October 6, 2015 Keep Trump Safe Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Keep Trump Safe

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

* I’m worried about a Sirhan Sirhan mysteriously getting close to him in our security state — or mechanical failure in his perfectly maintained helicopter — or a sudden illness in this robust, energetic fellow.

Let them be on notice — that we notice.

(Whoever “they” are, if “they” even exist.)

As for the usual MSM character assassinations, hooker videos and whatnot, the guy is immune to that. He has pre-disastered himself by being the character they would want to accuse him of being — and lo and behold, the public likes it.

This is the glass house approach to life I think we all might want to consider adopting in the post-privacy world. Maybe we all can move our personal Overton Windows over a little bit, in what we say and do publicly.

Speaking of being pre-disastered, there is a wonderful scene in the Robin Williams movie, The World According to Garp:

Looking for a home to buy, Garp is about to walk into a house with a real estate agent, when a small plane crashes into the roof. Garp tells the agent, “I’ll take this house.” The agent incredulously asks him why. Garp says, “It’s been pre-disastered. Just think, what are the odds of that ever happening again?”

(I know this scene isn’t an exact analogy to what I am talking about, but I think the concept of a pre-disastered candidate is valid.)

* Christian Lives don’t matter.

From Bill Donohue:

The following media outlets were among those that reported on this story but never mentioned that Christians were singled out:

ABC World News Tonight
CBS Evening News
NBC Nightly News
PBS News Hour
New York Times
USA Today
Slate
Salon
Gawker
Daily Beast
Yahoo
Huffington Post
Associated Press [This accounts for why so many papers across the nation made no mention of Christians.]

If African Americans or Muslims had been singled out, President Obama would have gone ballistic, Al Sharpton would be calling for street rallies, and CAIR would be asking for congressional investigations. But because Christians are being cherry picked for murder, there is no call to arms. Indeed, many major media outlets aren’t even telling the truth. It’s obvious—”Christian Lives Don’t Matter”—either here or abroad.

* Steve, have you looked at how many of the mass shootings have a racial motivation? The few I can think of that don’t are the Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Aurora, CO shootings.

Otherwise we have the half-moroccan killer of blonde sorority girls in Santa Barbara, the radical muslim targeting white military men at Fort Hood, the hispanic american targeting (again) white military men at Fort Hood (2014), the black muslim snipers attacking whites in Washington DC, the black newsman murdering white colleagues in Roanoake, the half-black student targeting white Christians in Roseburg, and the white student targeting black church members in South Carolina. I’m sure to be missing a few, as I’m often not up on mainstream news.

As usual, racial strife is essential to understanding American dysfunction. European countries with gun culture and widespread ownership (Switzerland, Finland) don’t have these problems.

I should add how perverse media reporting is, that while whites are disproportionately victims, not shooters, the media narrative whitewashes biracial shooters, ignores the race of clearly black/non-white killers, and emphasizes six ways to Sunday the few racially motivated white-on-x killings. There was also I believe a “disgruntled black employee” in the northeast who murdered nine or so white colleagues — this story is so down the memory hole I can’t even find it with basic search terms.

* I wonder if the GOP is like those other parties in the past that are now extinct—it’s leaders become entrenched in power, lose connection with the people, ignore the issues outside of what their lobbyists tell them are the issues, and then—-shockingly—the party gets replaced, out of no where.

Immigration is proving to be more and more a cross-the-aisles kind of uniting issue that left and right regular folk agree on. It’s an elite v. prole issue, but as Charlie Daniels once sang, “there’s a whole lot more of us common folk/than there ever will be of you.”

* Romney was the toughest candidate on immigration last time around.

Only until he got the nomination, and then he dropped it like a hot rock, along with Kris Kobach, his border-control adviser. I feel that one of the pivotal points when Romney lost the election was during one of the debates when Obama accused him of calling for self-deportation, as if that was the most appalling thing he had ever heard of, and Romney just stood there with that sickly half smile on his lips. If he would have said, “You bet I support self-deportation! Why shouldn’t the people who sneaked in here illegally leave the same way,” he would have gotten the surge that Trump has.

* I agree, but bear in mind that he also vetoed benefits for illegals when he was gov. of MA. It was clearly something he’d been more conservative about in the past, perhaps because his own ancestors were run out of Mexico.

I think 2012 may turn out to be the moment when a significant chunk of right wingers realized, “it just does not matter what we do or say, they will call us racist, even if we’re as mild and inoffensive as Mitt Romney. Might as well embrace the hatred.” Hence Trump.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

Will Breaking Up The Arab States Make Israel More Secure?

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Israel is better off with stable autocracies as neighbors. With the brief exception of Saddam’s Scud missiles in ’91, Arab nations qua nations haven’t posed a military threat to Israel in 42 years. Israel’s military threats in recent years have come from anarchic Lebanon and Gaza. If Syria becomes another Lebanon, Israel would be less secure, not more.

* A clear neo-con/Israeli strategy was outlined to break up the Arab states and splinter the Arab world into warring tribes, factions, and warlords, leaving Israel unopposed by any surrounding hostile Arab states able to act in any kind of coherent manner (in other words, turn them into failed states), and this strategy has worked. Obama has followed this strategy just as closely as did Bush. Look at Libya and Syria. Obama deliberately destabilized those states.

Now some people will object that Obama is a creature of the Saudis, and not of the Zionists, but people made this same accusation of Bush, as well. But it makes no difference in practice, because the Saudis have been pursuing their own Clean Break strategy that closely mirrors the Israeli Clean Break strategy; the Saudis also want to destabilize other Arab states, especially Shia states or other non-Sunni dominated states, and to export their brand of Wahhabi lunacy and send their home grown militants to be a problem elsewhere, away from Saudi Arabia. Ditto for the various Arab Gulf states, that have their own home grown Shia problem to worry about and who support Shia militants.

It’s a perfect dumpster firestorm of idiocy. And it makes no sense if our actual strategy was “all to preserve US military dominance in the Gulf and eastern med.” Stable Arab dictatorships like what still exists in Egypt would be much preferable to US foreign policy if our actual aim was to dominate the region in a fashion actually useful to actual US interests – ie, keep the oil flowing, keep the Islamic crazies under control, stop the migration of so called “refugees”. None of this is possible if we keep destroying Arab dictatorships and turning their states into failed states suitable for 4th generation warfare.

* From A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s by Oded Yinon:

Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

* The West has no moral clarity about anything, not after the disaster in Iraq. The mere virtue of these current efforts is that they only are trying to accomplish what is very small. The disaster in Iraq proved the West has no native right to act from thought of a higher level than a little here, a little there. The West has no credibility to pretend that it can go about the business of strategy next to the likes of Russia. And should probably just slink from the world scene altogether, and regroup for an extended period in a small cabin, and pray not for moral clarity but vision at all.

* Obama in NO way hates Jews. The evidence on that is clear based on his policies and his appointments.

From David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel to the Jews he has appointed to power on the Supreme Court, control of money at Treasury, the Fed etc etc. Obama is clearly a philo-semitic liberal Democrat.

Which is of course why Christian paranoids and right wing zionist Jews hate him.

In fact his behavior nearly mimics all the views of liberal Jews in America.

* So the Jews in Israel champion small ethnostates in the Middle East because they are smaller, more cohesive, less fractious, and less likely to attack Israel, the Jewish ethnostate.

It makes perfect sense to me, God bless ‘em.

Yet Jews in America (and it seems in Europe, too) champion large multicultural proposition states that collect increasing numbers of utterly alien refugees from everywhere.

We need to work out a Transfer Agreement with the Israelis.

Posted in Arabs, Israel | Comments Off

Diversity = Destruction

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* What does ethnic diversity have to do with military effectiveness? Is there a single case in history of a multi ethnic patchwork force defeating an equal sized force of homogeneous ethnicity? Even one case in 10,000 years of warfare?

Because I can think of plenty of counter examples. In sunnier times, the histories of these events were called “the classics” and it formed the cornerstone of a young man’s education. Good thing we got away from that, those classically educated guys were so incompetent.

* The US population in 1965 was about 190 million. Our public schools were decent and had almost no students who did not speak English. It was possible for a working class family to buy their own home and not have to drive 50 or more miles to their job. The US was self sufficient in energy. The Interstate highway system was more or less the same one we use today but with 100 million fewer people using it. Our scientific and industrial technology was without peer and our economy was, by far, the largest in the world.

As for our military prowess well, twenty years before we had pushed across the Pacific and forced the surrender of Japan in three and half years and driven from the French coast to the heart of Germany in 11 months. While doing so we also built the world’s first atomic arsenal.

Tell me again why we needed 100 million additional people?

* From the position of the elite owner class (especially the elite minority class), more immigrants means more workers, more servants, more voters, more cannon fodder, more suckers. Their main interest is their own power and privilege. It’s about empire. And empire cannot sustained by nationalism alone. It’s like how Romans went from a republic to an empire.

For the owner class, it doesn’t matter who the sheep are or where they come from. Since they monopolize the power, they don’t see the newcomers as a threat. And if some of the newcomers were to rise to the top, their kids can intermarry with the kids of the owner class. The owner class mix in blood lines but the power will still be theirs. Who cares about identity when you got power and privilege? It’s like Tony Montana didn’t care about Cubanness as long as he had the money and the blonde chick and wasps doing business with him, and wasp bankers didn’t mind as long as he was shoveling money in their direction. Globalism is elite-imperialism where all the peoples of the world — white and non-white — are subjects. It is not true that ONLY white nations are subject to massive migrations and mess-ups. Look at the Middle East.

The owner class may use ideology but in a very flexible and adaptive way so that ‘progressivism’ can mean just about anything. They can turn mayday into gayday or convince women that ‘twerking’ is empowerment. Most people are dumb.

So, people are interchangeable. Whether US fills up with Mexicans, blacks, asians, etc, the owner class will still got what they got.

But the non-owner class have little in terms of power and privilege. They just get by, so their meaning of life comes from identity and values and territoriality. Even a lower-middle class American can feel pride of identity, feel morally worthy with solid values, and feel proud to be part of a collective owner of this land called US of A.

For the non-owners, it matters who is on the team. It’s not just about winning and losing but about being part of the team, win or lose, rich or poor.

Suppose there’s a white team. It matters to the team that it is white even if they lose the games. At least they got the team and are part of the team.

But to the owner of the team, the priority is to win. And if he can get rid of many or even all of his player and get new players, that is what is most important.

Owner-centrists think in terms of hiring mercenaries; the team-centrists think in terms of patriot-soldiers. Mercenaries can be bought for any price. Patriot-soldiers will only fight for their own nation and righteous cause; they cannot be bought, especially to fight their own people.

Now, both perspectives are valid. A team of white players understandably wanna keep it white as the team’s identity is what the team is about.

In contrast, an owner understandably prioritizes a winning record over who is on the team.

As sports is a business owned by owners, it is understandable that owners should choose.

But is a nation more like a collective team of those in it or is it like a company owned by a few big owners who get to fire and hire the members of the team? If we see nation as the latter, then the editorial is correct. If it’s good for the owner class(as the true masters/owners of the nation), why not go for it? More diversity means more for the owner class to choose from.

But if we see nation as a collective team of a certain people, then national policy must prioritize the racial ownership of the nation by the people whose history is embedded in the land.

As US is ruled by an elite minority, it doesn’t identify much with the majority white population. But what is truly horrifying is this mentality is spreading to Europe to the point where even a white gentile leader like Merkel is acting more like a member of the owner-class than a representative and defender of the German racial team.

She is actually worse than Jeb.

It is time for sheeple to turn into wolfen and take a bite out of the owner class.

PS. Israel is course run as a racial team for the Jews than a property of the owner class.

Posted in Diversity, Immigration | Comments Off

CLAIM: ‘NO BORDERS’ ACTIVIST GANG RAPED BY MIGRANTS, PRESSURED INTO SILENCE TO NOT ‘DAMAGE CAUSE

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

How many more Westerners will get raped and murdered if we let in more Muslims and Africans?

REPORT: A young, female ‘No Borders’ activist working in a migrant camp on the France-Italy border remained silent about her gang rape by Sudanese migrants for over a month because “the others asked me to keep quiet.”

Colleagues are alleged to have said that reporting the crime would set back their struggle for a borderless world.

The ‘No Borders’ activist had dedicated a month of her life to helping migrants. Her group was stationed between Italy and France in Ponte San Ludovico in Ventimiglia when the atrocity occurred, according to reports from local papers La Stampa and Il Secolo XIX, and now reported in the major Italian national Corriere Della Serra.

One Saturday night, as loud music played at a nearby party, the woman was reportedly trapped in a shower block set up near the camp in a pine forest know as Red Leap.

A gang of African migrants allegedly raped her there, and her cries for help are said to have gone unheard because of the music.

La Stampa reports that the woman, around 30 years of age, would have reported the horrific crime were if not for her fellow left-wing activists, who convinced her that if the truth got out it could damage their utopian dream of a world without borders.

But Corriere Della Serra also reports that some of her fellow activists are now accusing the woman of reporting the rape out of “spite,” because her group was withdrawn from the camp following a separate controversy.

Posted in Immigration, Rape | Comments Off

Mexican politician suggests lethal injections for the homeless

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

REPORT: Olga Gutierrez Machorro, a councillor in the local government of Tecamachalco, not far from Mexico City, has suggested that homeless beggars should be put down with a lethal injection to keep them off the streets.

“Yes they’re a little crazy, but they’re harmless. Which is why I think to myself wouldn’t it be kinder to just give them a lethal injection?”

She said in an interview with the local paper Diario Cambio that this would be an improvement on “wandering around on the roads in danger of being hit or causing an accident.”

Ironically, Ms Gutierrez Machorro is the councillor responsible for the Vulnerable Groups Commission, a group which tries to find ways to help the homeless and disadvantaged. She said that she had offered her own home for the homeless, but this was obviously not a long-term solution.

More ominously, she alleged that vagrants were already being killed — some mentally ill patients would be dumped onto highways so that they would be hit by vehicles.

The councillor’s remarks were provoked by frustration with a lack of funding for the homeless from the state government. However they caused outrage in Mexico and abroad. She has apologized for her remarks and is working on a new plan for the local government.

Posted in Homeless | Comments Off

On 9/11, Clinton Extolled “Ultimate Wisdom of a Borderless World”

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer notes: “Ten hours after Clinton said this, 19 diverse guys from a different culture killed 3,000 Americans.”

Comments:

* One of the simplest arguments against immigration is that immigrants will tend to be biased against the natives.

This is just normal ethnocentric bias that all people have.

But even among anti-immigration activists you rarely see this being brought up. I don’t think we have a commonly used word for it, something like “nativephobia”.

And by biased against the natives I don’t mean biased against the abstract principles of a nation, but against its people.

Terrorists like the 9/11 attackers or the Tsarnaev brothers are extreme examples. But more moderate, microaggression type bias is very common among immigrants.

It’s simple to say “We don’t want immigrants because we don’t want to live alongside people who are prejudiced against us and our heritage.”

* Will people buy that though?

“Oh don’t be silly. I have a Filipino friend who loves Americans.”

Obviously the phenomenon of which you speak is real but we need more undeniable examples than the Tsarnaevs.

Plus the left will spin that bias as “justified anger against white supremacy” or whatever SJW babble is trendy to say this week.

* More insanity from Germany: Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of the most powerful men in Germany’s Catholic Church and in the Vatican, has been interviewed by Merkur:

Madame Merkel, the daughter of a Protestant pastor, counts Marx as one of her counselors. In her recent interview with Deutschlandfunk radio, she explicitly quoted what Marx had said about the deluge of Muslim immigrants being a challenge that “the Lord placed on our table”.

A few tidbits from Marx’ interview in my translation:

“Many people say that Europe’s Christian identity must not be put in jeopardy. But it’s essential in Christian identity that we help someone who is in need regardless of creed and origin, and treat him with respect. If we don’t conform to this precept we put Europe’s identity in jeopardy.”

“Everybody has the right to emigrate and to immigrate.”

“It’s going to cost us a lot of money. German reunification was expensive, too. But there is more than just German unity! There [also] is European unity, the global unity of the family of humankind.”

“I cannot see that the chancellor’s decision to allow the refugees from Hungary to enter Germany without formalities temporarily was wrong. […] She even put herself above the law. That, too, is part of political leadership!”

The interviewer asks: The Pope wants to give refuge to two families in the Vatican. When are you going to shelter refugees in the bishop’s palace?

“I have been thinking about this for a while and would like to do it. But of course, the Vatican and its buildings are somewhat larger than Palais Holnstein, which today is primarily being used as a service facility with offices and conference rooms, therefore, there is a lot of traffic there.”

Open borders! If you’re against, you’re not a good Christian.

This past summer in Germany was unusually sunny and warm. A kind of pleasant languor had settled over the country that was still basking in the afterglow of the national soccer team winning the 2014 world championship. Of course, there was the usual bickering, the euro crisis, many people finding it difficult to make ends meet, bitter political rivalries. Few people would have said they were living in paradise.

And yet, when Germans look back on the summer of 2015, I think they will say what the citizens of Beslan said after the mass murder in their school by Islamic terrorists:

“We were happy and we didn’t know it.”

* Clinton was always a oligarchic puppet. He established his meat puppet credentials with NAFTA, WTO, PNTR with China, killing Glass-Stegall.

Look follow the money trail. The people promoting this line of thinking are globalists/neoliberals/Davos men whatever you want to call them. They like the notion of a borderless world because it destroys the value of labor and hence you can pay pennies where you used to pay dollars in terms of wages. The whole world would become one giant sweat shop or FoxxCon.

Politically it’s a boon as well. The masses will be at each other’s throats for scarce resources and no longer focusing on the elites that brought them this hell.

If it weren’t so attractive you wouldn’t have the richest men, all major foundations, think tanks and most powerful corporations in the world promoting this stuff. This isn’t about some BS ideology popular with a bunch of Leftist dolts, it’s about, wealth, power and control. This is why the TPTB are so into it.

* I look forward to Madame Clinton and her BFF Angela Merkel going to Jerusalem and saying,”Mr. Netanyahu tear down this wall! We live in a borderless world now!” I’m sure we’ll see it soon after a fork is used like a spoon for soup, a black kid reads a thousand books in one school year, and dogs and cats put that bitter past history behind them.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

If Jews Can’t Travel To Many Muslim Countries, Why Should Western Countries Allow In Muslims?

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

It does not terribly bother me that Jews aren’t welcome in Saudi Arabia and about 15 other Muslim countries. We Jews should return the favor to Muslims and advocate restrictions on their entrance to Western nations.

From Quora:

It’s well known among expats here that an Israeli stamp on your passport can get you denied entry to many countries in the Middle East.
With the tension between Israel and many countries in the Middle East, travel on an Israeli passport, unless previously arranged as part of a diplomatic mission, will likely subject you to intensive screening and refusal of a visa at the airport in the Gulf states, in less stable countries you might be arrested.
A visa application for tourism or work in the Middle East will ask for your religion. It is at this stage that the application for entrance into Saudi would likely be rejected, not at the airline. Note: It is completely acceptable to put ‘Non-Muslim’ in these visa documents. The airline would refuse to put you on the plane if you don’t have a visa, Saudi has a history of not giving you a visa if you’re Israeli or have israeli stamps…
To summarize:
1. Saudi has no diplomatic relations with Israel, and as such does not recognize Israeli passports. Mostly. There are occasional exceptions.
2. There are many Jews working in Saudi under the passports of many nationalities. The official position of the Saudi government is to not forbid Jews from Saudi.

According to Wikipedia:

Sixteen countries forbid admission to Israeli passport holders:
Algeria[8]
Bangladesh[9]
Brunei[10]
Iran[11][12]
Iraq (except Iraqi Kurdistan)[13]
Kuwait[14]
Lebanon[15] (neighboring country; territory dispute – Shebaa farms)
Libya[16]
Malaysia (Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Home Affairs.)[17]
Oman[18]
Pakistan (Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Internal Security.)[19]
Saudi Arabia[20][21]
Sudan[22]
Syria[23] (neighboring country; territory dispute – Golan Heights)
United Arab Emirates (accepted for transit only; not allowed for admission)[24]
Yemen[25][26]
In addition, Iran,[27] Kuwait,[28] Lebanon,[29] Libya,[30] Saudi Arabia,[31] Sudan,[32] Syria[33] and Yemen[34] do not allow entry to people with evidence of travel to Israel, or whose passports have either a used or an unused Israeli visa. As a consequence, many countries will allow for a second passport to be issued to citizens wishing to circumvent this restriction.

Dave Kopel writes in 2011 for the Volokh Conspiracy:

In January, Delta Airlines announced that Saudi Arabian Airlines is joining Delta’s SkyTeam network of international airline partners. Yesterday, WorldNet Daily reported that Delta employees would be enforcing a no-Jews policy when checking in passengers on SAA flights from the United States to Saudi Arabia.
I looked around the web for verification, and found the following: In 2004, a Saudi government website, promoting visits to Saudi Arabia, did state a “no Jews” policy. Apparently in response to extensive U.S. criticism, that statement was removed. The visa required for entry to Saudi Arabia mandates that the applicant disclose his or her religion. The typical advice for American visitors is to write “non-Muslim” or “Christian.” However, a 2007 article in Commentary magazine by scholar Joshua Muravchik reports on his recent visit to Saudi Arabia; he wrote “Jewish” on his visa application, and was nevertheless granted a Saudi visa.
It does seem to be widely reported, without contradiction, that Saudi authorities will deny visas to anyone who has an Israel entrance or exit stamp on his passport. This category would include not only Jews who have visited Israel, but also the many Christians who visit the Holy Land, as well as business travelers to Israel. Several other African and Asian governments apparently have similar policies.
At airport check-in in the United States, a responsibility of the U.S. airline which is checking in travelers for an international partner airline is to verify that the travelers have the appropriate documentation required by U.S. law (e.g., a passport) and by the foreign airline (e.g., an entry visa from the Saudi government).
The WND article reprints two letters from Delta Airlines to a person who raised questions about the above. Essentially, Delta’s position is that they just enforce whatever the destination government requires, and if you don’t like the destination government ‘s discrimination, go complain to the U.S. State Department.
I would have preferred an answer to the effect of “We have confirmed that Saudi Arabia does not discriminate against Jewish visitors, or people who have visited Israel, and we would never partner with an airline which would require us to enforce such reprehensible policies.”
Saudi Arabian Airlines is government-owned (with some ancillary services, such as catering, being privatized). Delta Airlines is exercising a choice to make its employees complicit in the enforcement of the Saudi government’s policies of hatred and discrimination against anyone who visits Israel. If Delta’s business alliance with the Saudi government is conditional on that government not reinstating a formal ban on all Jewish visitors, Delta has not taken the opportunity to say so. When I travel, I will exercise my own choice not to fly Delta.

During the 1940s and 1950s, most Jewish residents of Arab countries left:

The reasons for the exodus included push factors, such as persecution, antisemitism, political instability,[15] poverty[15] and expulsion, together with pull factors, such as the desire to fulfill Zionist yearnings or find a better economic status and a secure home in Europe or the Americas. The history of the exodus has been politicized, given its proposed relevance to the historical narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict.[16] When presenting the history, those who view the Jewish exodus as analogous to the 1948 Palestinian exodus generally emphasize the push factors and consider those who left as refugees, while those who do not, emphasize the pull factors and consider them willing immigrants.

I don’t think any people, including Jews, needs to give citizenship to people who hate them. Why should Israel (or the West) grant citizenship to Muslims or even allow them in? That makes no sense.

Posted in Islam, Israel, Jews, Saudis | Comments Off

Credit Scores Correlate With Relationship Health

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

Credit score correlates highly with IQ.

WP: The one number that’s eerily good at predicting your success in love
When people are looking for a significant other, they often try to find someone whose values, education, earnings, hobbies and even height match their own. But new research suggests there’s one promising measure for finding a committed partner that most daters overlook — credit scores.
A credit score is a number that is supposed to reflect the risk of lending money to someone, based mostly on their past history of borrowing, repaying and defaulting on debt. Banks have long used credit scores to evaluate customers, but these days potential employers, landlords, insurance companies, cellphone companies and many other businesses do, too.
A new working paper from the Federal Reserve Board that looks at what role credit scores play in committed relationships suggests that daters might want to start using the metric as well. The researchers found that credit scores — or whatever personal qualities credit scores might represent — actually play a pretty big role in whether people form and stay in committed relationships. People with higher credit scores are more likely to form committed relationships and marriages and then stay in them. In addition, how well matched the couple’s credit scores are initially is a good predictor of whether they stay together in the long term.

From the Audacious Epigone:

GNXP’s Razib alerted me to CreditReport.com’s listing of average credit scores by state*. Not surprisingly, the scores correlate strongly with a couple of the usual suspects. With the percentage of a state’s population that is non-Asian minority (NAM), the correlation is an inverse .74 (p=0). With IQ, the correlation is an even stronger .77 (p=0).
Because these relationships are somberly unsurprising, they’re not likely to be given any attention by Important People, anywhere, ever. (That is, unless to point out societal racism, evinced from racial disparities on the blank slatist assumption that differences in groups are entirely contingent upon external social forces, or to argue for more educational spending to combat American profligacy**).
Living around people who are not up to their eyeballs in debt makes for a better quality of life. Economic downturns are less disruptive, business is easier to conduct, neighbors are more likely to take care of homes they have equity in and cars they’re not half-expecting to be repossessed, etc. A state’s average credit rating could easily be included among the 44 social, cultural, and economic factors CQ Press uses to calculate its livability index. That index correlates with a state’s estimated average IQ at a nearly identical .80 (p=0).
A visualization illustrates that unlike the red-blue political divide conceptualized as pitting the coasts against the nation’s interior, when it comes to desirable places to live (weather excluded), a north-south divide emerges.
Steve Sailer excerpts from George Will’s obituary for the late Senator Moynihan:
The Senate’s Sisyphus, Moynihan was forever pushing uphill a boulder of inconvenient data. A social scientist trained to distinguish correlation from causation, and a wit, Moynihan puckishly said that a crucial determinant of the quality of American schools is proximity to the Canadian border.”
Richard Lynn has suggested that a north-south IQ continuum has evolved through selection for greater intelligence in less hospitable environments. It seems at least plausible that colder environments also selected for greater resistance to and tolerance of cold in the process. Which, in addition to historical settlement patterns, might offer some explanation as to why the north-south contiuum continues to exist (not just in the US, but internationally as well^).

Credit scores correlate with IQ which correlates with health.

Yahoo:

In this era of big data, a bevy of numbers is used to “define” a person: your IQ, weight, age, income, and even your number of Facebook friends. Now, new research suggests that one number may reveal much more than ever intended: your credit score.
Originally developed to set interest rates for home loans, this stat is now being used to determine everything from job eligibility to the cost of life insurance. “Your credit score is simple, in the sense that it’s a single number,” Salomon Israel, a Duke University post-doctoral scholar and psychologist, told Yahoo Health. “But it actually reflects a multi-year history of decisions.” As a result, it’s thought to shed light on something that companies can’t directly observe: how prone you are to taking risks. This may allow life insurers to estimate how long you’ll live and how healthy you are.
In other words, your credit score, once strictly used as a measure of financial health, may be a simple way to identify complex personality traits with far-reaching effects. “Credit scores capture things like: How organized are you? How trustworthy are you?” said Israel. These qualities are part of what psychologists call social capital, which includes education, IQ, self-control, and perseverance. “People might not be willing to give up a personality test or an IQ test,” he said. But a credit score? Most of us don’t hesitate to turn this information over, although Israel speculated this might change if we knew exactly how revealing that single number can be.
In fact, according to a new study in PNAS, conducted by Israel and a team of researchers from Duke University, the U.K., and New Zealand, your credit score may illuminate what’s happening inside your body, not just in your bank account. When they evaluated the heart health and credit scores of 1,037 New Zealanders, all age 38, who’d been tracked since birth, they found that their financial rating was strongly correlated to their risk of heart disease. Specifically, those with lower credit scores faced a higher risk of cardiac trouble.

Credit scores, family stability and health correlate with race. East-Asians, for instance, have higher credit scores, more wealth, more education, more family stability, and longer lives than whites who in turn have more of all these good things than blacks.

Posted in IQ | Comments Off

Jews & Germans

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

American Jewish historian Peter Novick writes in his book The Holocaust in American Life:

Just as Jewish groups’ principled declarations against totalitarianism did not prevent them from seeking entry for Jews who had been Communists, so the Christian groups’ equally sincere hostility to totalitarianism did not prevent them from seeking admission for their coreligionists who were former Nazis.
…One constraint was fear of confirming a long-standing and widely held negative perception of Jews. No lesson in comparative theology was as assiduously taught in Sunday schools across the United States as the contrast between the Old Testament God of Vengeance and the New Testament God of Love and Forgiveness. Recent experience had shown its continued currency. Toward the end of the war, President Roosevelt had casually endorsed, then quickly repudiated, a plan advanced by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau for the permanent deindustrialization (“pastoralization”) of Germany. Secretary of War Henry Stimson privately called the Morgenthau Plan “semitism gone wild for vengeance.”
…The popular association of Jews with Communism dated from the Bolshevik Revolution. Most of the “alien agitators” deported from the United States during the Red Scare after World War I had been Jews. In the interwar years the Communist Jew was a staple of anti-Semitic propaganda in both the United States and Europe….
Lucy Dawidowicz — later well known as an historian of the Holocaust, but in these years the American Jewish Committee’s expert on the percentage of Jews among ‘hostile witnesses’ before various investigative bodies. Jews, she found, often made up 75 percent or more of the totals. Worst of all, producing something near panic among mainstream Jewish organizations, was the number of Jews figuring in espionage prosecutions: the Amerasia case, the Canadian Spy Ring, the Judith Coplon case — culminating in that ultimate disaster for Jewish public relations, the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Morton Sobell, Harry Gold, and David Greenglass.
Jewish organizations worked frantically to combat the Jew-Communist equation, but it was a difficult brief. They could insist, correctly, that only a small proportion of Jews were Communists, or even well disposed toward the Soviet Union. But it was also correct, and becoming manifest, that a great many — perhaps most — American Communists in these years were Jews.
…Jewish organizations, throughout the fifties and well into the sixties, worked on a variety of fronts to prevent, or at least limit, the association of Jews with Communism in the public mind. Their principal co-operative venture was the ‘Hollywood Project,’ in which they jointly employed a West Coast representative who lobbied movie producers to avoid any unsympathetic representations of Jews. A good deal of this lobbying dealt with the Jew-Communist issue. The producer of I Married a Communist promised to see that no Communist character had a ‘name that can even remotely be construed as Jewish…
The inward turn on the part of much of American Jewish leadership, their insistence that ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ be the first, if not the only, question that Jews ask themselves — inevitably mandated a rightward turn as well. By the 1970s Jews were preeminent among the ‘haves’ in American society, and the gap between Jews and non-Jew, in income as well as in representation in all elite positions, widened over subsequent decades. Jews had everything to lose and nothing to gain from the more equal distribution of rewards which had been the aim of liberal social policies … The political movement called neo-conservatism was almost exclusively a Jewish affair; Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee, became America’s best-known conservative magazine.
…The hard-line anti-Soviet articles in its monthly magazine, Commentary, were, according to Norman Podhoretz, “part of a secret program to demonstrate that not all Jews were communists.” One of the [American Jewish] Committee’s staff members secured agreements from Time and Life and several New York newspapers not to publish letters from readers commenting on the Jewishness of accused Communists…
One Jewish official complained to a colleague that American Jews were “not taking anywhere near the measures or using the efforts in combating Communism as they do against Nazism.”
…One should never confuse the calculated public posture of Jewish officialdom with the “around the kitchen table” feelings of American Jewry, and especially not with respect to cold war inhibitions about discussing the Holocaust… Without official sanction, it could not become a public communal emblem; without official reinforcement, it tended, at least for many, to decline in salience.

Posted in Communism, Germany, Holocaust, Jews | Comments Off

Yidden Beware!

Posted on October 6, 2015 by Luke Ford

Yidden beware! A new generation of media-savvy goyim is using the media WE invented against us! How do we stop this cyber hate?

This is a time for extra vigilance! We must monitor EVERY video on Youtube and be ready to complain about it to the relevant authorities! If there is a copyright violation on display, let us not hesitate to use it against the antisemites!

Chaim Amalek writes: “I’ve already been in touch with the SPLC, and they promise to be in touch with Alphabet (formerly Google) at the top, as they run Youtube. We need to report this to Zuckerburg at facebook too. Let’s find out who is behind this and contact their employers and landlords and the banks that hold their mortgages, if any. We need to stomp this out ASAP!”

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off