children turns out to be politically risky.

* The reason why this resolution is out there is because a lot of people don’t like the idea of disallowing someone to come to the US simply on the basis of a religious test: it sounds too much like not allowing Jewish immigrants from Nazism, etc.

But two points:

a) As has been repeatedly said here, an immigration policy that is preferential to one group must necessarily discriminate against all other groups. If we accept the premise that some groups can be preferred, then it should follow that some groups can be actively not preferred.

b) In this case, “religion” is just a criterion, like anything else: height, weight, skin color, ability to work in Silicon Valley, ability to harvest green onions, etc. Obviously we should have criteria for immigration — because we do in fact have such criteria, and I’m not even talking about the quotas. This is particularly so since, in this case, the particular religion in question has a large intersection with terror attacks.

c) I appreciate what Trump is doing WRT Overton window, but his billboard pronouncements, while getting a lot of attention, lack nuance and thus are easy prey for MSM misrepresentation. Should we have what is, in effect, a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Well, any such moratorium is going to have exceptions: that’s the first point we should recognize. Second, a strictly religious test (i.e., “are you a Muslim?”) is insufficient, since all a terrorist would need to do would be to declare himself/herself a Secular Humanist and they’d get in, no question.

Overall, I think Trump would have better served if he had simply said that the Arab lands, including those Muslim countries adjacent to Arab lands (that would include Afghan, Pakistan, Iran, and the Caucasus) are in turmoil and are closely associated with terrorism, and for the sake of our own citizens we should temporarily suspend immigration from those countries until we can control the risk of allowing political radicals into the country. I mean, really, I don’t think anyone is particularly concerned about, say, an immigrant from Djakarta. At least, not yet.

* The only problem with your proposal is that Islamists also come in, visa-free, from places like France and Belgium. And there a lot of them there too, extreme even, as we have seen.

Notice the, “home-grown,” terrorists. Or the “American citizens” and “French citizens” who shoot, stab and blow up people in the name of Allah/Mohammed/Islam.

The one consistent variable in all this crap for my entire life has been Muslims, wherever they come from. (Yes, most Muslims are wonderful, ordinary people whose concerns in life are pretty much like mine, but the rotten ones are a subset.

Now, the question is, how do we identify Muslims for this purpose? We can’t. There is not way to do it. This Trump proposal is just a thought experiment, a campaign stunt, and talking point.

* The time before Inauguration Day is going to be interesting. As one Twitter wag stated, its like hearing a rattling from your engine and you’re just hoping you can make it home.

* I find it interesting, and definitely worthy of note in this context, that the Green Card Lottery specifically excludes various nations. Those include Mexico, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, which is probably of benefit to America. But Canada is also excluded, and so is part of my country, the UK, in rather an offensive way: although UK citizenship is unitary, the US makes a distinction between the Northern Irish (come on in!) and the English, Scots and Welsh (beat it, you damn limeys!).

* Look, prior to 1965, all ‘Asiatics’ were more or less prohibited from immigrating to the USA on the grounds of ‘national origin’, but which everyone really understood to mean ‘race’, if not ‘religion’.

Despite intermittently whipped-up hysteria about ‘civil rights abuses’ in the southern USA concerning blacks, virtually no serious commentator at that time regarded the USA as a ‘moral pariah’ or even a ‘tyrannical “human rights” abusing regime’. In fact the common perception of the USA was around the globe at that time, was of the final, ultimate guarantor of ‘freedom, democracy and liberty’.

* Trump has done great service to America by cutting through to the very core of the issue. Yes, we may quibble that his proposal lacked nuance and so on, but once you have the big idea planted in the public sphere it is relatively easy to fill in the details. No politician or commentator was even willing to go there and Trump did. For this, I am grateful to him.

Trump is doing this more for dog-whistling than anything else.

His message to the worldwide Muslim ummah is ‘put your house in order, clean-up your act and police yourselves – only you can police yourselves and apply moral pressure to the troublemakers’.
‘Look for the past half century you’ve dealt with lily livered coward after lily livered coward as ‘western leaders’ and you – quite rightly – have taken them for the pussies that they are. ‘You think that things will always be like that, and that you can always walk all over us, but things are going to change, the worm has turned’.

Trump, the shrewd, ruthless and intelligent man that he is, knows that if he – god willing – ever became American president , holds the ‘Trump card’ in all of this.
The bare fact is that Muslims need the USA far more than the USA needs Muslims. The USA thrived and dominated the world, from inauspicious beginnings, entirely *without* the presence of Muslims on its soil.
To avoid eating each other, Pakistanis *need* to move in on the USA.
The USA can do very nicely, thank.you, without Pakistanis.

* Mandatory insurance on immigrants, just like you have to prove you have insurance when you buy a car. Maybe we could get some Republican politicians onboard with the idea of creating a new industry for private enterprise: mandatory immigration insurance.

Posted in Immigration, Islam | Comments Off

David Frum: Coming to the United States would benefit millions—but policymakers seldom ask whether their arrival would benefit the United States

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

David Frum writes:

However one assesses that chain and its consequences, it seems clear that the large majority of legal immigrants choose to come—or, more exactly, are chosen by their relatives—for their own reasons. They are not selected by the United States to advance some national interest. Illegal immigrants are of course entirely self-selected, as are asylum seekers. Even the refugee process, reportedly the most tightly screened, operates to a considerable extent outside national control: The first assessment of refugees is typically made by the UN High Commission on Refugees from within camps it operates. That explains why, for example, Christian Syrians make up only about 3 percent of the refugees admitted to the United States, despite accounting for 10 percent of the country’s population: Fearing violence from Sunni Muslims, they apparently hesitate to enter UN camps in the first place.

Donald Trump’s noisy complaints that immigration is out of control are literally true. Nobody is making conscious decisions about who is wanted and who is not, about how much immigration to accept and what kind to prioritize—not even for the portion of U.S. migration conducted according to law, much less for the larger portion that is not.

Nor is there much understanding of what has happened after it has happened. A simple question like, “How many immigrants are in prison?” turns out to be extraordinarily hard to answer. Poor information invites excessive fears, which are then answered with false assurances and angry accusations.

Nervous about Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris massacre? How dare you! Would you turn away Jews fleeing Hitler? Oh, you think that analogy is hyperbolic? Tell it to the mayor of New York City.

This frequent invocation of the refugee trauma of the 1930s shuts down all discussion of anything that has happened since. Since 1991, the United States has accepted more than 100,000 Somali refugees. Britain accepted 100,000 as well. Some 50,000 Somali refugees were resettled in Canada; some 40,000 in Sweden; smaller communities were settled in the United Kingdom, Norway, and Denmark.

How’s that going?

Minnesota is home to America’s largest Somali community, 33,000 people. The unemployment rate for Somali Minnesotans in 2015 was triple the state average, 21 percent. As of 2014, about 5,950 of the state’s Somali population received cash assistance; 17,000 receive food assistance as of 2014.
A close study of Somali refugees by the government of Maine (home to the nation’s second-largest Somali community) found that fewer than half of the working-age population had worked at any time in the five years from 2001 through 2006.
The U.S. unemployment rate of 20+ percent still represents a huge improvement over rates in Europe. Only about 40 percent of working-age Somali men in Norway are employed. In the Swedish city of Malmo, home to one of the largest Somali communities in Europe, only 20 percent work.
Somalis have so much difficulty finding work in the developed world because their skills badly mismatch local labor needs. Only about 18 percent of boys and 15 percent of girls attend even primary school in Somalia. UNICEF has given up trying to measure literacy rates. Much of the U.S. refugee population is descended from people held as slaves in Somalia, who accordingly lack any family tradition of education. Their children then flounder in Western schools, baffled by the norms and expectations they encounter there. In the U.K., Somali students pass the standard age 16 high school exams at a rate less than half that of Nigerian immigrant students.
Struggling with the transition from semi-nomadic-herder society to postindustrial urban life, young Somalis in the West are tempted by criminal activity. Danish Somalis are 10 times more likely to be committed of a serious offense than native-born Danes. At least 29 young Canadian Somalis were murdered in drug-trafficking-related deaths between 2005 and 2010. In July 2012, Richard Stanek, sheriff of the county that encompasses Minneapolis-St. Paul, testified to Congress about the rising danger of American Somali gangs.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

The Threat Of Islamic Terror

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

Some of my interviews over the past month:

Posted in Adventist, Islam, Jews | Comments Off

The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

John Mearsheimer says in 2015: “The whole Washington foreign policy establishment. As far as I am concerned, the Republicans and the Democrats are like tweedlee dee and tweedle dum. Anyone who think it matters whether you get Hillary Clinton or some Republican, you’re living in a dream world. They have the midas touch in reverse.”

Published on Sep 25, 2015: John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in Political Science and Co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, assesses the causes of the present Ukraine crisis, the best way to end it, and its consequences for all of the main actors. A key assumption is that in order to come up with the optimum plan for ending the crisis, it is essential to know what caused the crisis. Regarding the all-important question of causes, the key issue is whether Russia or the West bears primary responsibility.

Richard Spencer says: “I don’t like the Republican party, generally. I don’t see any other candidate who talks about things the way Trump does. I think Trump is really sui generis. I have no interest in Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or any of these other people. I definitely think I speak for a lot of people on the alt-right and Twitter when I say it’s really about Trump. If he drops out or loses, we’re not all going to become fascinated with Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. Trump is something different.”

Posted in John J. Mearsheimer | Comments Off

NYT: The Words That Killed Medieval Jews

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

Words don’t kill. Conflicts of interest kill. Hard words simply reflect real conflicts of interests.

Life is a struggle for survival. All individuals and groups are engaged in a struggle for scarce resources. What’s good for one group, say Christians, is often bad for other groups, such as Jews.

There’s as much connection between harsh words and genocide as there is between technology and genocide and newspapers and genocide and democracy and genocide.

The Church’s harsh rhetoric didn’t kill Jews. The facts on the ground shifted relations between the two groups so that Christians saw more advantages in killing Jews rather than tolerating them.

Sara Lipton writes:

Official Christian theology and policy toward Jews remained largely unchanged in the Middle Ages. Over roughly 1,000 years, Christianity condemned the major tenets of Judaism and held “the Jews” responsible for the death of Jesus. But the terms in which these ideas were expressed changed radically.
Before about 1100, Christian devotions focused on Christ’s divine nature and triumph over death. Images of the crucifixion showed Jesus alive and healthy on the cross. For this reason, his killers were not major focuses in Christian thought. No anti-Jewish polemics were composed during these centuries; artworks portrayed his executioners not as Jews, but as Roman soldiers (which was more historically accurate) or as yokels. Though there are scattered records of anti-Jewish episodes like forced conversions, we find no consistent pattern of anti-Jewish violence.
In the decades around 1100, a shift in the focus of Christian veneration brought Jews to the fore. In an effort to spur compassion among Christian worshipers, preachers and artists began to dwell in vivid detail on Christ’s pain. Christ morphed from triumphant divine judge to suffering human savior. A parallel tactic, designed to foster a sense of Christian unity, was to emphasize the cruelty of his supposed tormentors, the Jews.
Partly out of identification with this newly vulnerable Christ, partly in response to recent Turkish military successes, and partly because an internal reform movement was questioning fundamentals of faith, Christians began to see themselves as threatened, too. In 1084 the pope wrote that Christianity “has fallen under the scorn, not only of the Devil, but of Jews, Saracens, and pagans.” The “Goad of Love,” a retelling of the crucifixion that is considered the first anti-Jewish Passion treatise, was written around 1155-80. It describes Jews as consumed with sadism and blood lust. They were seen as enemies not only of Christ, but also of living Christians; it was at this time that Jews began to be accused of ritually sacrificing Christian children.

Comments on the NYT article:

* Words don’t kill. Otherwise, there would be few people on earth. Charlie Hebdo’s words and even pictures didn’t take a hair off any body. Nor do the texts of any religion. Killing takes more than words. By the same token, words don’t stop killers from killing, either.

* Two corrections, one major. It is incorrect to say Christians wrote no anti-Jewish treatises before 1100, to say the very least, though it may be true that their nature changed. The minor (though not really) correction is that the Turks did not rule Palestine, in 1100, or for severals centuries after–a truly baffling error for a medievalist.

* Well if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, (and to look around at what passes for a lot of “art” these days it makes me wonder), why does everybody pick on expression in the form of language so much? It’s like everybody including wilting violets like Ms. Henkel are nowadays just flouncing around waiting to get offended. Well that can work both ways, you know. Generally speaking, I have rarely encountered a more humourless, narrow-minded, self-righteous bunch of spittlebugs than the posters in these NYT comments columns and wish I could give y’all one massive communal wedgie. OHHH! I think I just induced MYSELF to violence!

* How can anyone take this article seriously when the place that espouses the most hateful, poisonous, destructive, supremacist language today is the Islamic world? Not even one mention of the thousands of sermons given throughout mosques all over the world every week that explicitly call for death and carnage? How feckless and willfully blind have we become? Let’s blame Trump for all the ills of the modern world. If only he’d go away we’ll achieve world peace. Kumbaya.

* The points made in this editorial & by some of the comments about the dangers of provocative, incendiary language about minorities leading to violence are to me so obviously true, I don’t feel I need to reiterate them.
However, for balance, I’d like to point out that provocative language leading to violence goes in other directions also. One of the worst examples of that was I believe the film “Do the Right Thing” by Spike Lee of a few years back. The film was very popular, widely acclaimed by critics, & it was well directed & did make some good points, but the take-home message of the film was that Blacks were “doing the right thing” by engaging in violence against convenient & innocent poor White & Asian scapegoats, to avenge perceived injustices against Blacks. It wasn’t saying this was understandable; it was saying it was “right”, i.e., morally right; it was effectively recommending this. I believe this film was indirectly responsible for further poisoning race relations & led to violent & destructive acts.
These things work in all kinds of directions.

* It’s offensive that a newspaper that, like most of the leftist media, considerably plays down and under reports anti-Jewish rhetoric and violence wants to get on its high horse. There are 10 times more hate crimes against Jews than Muslims, and Muslims are responsible for a vast disproportionate amount of them. Why do I never see any articles from Muslims demanding their community tone down it’s virulent dangerous anti-Jewish rhetoric? This paper will call anti-Jewish hate speech “criticizing Israel” and defend it, as they did a few months ago with professor Steve Salaita. Far less hateful rhetoric towards illegal immigrants, blacks, gays, and Muslims is quickly labeled hateful by this same paper. This paper still refers to the 3 days of racist mob violence against Jews in Crown Heights as “blacks and Jews fought”. This is dishonest, offensive, and extremely racist. This crime would have been quickly condemned by this same paper and framed very differently if it was a Jewish on Muslim or Jewish on black crime. Please leftists, own up to your own hatred, and the anti-Jewish hatred you condone, instead of always pointing the finger at the GOP.

* Medieval words causing the deaths of Jews seem like a baby’s lullaby’s compared to the vitriol being spewed today in the Arab and Muslim nations and a few European Nations daily in their children’s cartoons, National Charters, Mosques, newscasts and newspapers and classrooms and social media.

* Please read the history of the Jewish response to Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic “Dearborn Independent.” Prominent Jews organized, protested and pressured Ford in whatever ways they could, including suing the newspaper for libel. See http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/research/project/19. What Jews did NOT do was ever call for the arrest of Ford for making “hate speech” — which as everyone should know — would have violated the First Amendment. Jews came to America precisely for the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Weakening that Constitution via “hate speech” crackdowns — such as those occurring at public universities — will damage the very aspect of America that welcomed Jews and other immigrants in the first place.

* Alternatively, I wonder if harsh scripture leads to violent acts? If so, doesn’t it make sense for moderate followers of the Abrahamic religions to purge the passages advocating murder, genocide and slavery from their texts?

* I just discovered the irony in the front page of the NYT: The family greeted by Canadian PM Trudeau i in “Syrian Refugees Greeted by Justin Trudeau in Canada” is Armenian and therefore Christian.
A point about the Crusades: No doubt they were a tough crowd and killed people but the were caused by Muslim conquest of Christian lands, murder and enslavement of Christians, and closing the Holy Land to Christian pilgrimage by Muslims.
The PC culture has portrayed the Crusades as attempts to rob Muslims of what was theirs. But it was not so.
Only the 4th Crusade engaged in armed robbery but that was against the Greeks of Constantinople.

* From the perspective of the NYTimes, everything about the recent terrorism events including the hate speech about Muslims that has surfaced from Donald Trump is really about the Jews. This essay by Sara Lipton, spends the first paragraph complaining about incitement against Muslims, and then the remainder of the article about how the historical pogroms, oppression and genocide of the Jews were incited by the “harsh words” of Christian theologians. It funny to me that these same victims of Christian hate speech, the Jews, can’t be self-critical enough to see that they are doing the same stuff to the people of Palestine.

Yes words matter and do lead to violent acts including violent acts by Jewish terrorists. The great slight of hand in the Jews’ self-righteous mythic narrative is the notion that Zionism and Judaism are still somehow mutually exclusive. The trick covers the the hateful orthodox Jew settlers who apply racist, anti-Arab graffiti and burn churches, mosques, and homes (and babies) in Palestine, and rabbis who incite atrocious violence, yet preserves a sheen of religious respectability for the Zionist project.

* There’s just one little problem wtih Dr. Lipton’s argument. The entire Western world, and in fact much of the Muslim world, too, has been experiencing violent attacks by Muslims in the name of Islam for several decades now. Islamist ideology seeks to violently subjugate the entire world to the rule of Islam. Thousands of people in the US alone have died at the hands of Islamist fighters.

At no time in the history of the Jewish diaspora have Jews ever posed a threat to the communities in which they lived. They lived quiet unobtrusive lives, only asking to be left to live their lives in peace.

Militant, jihadist Islam poses a real and immediate threat to us all. Judaism never posed a threat to anyone. There is absolutely NO comparison.

* Sarah Lipton is making the same mistake the French Jews made in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Confronted by anti-Muslim prejudice, they saw in it something paralleling anti-Semitism of the Christian European past. Fearing this, they funded anti-racist groups like SOS Racisme which fought off any efforts to control immigration from Algeria. The result was a huge surge in Muslim residents of France, and recently an epidemic of Muslim attacks, torture, and killing against French Jews, who are now fleeing to Israel. It turns out there was a basis for those prejudices, and Christians were not the main threat to French Jews.

* Lipton ignores that correlation is not causation. She can no more demonstrate that anti-Jewish rhetoric and iconography caused anti-Jewish violence than modern advertising agencies can prove their ads make people buy things.

* Well, the Jews had their run as God’s Chosen People. Now it’s someone else’s turn. That old pendulum just keeps a’swinging.

Who’s up next? Kushites? Sumerians? Those *other* Canaanites?

You know, even in Martin Luther’s time, there were some folks w/ common sense. In one village,there was an extremely ill-behaved child, who Luther believed to be a changeling (wicked creature identical to kid swapped out by fairies). Luther recommended the kid be drowned, but apparently the mayor to whom he made that recommendation had more sense or compassion than him, so Luther had to settle for praying for the kid to die. Hallelujah. That’s from “Table Talk with Martin Luther.” That kid probably had Tourette syndrome or autism or something.

Now the Catholic Church is becoming less embarrassed to talk about exorcisms. (Luther was after all, a Catholic priest). Apparently since it’s been a whopping 157 years since the Vatican kidnapped young Edgardo Mortara to live w/ the Pope since he was a Jew baptized by his nanny, it’s time for the Church to start getting weird again. Or did they ever stop? You know that’d never happen if Fran Drescher was your nanny. But what’s worse… those funny hats they wear at the Vatican, or her voice?

And don’t get me started on those Muslims… Can we talk?

I once interviewed a Midwest rabbi for a report I did in school about 25 yrs ago (I’m not a Jew). He told me that some of what Meir Kahane said was true.

Whose words are scarier, theirs or mine?

* If one really wants to look for hate speech, you might look at contemporary Islamic societies. The father of the San Bernadino shooter admitted he hates Jews and his son felt the same way. We need to stop pretending that there is no issue with hate among Muslims or it is impossible to take articles like this one seriously.

* What an idiotic comparison. If living in Europe was so relentlessly miserable, why didn’t Jews leave? It’s not like there weren’t political entities that were tolerant. Jewish academicians love eulogizing Muslim Spain and their treatment of Jews. What about the Jewish-run Khazar Khanate?

These examples are getting tedious. Can academicians come up with any examples of historic wrongs against anyone other than the Jews?

* 60+ years of North Korean rhetoric has produced nothing. What’s your point?

* Sorry, this is an attempt to use genuine historical scholarship to grind a left wing political axe – despite throwing out a few words to include radical cop-killers. While Trump and other anti-immigrant agitators are reprehensible, and while there has been considerable violence committed by right wing extremists, the truth is there has been very little anti-Muslim violence in America. Yet, there was significant political violence committed by the Left in our recent history and I have never seen articles like this in the Times in context of the Unabomber, Weather Underground or the Black Liberation Army. Was not the Left’s penchant for calling the Johnson Administration “baby killers” during the Vietnam War ALSO an example of hate speech justifying the killing of innocents by radicalized middle and upper class students at the time? Is not today’s demonization of Israeli Jews as “Zionist murderers” — not just in the Arab world, but across Western academic circles — just as much a justification of violence as well?

* Yes, Europe’s relationship with Jews left much to be desired. But we should also remember that it wasn’t simply religion that drove the persecution. For instance, during Richard I’s reign in England, various pogroms resulted in a good number of Jewish deaths. But the factor driving it was aristocrats seeking to avoid paying back Jewish money lenders that which they had borrowed. Kind hearted Richard the Lionhearted stopped the persecution, then declared the Crown the heirs of those murdered, so destituting those whose family members had just been butchered.

The point being that there are other factors than hate speech involved.

Speaking of which, reading that which was being said about Jews back then was far more virulent and violence inducing than anything currently being said about Muslims. As much as many obsess about Islamophobia, total instances of such last year totaled something like 150 out of a total of more than 1 million violent crimes – worrisome but hardly epidemic.

Which leads to the next point. Jews in the Middle Ages were not scheming to kill Christians but the rhetoric leading up to many of the worst instances of persecution alleged they were. But some of those who identify as Muslims do indeed intend on killing us, and the behaviors of many of their co-religionists overseas, resulting in ethnic cleansing of religious minorities, indicate a good amount of hatred towards the West. Being paranoid does not mean they’re not out to get you.

* I have a far simpler explanation for what happened to Jews. They were vastly outnumbered by Christians who were jealous of their success. So the Christians decided to rob and kill them.

* What about hateful words directed toward Christians? I hear far, far more of those, from liberals, than toward Muslims. My guess is, the reason is, Muslims retaliate and Christians do not. Liberals: Try communicating with Muslims the same ways you communicate with Christians. Now, that would be real courage. Not too different from playground bullies.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Christianity, Jews | Comments Off

A night of violence that shattered a South African’s view of her white privilege

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

Pathological altruism. Sad.

South African blacks have an average IQ of about 70 while South African whites have an average IQ of about 100.

Descriptions of the I.Q. ranges
Lower than 20 — Profound retardation
Usually multi-handicapped with obvious physical deformities and short life expectancy. Heavily dependent on others. Can learn no or only the very simplest tasks.
20-34 — Severely retarded
Basic intellectual tasks, including language, are difficult to learn. Can learn some self-care behaviour but remain dependent on others. There are usually motor problems and physical anomalies. Usually not employable.
Profound and severe retardation are typically caused by brain damage during pregnancy, at birth, or early in life, and as such not genetic and not inherited.
35-49 — Moderately retarded
Can learn simple life skills and employment tasks with special education. May be employed in special settings, and achieve some independence. Often socially immature. Self-awareness — having an inner image of self, realizing that one is a person separate from the others around one — may exist from here on, but is not guaranteed to exist as it depends on more than intelligence alone. The most intelligent non-human animals, such as some crows, chimpanzees, bonobos, parrots, and dolphins, are in this range. Bonobo or chimpanzee I.Q. scores are sometimes even quoted as high as 80 or 90, but those are childhood age-peer scores that correspond to adult I.Q.’s of only just over 40.
50-69 — Mildly retarded
Educable, can learn to care for oneself, employable in routinized jobs but require supervision. Might live alone but do best in supervised settings. Immature but with adequate social adjustment, usually no obvious physical anomalies.
Moderate and mild retardation, contrary to the more severe forms, are typically not caused by brain damage but part of the normal variance of intelligence, and therefore largely genetic and inherited. This is important with regard to the question whether or not retarded persons should have children; for especially the moderate and mild forms of retardation, with which it is physically possible to have children, are the most likely to be inherited.
70-79 — Borderline retarded
Limited trainability. Have difficulty with everyday demands like using a phone book, reading bus or train schedules, banking, filling out forms, using appliances like a video recorder, microwave oven, or computer, et cetera, and therefore require assistance from relatives or social workers in the management of their affairs. Can be employed in simple tasks but require supervision.
80-89 — Below average
Above the threshold for normal independent functioning. Can perform explicit routinized hands-on tasks without supervision as long as there are no moments of choice and it is always clear what has to be done. Assembler, food service.
This is also the I.Q. range most associated with violence. Most violent crime is committed by males from this range. This does not imply that all males in this range are violent, nor that all violent males are in this range. But when the modal I.Q. of a group is in this range, one may expect trouble with with many male members of that group. When the modal I.Q. of a society or population is raised upward of this range, violence decreases as fewer males fall in this range then, given the shape of an even remotely normal distribution. When the modal I.Q. of a society is below this range to begin with though, raising it may increase violence. The causal mechanism behind the (statistical) relation between crime and below-average I.Q. is likely that lower I.Q. levels inherently tend to go with having less impulse control, being less able to delay gratification, being less able to comprehend moral principles like the Golden Rule, and being overstrained by the cognitive demands of society.
And, this is the range into which men of average or just above average intelligence sink when under the influence of alcohol; alcohol reduces I.Q. by up to about 25 points while drunk (own data), which explains why many drunk men are violent and aggressive (own hypothesis).
90-99 — Average
Able to learn a trade in a hands-on manner and perform tasks involving decisions. Craftsman, sales, police officer, clerk. Studies involving some theory are possible from this range upward.
100-109 — Average
Able to learn from written materials. Employable in senior positions.
110-119 — Above average
Able to learn in “college” format. Bachelor degrees. Manager, teacher, accountant. Just capable of taking high-range I.Q. tests.

From the Los Angeles Times:

On a lazy summer’s night, a South African family drifted indoors after arriving home. A gunshot rang out and the evening flipped.
Gunmen materialized in the low light. A second shot, and Tracey Lomax saw her husband fall.
“You’re not the boss!” one of them kept yelling furiously at him.
Lomax didn’t betray her terror. Quite the opposite.
She was a liberal white lawyer, known for taking on pro bono work for poor blacks. Yet she found herself, instantly and uneasily, assuming the apartheid-era role of the “white madam”: calm, firm, in control and used to telling black people what to do, even if they had guns.
As the ordeal wore on, the most aggressive of the gunmen forced her into the master bedroom. “He threw me down on the bed and said, ‘If you don’t give me jewelry now, I’ll stick you.’ I knew he meant rape.” She replied firmly, “We don’t behave like that. We’re not savages.”
“I took his hand off my shoulder. I said, ‘No, we are not doing this.’ And I walked back into the other room.” She spoke to him as if addressing a child — or giving orders to a gardener, telling him to plant a shrub in this place, not that place.
During the attack, she was at turns charming and patronizing to the intruders — the kind of white South African whose connections with blacks are limited to domestic staff and people behind service counters, one who keeps her car doors locked and windows resolutely up when beggars approach…
Racism remains so common that the South African Human Rights Commission deals with about 7,500 complaints of rights abuses a year, most related to race. Racist blogs referring to black South Africans as “things” or ascribing them with criminal tendencies are common.
Although most crime victims are black, South Africa’s high rate of violent crime is a focus for intense white anxiety.
And a violent home invasion robbery is a visceral nightmare of the predominantly white middle class. The Lomaxes’ rural district outside Johannesburg had seen dozens of horrifying attacks. A couple had been murdered. A woman had been raped in front of her 4-year-old son. People had been beaten and shot…
On that night five years ago, it was her young daughter who finally convinced the gunmen there was no hidden money or guns, just the computers, TV, DVD player and stereo.
“Jaime said, ‘We’re broke,'” Lomax said. “They wanted guns. Jaime piped up, ‘My parents don’t have guns because they don’t believe in them.'”
In the end, they were calling Lomax “madam.” They put pillows on the floor to make her comfortable, before gently tying her up with her arms around her daughter. They called Jaime “the little madam.”
…When Lomax went public with a recent article describing how the attack helped her to see her “white privilege” for the first time, it elicited a few supportive comments and hundreds of scathing ones, mainly from white males.
“It happened to me too,” wrote one reader, John Weavind. “I managed to get to my gun and I shot the lot … dead. I felt much better afterwards.”

Comments at LATimes.com:

* Now the left is telling whites that being violently attacked by blacks, being threatened with rape, and being put in a position of having your child raped and/or murdered is a “good way” to discover your “white priveledge”.

Ultimately, the left’s plan for “racial justice” will include even more black on white violence than is already present. Blacks assault and murder whites at 21 times the rate of the inverse. The ratio of black on white to white on black rape is thousands to one.

* Let’s just tell it like it is: The LA TIMES is feeling “white guilt” because only 3.4% of the writers are black (by their own admission) and there are NO Black People on the LA EDITORIAL Board. I mean you can’t even look around the room and see you haven’t hired any black writers/viewpoints for the editorial room?

* In all of my readings, I have never read something so pitiful as this story about a female atty who does pro bono for the poor and made enough money to hire help. And when the help turns on her family in a home invasion, she makes it sound like a princess fairy tale where the bad guys are so wonderful while she is so ashamed of herself. Is this Scarlett O Hara in Gone with the Wind of the 21st Century? Was this woman a witness for the defense? Makes me wonder.

* More silliness, I stopped reading the sickness…. Talk about propaganda.

“After the attack…” Lomax was angry “without really knowing why I was angry.” Duh? Because you were attacked??

“And she was tormented by the memory of how easily she had addressed her attackers from a position of reflexive white superiority.” Cancel my subscription now. This whole article, LOL!!!

* It sounds like this woman is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Women are not going to be truly equal until they learn to stand up for themselves and to stop deciding that the person directing violence against them has good reason for the violence.

* What a beautiful and sweet lesson to teach and pass on to your daughters….’…Girls, when you grow up and when you get raped (almost a certainty with her attitude), …you just lay back and enjoy it the best you can…just smile through it and say to yourselves…..it’s not the rapist’s fault they weren’t born into white privilege like me….

* The gunmen were so nice! They put pillows on the floor and called her daughter the “little madam: as they hog-tied them. What is wrong with this picture? Robbing, threatening rape, and leaving someone tied up on the floor is a whole lot more wrong than can be wiped away with a pillow or a comment. This lady is insane, or the story a made-up fantasy, or both.

* White privilege? So sexual assault is a privilege?

* I’m a progressive and love the Lord, but I’m perplexed by her white privilege guilt. The attackers were deeply in the wrong, so unless she had a nice place from taking advantage of their families, I’d not feel any guilt at trial or barking commands at them to have decency. I’d pray for them to feel guilt for their deranged actions, not anything I did in making them feel guilty for behaving like animals.

* Perplexing story. The assertions of “white privilege” don’t seem to be supported by the examples. The last paragraph says “[the lawyer] felt grateful to them, ‘for holding up a mirror to my soul and showing me the person I no longer wanted to be’ That doesn’t match up to someone who did pro-bono work for the poor. It’s not a sin to keep your doors locked when approached by beggars or hawkers. She says “Your instinctive reaction is to lock your windows and recoil and yell” Well, that’s your problem, lady. Not everyone recoils and yells – you politely wave them off – behind your closed window. She sounds as though she’s possessed by the Stockholm syndrome; identifying with those who tried to hurt her and her family. And she’s terribly, terribly naïve.

* White Guilt sinks to an entirely new low, and the LA Times is there to wallow in it with us! A woman who is the victim of a home invasion robbery and threatened with rape later feels guilty because she talked down to her attackers – even though that may very well have been what saved her life. How dare she look down her nose at criminals who are black – the bigotry of it all!

* SA is slowly dying. The grandiose gestures after divestment and the collapse of apartheid have led to the productive class evacuating for Australia and Europe while the parasites weaken the remaining population. Ju-Ju is calling for nothing less than complete nationalization of the economy and the ANC is riddled with graft, corruption, and incompetence. The next 5 years are going to be telling as the ANC, EFF, and assorted white minority factions struggle for what remains. And let’s not even get into blackouts(oops, this is SA, it’s called “load shedding”).

* How does a straight criminal home invasion incident turn into an apology for white superiority and race?

That is so stupid, yet typical of the Left to inject race into everything from school admissions to police relations. Makes you wonder who is wearing the ‘race’ glasses, doesn’t it? Who keeps bringing this up? Yep…your Lefty friends.

* So being poor and living in a shack with a bunch of dogs and barnyard animals makes you a less racist or better person? Is that what I’m supposed to take from this? Because to me it’s like that silly old thing people used to tell kids about eating all their food because there were starving children in China or someplace. Even though eating the food wouldn’t do anyone else any good.

Her naivety is just astounding. Criminals are still criminals and yet this crazy broad makes excuses for criminals and works to “understand” their problems. Well we all have problems but normal people don’t rob, rape and pillage. She’ll be very lucky with her attitude if this is the last time she’s the victim of such a crime.

* Good luck with that stupidity. I have been coming to SA for 10yrs. & decided to stay 2 yrs ago ,I was always considerate to the car guards & homeless etc. but after realizing most were thieves & physical confrontations more than once with these poor & homeless & having local friends & US friends robbed at gunpoint this idiot can feel her guilt I will fight or shoot 1st & ask ?s later these people are the racists & criminals talk to your thieving government & make an effort to get out of this but never threaten me or those close to me I am always armed & even more so on my farm & I will confront without hesitation any weakness with this group of criminals is fatal the ANC is the Mafia of Africa.

* I don’t believe I’m alone on this, but if armed men broke into my home and killed my spouse, feeling guilty about the color of my skin or the economic status I’ve worked for would not be how I would feel. Let’s try rage, hate and revenge.

* Seems the writer and others are confusing White privilege with White innovation.

* Somewhat interesting, but totally irrelevant to our life here in the US. She didn’t like the way she spoke with the criminals that invaded her home, but her conduct may actually have saved their lives.

* Since apartheid was replaced by democracy, the crime rate has soared…
South Africa is known to have one of the highest crime rates per 100,000 residents in the world regarding assault, rape and murder.
The crimes more than likely are not motivated by race, but by the economic downward spiral that the nation experienced when “activists” dismantled a working system of government with no workable alternative government plans in place. Businesses went dark, employers disappeared, incomes that depended upon white employers vanished. The blacks were handed the reins to run the country and failed on every level, because their only goal was to seize power. The “white privilege” referred to in this article could also be called “law and order.”
Typical of leftists, crying for change with no brains to attain it.

King Goodwill of the Zulus said virtually the same things days ago nobody approves of apartheid but a competent system was replaced with people that were not up to the task President Zuma is the best example with little education this is the corruption capital of Africa if not the world ANC cronyism & corruption is destroying this country 70% of the population lives in poverty after 21 yrs unemployment is close to 36% youth unemploy over 50% while this inept government pays sky high salaries & steals at every opportunity your mouth moves but your brain fails to engage.

* Why all the race-baiting by the Times?

* I’m looking forward to her class “Being a better victim.” I’m liberal but this makes me even want to use that disgusting slur which joins liberal with retard,” but I won’t (see how sneaky I was with that? Clever, eh?). Anything you do to survive an encounter with violent criminals is a win in my book. Yes, there may be ten million valid reasons why they are criminal and the part your history played cannot be ignored, but survival comes first.

* White family is brutally robbed by armed blacks, who also threaten rape. Yet the focus is on the woman’s “tone” with these thugs, and her “white privilege.” One word encapsulates this article, and this laughably warped world view: excrement.

* I try and keep an open mind about liberals, but this woman and the author of this “article” are truly astounding examples of the left having jumped the shark with their “white guilt”.

Good luck to their daughter, she is going to need it.

Posted in Blacks, IQ, Race, South Africa, Whites | Comments Off

Bibi Netanyahu’s Two-Faced, Brutish, Boorish Reaction To Trump

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ilana Mercer writes: Nationhood is for Jews, but not for gentiles. This is what disgusts me about Israeli politicians, pundits and now Bibi Netanyahu, worshiped by neocons. The prime minister and his Knesset take as a given that Jews should be able to do what is necessary to protect themselves in their homeland. The protection of American lives in their homeland, on the other hand, is a far less urgent matter to these Israelis.
Netanyahu has openly declared that he wants to retain Israel’s national character. Well of course. And so he should.
He has rightly refused to absorb some of the region’s refugees, insisting that this would conflict with his obligation to his countrymen. Copy that, Mr prime minister. But when an American patriot so much as suggests stanching the flow of blood in the US, caused by this country’s laissez-faire immigration policies—Bibi and his pols protest boorishly.
CNN:
“Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims,” according to a statement issued by the prime minister’s office.
“The State of Israel respects all religions and strictly guarantees the rights of all its citizens. At the same time, Israel is fighting against militant Islam that targets Muslims, Christians and Jews alike and threatens the entire world,” the statement said.
Netanyahu came under fire from dozens of members of the Israeli parliament for planning to host the controversial GOP presidential front-runner. They called on the Prime Minister to cancel his meeting with the billionaire businessman.

Posted in Donald Trump, Islam, Israel | Comments Off

If Muslims set off a nuclear bomb in in America, then what?

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

Rael Levinsohn world war 3
David Tainsh World War III is in the way and has been for a while. These things are planned way a head by the elite.
Bill Siemers Asking “for a friend”?
Scott Edwards Total war. . . against Americans who think bad thoughts about Muslims.
Peter Berman I hope it would not lead to Islamophobia
Chaim Amalek Then nothing. If White Christian British men and women cannot defend their own 12 year old daughters from being raped by hordes of Paki men, then what makes you think Americans would do any more?
Miriam Lilian D Or I’ll be living far away from the USA at that point.
Chaim Amalek There is no escaping them, unless perhaps you plan on living in China.
Chaim Amalek First reaction to a Muslim nuclear attack: 1. It was white nationalists. 2. What about the Crusades? 3. Can’t judge a group by what a few misguided people in it say or do.
Miriam Lilian D Or No, I will go to the Republic of Georgia (Sakartvelos), North Ossetia or Switzerland!
Chaim Amalek Would the Swiss let you in?
Miriam Lilian D Or I’ll see. If not, then I’m just going to the Caucasus for good, hiding out in the mountains tending sheep. Good luck, everyone!
Darren Melamed I say we start a Jewish community with me in Montana. They will never bomb us there.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

Donald Trump Understands The Fear Of Terrorism Better Than Barack Obama

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Luke Ford

John* says: “See these two articles. Adams’ post explains how Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims resonates with Latinos, and Mercer explains the reason that Obama’s cost analysis of living with terrorism while working to defeat it using the strategy as explained by Beinart, shows an essential lack of understanding of the fear of terrorism and why Trump does understand it.”

Scott Adams writes:

When polls show that Latino voters in America favor banning Muslim immigration, Trump has greased his path to a landslide.
I don’t think he planned the immigration surprise to happen this early. But he got the opening and he took it. (I predicted it would happen after the nomination.)
On a related note, I understand Trump is defending his Muslim immigration ban by telling the public they are thinking it but he said it. That’s the most powerful persuasion technique there is (literally, in my experience). The general form of it involves an educated guess about a person’s inner thoughts. When you tell people what they are thinking, while they are thinking it, and while they think their thoughts are mostly concealed, they hand you the keys to their brain. (It would take longer to explain why.)
Other candidates tell voters what they should think. Sometimes they say what voters do think, but they do so only for obvious issues such as voters preferring lower crime rates. You won’t see a vanilla politician tell you what your secret inner thoughts are, and get it right. The latter is industrial-grade persuasion. The former is just lips moving.
I think there is another immigration surprise planned for after the nomination, but this first one might be all he needed. In movies you often see the hero escape the 3rd Act problem only to fall into greater danger in the final minutes. So movies generally have a big escape followed by another clever escape in the final minutes. Trump might get to use his second immigration surprise toward the final stretch.

Ilana Mercer writes:

Mr. Trump appears genuinely outraged by this crass and cruel political calculus. Trump was not going along with the notions implicit in the strategies proposed by the administration and the colluding political duopoly. These are that we trade a few American lives, every so often, in return for getting to boast about America’s commitment to “freedom,” our “open society,” all the intangible nostrums Rome-on-the-Potomac instructs us to celebrate.
Mr. Trump was not OK with the idea that mass murder by Muslim, every now and then, was the price of “our tolerance.”
Trump’s visceral response seems odd to the political class and their media barnacles because it’s the reaction of a regular, clear-thinking individual who has yet to be housebroken by Washington.
If you’re a Jihadi who’s traveled to train abroad—American, permanent resident or anything else—“you are never-ever coming back into the US,” vowed Trump. Having suggested the same a few months back (“A Modest Libertarian Proposal: Keep Jihadis OUT, Not IN”), I would venture that immigration is a political grant of privilege; there is no natural right to immigrate into the U.S., not least if you are fixing to kill your coworkers.
Later, Trump followed up with a more radical statement; radical from a political perspective. He “called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”:
According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.”
“Without looking at the various polling data,” stated Mr. Trump, “it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”
SQUANDERING VS. CONSERVING SCARCE RESOURCES
To grasp why Trump would counsel something so practical, yet so politically improper, one has to understand Trump the businessman.
Good businessmen are programmed differently than politicians. As a tremendously gifted entrepreneur, Trump is averse to squandering scarce resources, money or manpower.
By contrast, politicians do not understand the natural economic reality of scarcity. They control the production of money for their promiscuous purposes and they exert power over millions of interchangeable people in their territorial jurisdiction.
To a politician, 14 lives in 322 million is a small price to pay for “our freedoms.” Trump’s political rivals look at the price exacted by a Muslim like Syed Farouk and his bride in the aggregate. Fourteen dead is not a steep price to pay for unfettered immigration from Islamic countries, peddled politically as “our values,” “our tolerance,” “our greatness.” This callous calculus is second nature to politicians like Lindsey Graham or Darth Vader Cheney.
Not to Trump. “This must stop. We can’t have this,” he roared.
See, statistics are funny things. Insignificant probabilities, in this case an attack on each one of us, are immaterial unless they happen to YOU or ME. It is this calculus that politicians peddle. They rely on the fact that we’ll adopt their sloganeering because each one of us is unlikely to die by Muslim.
But to do nothing stateside, as Trump’s rivals imply, is to accept that lives lost are, in the grand scheme, insignificant.
The opposite is true for Trump. Taking losses offends his sensibilities. Trump, the consummate businessman, abhors and is angered by the preventable squandering of scarce assets: American lives. (Yes, Trump is an American Firster.) The death of a few Americans pains Mr. Trump, something that cannot be said about Obama, Hillary, Bernie or any of the insider GOPers.

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration, Islam | Comments Off