Gabriel Schoenfeld writes: J Street is an organization that describes itself as “pro-Israel” and proclaims itself “devoted and committed to Israel’s future.” Yet, as Edward Alexander observes in an important new book, J Street “misses no opportunities to blacken Israel’s reputation and very few opportunities to encourage campaigns to delegitimize it.”
And J Street is not alone. Similar Jewish organizations, some without J Street’s pretensions to Zionist commitment, have been proliferating in recent years both here and abroad. In the United States, they include, among others, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews against the Occupation, Jews for Free Palestine, Jews for Justice in the Middle East, and a multitude of local chapters, offshoots, and branches.
In Jews against Themselves, Alexander takes up the curious and disturbing phenomenon of his volume’s title. A professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Alexander is a distinguished student of American and English literature and an essayist whose erudition is ornamented by a coruscating wit. Among his highly regarded books is The Jewish Idea and Its Enemies (1988), an examination of the various intellectual strands—liberalism, rationalism, relativism—that, emerging from the Enlightenment, have long been in tension with, or in outright opposition to, central tenets of the Jewish tradition.
In Jews against Themselves, Alexander engages in a related project but one that entails turning over a rock. His inquiry examines the disfiguring yet critical subject of Jews who defame their own people. Over the centuries, Alexander writes, there has been “fruitful interaction” between Jewish apostates and the world’s anti-Semites, making for a distinctive Jewish contribution to “the politics and ideology of anti-Semitism” itself.
Posted inAnti-Semitism|Comments Off on Jews Against Themselves
Racism is a wonderful institution that should be rejuvenated and inculcated in schools. It is the last barrier to global homogenization, and represents the default position of 99% of humanity over 99% of historical time.
A natural and indeed necessary sentiment, racism is just one method for people to evaluate others in accord with their genetic value. Without racism, the world today would be dominated by Neanderthals, or by the class of people who mostly inhabit sub-Saharan Africa. Civilization requires the leadership of society’s best people; those areas governed by less advanced demographics fall quickly into barbarism, as we see in so many places. In normal times, racism is so universally experienced that historians hardly bother to call attention to it. It is only in diseased and perverted eras, like our own, that elites rail against this ineradicable and precious human attribute.
Hate, too, is a necessary and valuable component of life, and anyone devoid of hate – (I’ve never known such a person) – isn’t living a complete life.
Racism and hatred are not illegal, no more so than vegetarianism or finger painting. A healthy society will never try to sequester such normal emotions, an effort forever destined to failure. I myself have a full supply of hatred and loathing and racism, which I take out every night and polish to a high sheen.
You don’t have to be paranoid to sense a new strain of anti-Semitism surfacing in American politics of late. Paranoia helps, but it’s not required.
We sense anti-Semitism when a media personality of Ann Coulter’s stature tweets about “f—king Jews” looming too large in Republican thinking. When The New York Times runs lists of Congress members with Jews marked in yellow. When President Obama and his allies speak loosely of big money and foreign influence while debating Middle East policy. When these things start happening almost weekly, it doesn’t require paranoia to sense an ancient prejudice rearing its head.
Paranoia helps, but it’s not necessary. All that’s really needed to see this as a wave of anti-Semitism is a very short attention span, or a willful obtuseness about the fast-changing nature of Jewish activism in the American political arena.
The change is tectonic; it affects not only the Jewish community, but also the larger American public square. This past summer, the organized Jewish community — that is, the major Jewish advocacy organizations, backed by much of the most militant grass-roots — plunged headlong into an intensely partisan battle against the administration. It landed some punches and drew some blood. That’s changed the rules in several important ways that most of us have barely recognized, much less adapted to.
For anybody keeping score in the Iran debate, how the Jews match up against their political foes is too important an issue to ignore. Unfortunately, it’s an issue nobody knows how to talk about. Tradition and instinct tell us there’s a special name for foes of the Jews: anti-Semites. Individual Jews may be good or bad, but the Jews as a collective are, we insist, on the side of the angels. If the Jews — the collective — are in a fight, someone must be picking on them. It can’t be a fair fight.
But what should we call it when the organized Jewish community plunges willingly, en bloc, into a pitched battle — White House vs. Congress, Washington vs. Jerusalem — and gives as good as it gets? Observers don’t know how to keep score when all the normal political calculations end up sounding like anti-Semitic tropes: How much money is on the table, What factors are influencing lawmakers’ decisions? What role do other countries play? What’s the likelihood failure will lead to war?
…The change has a number of causes. One is the growing comfort and affluence of American Jews. It’s easier than previously to throw one’s weight around. There’s less caution. Jewish advocacy is thus a more unabashedly visible political force, prompting more comment — and pushback.
Another factor is the nature of this fight. Past disputes usually concerned issues of primal urgency to Israel but of only secondary importance to Washington. On Iran, both governments are defending their own fundamental national security. That’s raised the stakes, and the heat.
Yet another is Washington’s toxic partisan atmosphere. Jewish community advocates used to stay above the partisan fray and maintain good ties with all sides, even when they disagreed. That’s much harder in today’s atmosphere…
Finally, Netanyahu has tinkered with some long-standing assumptions about Israel-Diaspora relations. Since Israel’s founding, its leaders have sought to avoid actions that might suggest dual loyalty among Jewish citizens of other countries. Netanyahu, reared largely in America, seems to consider that caution anachronistic. From defiant actions like denouncing White House policies before Congress, to subtler signals like appointing to Washington successive ambassadors who are former Americans now loyal to the Jewish state, he’s shown repeatedly that the old diffidence is gone, shame replaced by pride. In his view, there’s no reason to fear sending American Jews into battle against their own government.
The trouble is, changing the rules of Jewish advocacy, as Netanyahu is doing, brings consequences, and it’s not clear that American Jews understand or welcome those consequences. As the Jewish community’s representative bodies enter the swamp of Washington partisan politics, the Jewish community as a whole comes to be seen as part of that swamp and subject to its rules, including the insults and dirty tricks that other partisan factions are used to.
Ordinary Jews, mostly liberals and Democrats, find themselves reviled for positions that they don’t support, and in brawls for which they never signed up. Many will walk away.
Posted inAnti-Semitism|Comments Off on Is The Tide Turning Against Jews?
To most, these will sound like the words of an online troll, or at the very least someone with what in the 1990s we used to call “anger management issues.” And that’s probably an accurate assessment.
Yet these are not occasional, one-off outbursts, but rather part of a pattern of behaviour from perhaps the most darkly fascinating person currently causing grief on social media. They are the words of Randi Harper, an activist who runs a charity set up to prevent online abuse. Yes, you read that correctly.
This is the story, in three parts, of how Harper rose to prominence, how she has gotten away with such outrageous behaviour for so long while maintaining friendships with influential media commentators, activists, and journalists, and how she treats those who disagree with her far-left, hardline feminist politics.
It is the product of dozens of interviews with friends, former colleagues, and objects of Harper’s vindictive social media crusades. Almost all of them refused to speak on the record for fear of reprisals from Harper and her band of social media supporters.
Our interviews reveal a deeply troubled, hateful, and damaged human being in desperate need of help. They also expose just how tolerant to hatefulness the authoritarian left-wing establishment in America has become, provided the abuser in question has the right sort of opinions.
“Randi Harper is probably the person doing the most harm to the cause of feminism on the internet today,” a well-known progressive journalist confided last week, on condition of anonymity. “Ordinarily we could dismiss her as a mess. But she has become a damaging force.”
Harper herself apparently believes she has something to hide: shortly after being notified that this story would appear, she swapped the names of her two Twitter accounts, @freebsdgirl (on which the majority of her hateful invective had been published) and @randileeharper. She has since made the @freebsdgirl private so that only users she has approved can see her past tweets.
***
Randi Harper first caught the internet’s attention during the GamerGate controversy, which many figures on the American progressive Left have used to raise their media profiles. She attracted a number of supporters for her attacks on video game fans.
Indeed, she and her supporters have formed a kind of digital mob, which she now uses to relentlessly attack anyone who challenges her, seemingly irrespective of who they are or what they have said. That they have publicly contradicted her appears to be enough.
Since her ascendance to minor notoriety, Harper has become known for her abusive tactics and for misrepresentations of her critics. Her trail of victims includes diversity activists, technologists, data scientists, bloggers, gamers, and ordinary social media users.
This report will examine widely publicised and deeply disturbing claims about Harper’s private life that shed light on what led her to lash out at the world in such vicious and remorseless fashion.
Despite claiming to oppose online abuse, Harper the cyber-bully and internet troll, together with her mob-like army of followers, has been involved in numerous campaigns of abuse against multiple targets in the past year.
In this, the first of three parts, we examine a snapshot of Harper’s online wars by illuminating four distressing stories of innocent victims left professionally damaged, scared, or simply infuriated by her abominable behaviour.
Roberto Rosario
Roberto Rosario is a 29-year veteran of software development and former head of Puerto Rico’s chapter of the International Games Development Association (IGDA). His crime, in Randi Harper’s eyes, was following the wrong people on Twitter.
Harper’s claim to fame is a Perl script called the “GGautoblocker”, which she says is a tool to automatically block “internet harassers” and “misogynists” on Twitter. But peer-reviewed research commissioned by the feminist organisation Women, Action and Media found that just 0.66 per cent (65) of the 9,844 Twitter accounts on the list can be classified as “harassers.”
The reason for this appalling ratio — 9,779 innocent people lumped on a list with “harassers” — is that Harper’s list functions on the principle of guilt by association. If you follow the wrong people, you are automatically added to the list, regardless of what you, personally, have done.
It is an extraordinarily blunt tool, to put things mildly.
Moreover, the “wrong people,” in Harper’s view, are not harassers or misogynists, but bloggers, journalists, and academics with whom she disagrees. The present author is on the list. Lawyer and lifestyle blogger Mike Cernovich is on the list. At one point, Hollywood star Adam Baldwin and feminist academic Christina Hoff Sommers were on the list. Follow any of these people, and the GGautoblocker will tag you as a misogynist and a harasser.
This is what happened to Roberto Rosario, one the most prominent figures in Puerto Rico’s tech community. Describing Harper’s list as “the most idiotic algorithm I’ve seen,” Rosario pointed out that preemptively accusing people of harassment and misogyny on the basis of their associations was “nonsense.” He is surely right.
Harper made no effort to clear Rosario’s name, stating instead that if Roberto “didn’t want to be labelled a creep, he shouldn’t attack women’s credibility,” and refused to remove his name from the list.
What followed was a relentless campaign of abuse against the software developer. Since criticising Harper, Rosario says he has been “harassed and threatened on the web daily” because of people who “didn’t know him and assumed he was a misogynist,” thanks to his inclusion on Harper’s list.
Needless to say, far from being a misogynist, Rosario is a sponsor of IncludeGirls, a group that aims to improve gender representation in tech. Such details didn’t matter to Harper or his other abusers.
A nadir was reached when Rosario was targeted by an anonymous Reddit user who identified himself as a supporter of Harper’s autoblocker. The Redditor posted private pictures of Rosario’s family as well as his home address online. The user said Rosario was a “PIECE OF TRASH” and promised to release “tons more” if he continued to speak out against Harper’s autoblocker.
Rosario’s career was also targeted, and he states he was even blacklisted from speaking at certain events. He was eventually cowed into silence, and no longer issues public comment on Harper’s blocklist or related issues.
Throughout these happenings, Harper, the “online abuse prevention activist,” did nothing to assist Rosario. His name remains on her blocklist.
Chris von Csefalvay
Chris von Csefalvay is a data scientist living in Oxford. He is a fellow of both the Royal Society of Arts and the Royal Statistical Society, with degrees from the Universities of Oxford and Cardiff. He is currently chief data scientist to a FTSE 100 company. He was recently diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS), a highly debilitating disease.
Csefalvay first became a target of Harper after he published a network analysis indicating that GamerGate, a movement Harper is implacably opposed to, did not fit the characteristics of an “online hate campaign.”
During a Twitter exchange with Csefalvay, Harper accused the data scientist of employing a “dismissive tone.” Csefalvay clarified his position, stating that dismisiveness was not his intention and that “the more people interested in [the topic of gamergate], the better.”
Harper did not accept his apology. Accusing Csefalvay of being a “fake data scientist,” she urged her followers to explain to him why he “isn’t just a sexist tool, but an entire sexist home depot.” Naturally, she also added him to her autoblocker.
Posted inFeminism|Comments Off on HARPING ON: THE HYPOCRISY AND LIES OF TWITTER’S MOST NOTORIOUS ‘ANTI-ABUSE’ ACTIVIST, RANDI HARPER, PART 1
From Breitbart: It seems that staff at Google Ideas, the Internet giant’s New York-based think-tank, aren’t very good at googling.
If they were, they might have thought twice before inviting notorious online abuser Randi Harper to a discussion on preventing online abuse, given that entering Harper’s name into their own search engine raises more red flags than a team of bullfighters running through a NASCAR event.
In fairness to Google Ideas, Harper has made an effort to cultivate an image as an online harassment guru. But her project to combat online nastiness, the “Online Abuse Prevention Initiative,” is irreparably tarnished by the abusiveness of its founder.
It’s also not clear what, if anything, the name represents beyond a WordPress page on the internet. The organisation appears to have no staff and no funding and is not registered with the authorities. To all intents and purposes it simply does not exist.
As Breitbart has previously reported, Harper is well-known for sending relentless mobs of abusers after her critics. Roberto Rosario, a Puerto Rican software developer and diversity activist, says he has been “harassed on the web daily” ever since he dared to criticise one of Harper’s Twitter blocking tools, the Good Game Autoblocker.
Another member of the “anti-harassment” discussion is Rose Eveleth, the Atlantic journalist who helped trigger the online public shaming of Rosetta Mission scientist Dr. Matt Taylor in 2014. The vitriolic campaign, started absurdly because of Taylor’s allegedly offensive shirt, eventually caused the scientist to break down in tears on live television. But it’s OK — he was being harassed for social justice.
Google Ideas is a PR exercise, designed to make Google seem socially-conscious and engaged with the world’s problems. Visit its website and you’re quickly met with messages about how they’re going to defend free speech, help investigate corruption, and generally save the world. It’s a distraction from Google’s less utopian purpose, which is the harvesting of data and the sale of online ads.
And, of course, there’s always the possibility that this is Google’s way of throwing a bone to the social justice crowd, giving them a photo op so they don’t have to actually do anything. But the messages it sends about Google’s priorities aren’t good.
Google gave up “Don’t be evil” long ago. Might be time to replace it with: “Don’t pose for a photo op with blue-haired, Patreon-supported, habitually abusive hipster evil.” I know they say poachers make the best gamekeepers, but this is ridiculous.
Posted inFeminism|Comments Off on GOOGLE IDEAS INVITES ONLINE HARASSERS TO TALK ABOUT ONLINE HARASSMENT
* Smart move on Putin’s part though something of a gamble.
As Michael Corleone said, ‘keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.’
Build the main mosque in Moscow as the National Mosque. Forge close ties with establishment Muslims, and use that power to guide and direct Islam all across Russia. Such control from the center may counterbalance the more rogue forms of Islam that is sprouting everywhere.
One thing for sure, Putin cannot simply wish Muslims away. They are a reality in Russia. In some regions, they are the majority. Also, we know from ISIS and Alqaeda that Islam can easily go rogue and radical.
Also, US and Saudis may work with Turks to encourage the spread of crazy Islam in the peripheries of the Russia. Better to centralize Islam and keep it close to Kremlin. Saudis maintained power by centralizing Islam via connection with the Wasabi sect.
With Putin aiding Assad, he might be seen as the enemy of Islam by some Muslims. He has to counterbalance such perception with a show of support for the National Mosque.
Also, if establishment Muslims work with Putin in Moscow, the unity of Christianity and Islam will work as a bulwark against the globo-neo-faith of homo-worship(which really is a quasi-spiritual movement with homos as god-fairies over us all. I mean the pussy riot and such ilk won’t dare pull a stunt against the Mosque. Muslims will tear them limb from limb. So, play the Chrislam card. While US is spreading homo-faith all over the world, Putin opens a National Mosque in Moscow. That sends a message. If globalists try to spread homo filth in Moscow, it is an affront to Christians and Muslims. Notice that the Muslim world is one place where US never tries to spread homo filth-as-faith or failth).
Also, what did the greatest political philosopher of all time say? Merlin said to Uther, ‘he has given, now you must.’ Russia fought a bitter ruthless brutal war with Muslims in the Caucasus. Russians won but must try to appear magnanimous in victory.
Also, Putin has leaned heavily on Israel, but it hasn’t led to many dividends. It’s better for Moscow to lean toward not only Jews but Muslims, especially as globalist Jews are hellbent on destroying Russia. Putin has been very nice to Jews but has nothing to show for it.
Putin is protecting Christians in Syria, and some might see this as Russia vs Muslims. So, it makes good sense for Putin to support an establishment Islam that is respectable and not radical, one that is able to work peacefully with a Christian civilization.
Putin has been trying to revive Christianity, so it may seem counterintuitive for him to make this pro-Muslim move. After all, there have been many Christian vs Muslim wars.
But when we look at the EU, the main problem is Muslims vs secular decadent West. Muslims see weakness. It’s not Islam vs Christianity in the West. It is Islam pushing against the vacuum created by implosion of Christianity and its successor Marxism, which one time had confident militant power among the intellectual class and among the workers. (Also, there was powerful nationalist rightist movements in Western Europe well into the 70s). Western communists were not self-loathing idiots and they were anti-immigration in name of the native worker. They were anti-imperialist but also focused on the rights and needs of domestic workers. But Marxism is gone too as an ideology in the West. So, what creed is left in the West? Just pop culture, PC, jungle fever, Jew-worship, and homo-failth. When Islam pushes against that stuff, it smells blood.
But Putin has supported a confident National Church in Russia. He sent a strong message that faith and tradition matter in Russia. That is the kind of power that Muslims can respect.
When a Mosque goes up in the West, it is filling a vacuum. In Moscow, it is a way of Islam seeking a peaceful co-existence with Christianity with confidence and strength. It’s like Protestantism and Catholicism eventually found a way to co-exist in Germanic lands.
On a darker note, the problem is the Muslim population grows faster than Christian population in Russia as elsewhere. But this can only be countered by Christians having more kids.
When you see an enemy or rival, one way is to try to totally defeat them. The other way is to win them over or infiltrate them.
Chinese have done this with Tibetan Buddhism. At one time, they tried to destroy it. But they eventually decided to create their own version of it.
Jews have tried to destroy Christianity in the USSR under communism. In the US, Jews figured it’s better to turn Evangelicals to Zionism and turn Mainline into pro-homo failth. They succeeded.
Putin may have similar ideas about Islam. Develop ties with the community and come to an understanding where Christianity and Islam become partners.
It’s like the American Protestants made peace with Catholics even though at one time many were hostile to Catholicism.
Islam has deep roots in Russia. It is not so alien to them as it may be in other parts of white world.
* I don’t understand why Russia won’t get rid of her muslims areas. I realize there are natural resources in many areas, but I thought the lion’s share of her resource wealth was in Siberia, not the muslim Caucasus region.
Apparently there are nationalists in Russia who want to rid the Russian Federation of non-Russians, i.e. muslim areas.
The Saker blog has this article written by Putin in which he argues against Russian nationalists. It appears Putin is more interested in Russian cultural connections than in any ethnic or religious ones. I suppose that also explains why he is so concerned with Russian speakers in Israel.
“The core, the binding fabric of this unique civilization – is the Russian people, Russian culture. And it is this core that various instigators and our opponents will make every effort to tear out of Russia – with false assertions about Russians’ right to self-determination, “racial purity”, the need to “finish the job of 1991 and complete the destruction of the empire, sitting on the necks of the Russian people” – in order to ultimately force people to destroy their Motherland with their own hands.
I am deeply convinced that attempts to promote the idea of creating a Russian “national” mono-ethnic state contradict our thousand-year-old history. Moreover, it is the shortest path towards the destruction of the Russian nation and Russian statehood – as well as any viable sovereign statehood in our land.
When they start screaming: “Stop feeding the Caucasus,” just wait, as tomorrow a new call will inevitably follow: “Stop feeding Siberia, the Far East, the Ural, Volga, Moscow region…” This is the recipe followed by those who brought the Soviet Union to collapse. As for the infamous idea of national self-determination, which has been speculated on repeatedly by various politicians – from Vladimir Lenin to Woodrow Wilson – while fighting for power and political dividends, the Russian people have long self-determined themselves. Self-determination of the Russian people – a poly-ethnic civilization, held together by a Russian cultural core. This determination has been confirmed many times over by the Russian people – and not in plebiscites or referendums, but with blood. Throughout the entire 1,000 years of history.”
Does anyone with first hand knowledge of Russia know if the nationalist view or the Putin view is the dominant view among average Russians? Based upon how I’ve evolved the last 20 years in increasingly factious America, I’d tend to support the nationalist view if I were a Russian. But I’ve have never been there, don’t speak the language and have no clue about their beliefs on this topic. It seems crazy to make nice with muslims who enslaved your ancestors and sacked your cities. But what do I know?
* Putin’s problem is Russia isn’t strong enough to fend off the Washington globalists alone so he needs as many allies as possible. In the short term this protects Russia but not in the long term. If the globalists could be defeated the ethno-state argument would become easier.
Also a lot of the globalist’s comments about Putin are straw men. People like Putin not because he is this or that but because he seems to care about Russia – unlike the whore western politicians who are all either bought or blackmailed.
* Perhaps the whole Mosque complex was commissioned as a way for the Russian secret service to keep a close on eye on the Moslems they have (particularly given that Moscow would be the first target for any Moslem terrorist group)?
Whatever the motives, you can be sure that the place will be infiltrated by the Russian secret service inside out and almost everyone going in and out will be closely watched. Putin commissioned this back in 2005 when Chechen attacks were more common than they are now (which is also a success for Putin).
Putin is a realist – no one can simply “wish” away 25-30 million Muslims living in Russia (many of whom have been there for centuries).
I also think most Americans and Europeans don’t understand Islam as practised in the “STANS” very well – most of those populations that grew up under communist tyranny are nominally Muslim but their adherence is very “tenuous” at best. I have had numerous dealings with Kazakhs and Uzbeks etc. and their “Islam” is nothing like what we see among the Arabs.
* I’m in Eastern Europe now and by chance I met a tourist from Qatar. (Yes, my life is one endless i-Steve episode.) I asked him why he thinks Qatar is taking in zero Syrian refugees while Germany is Hoovering them up. He said, “We like our country the way it is now and the Germans are being stupid. Who needs to import beggars?”
* Putin sees himself at the head of a counter-empire to that of US global dominance. And part of his imperial catchment area most certainly contains plenty of Muslim states. So Putin’s relationship to Islam can be seen as a sort of Martin Luther — his tacit goal is to impose a Reformation on Islam by pushing it away from the Wahhabi-style medievalism. This sort of reform Islam will become the state religion of any Muslim zones under Putin’s influence.
While the root of the Islamic problem in Saudi Arabia.; the root of the current refugee crisis is in the neoconservative implementation of a sort of Oded Yinon Plan where socialist / nationalist Arab states are destroyed and Balkanized into tiny triblets. It is interesting to see Putin on the ground in Syria and leading the fight to destroy the ISIS (which can only be read as at the very least, a US-tolerated organization). If successful in Syria, will Putin be able to play Humpty-Dumpty and put those shattered Arab nation-states back together again? And will he be able to threaten Saudi Arabia. Donald Trump was asked directly a month ago if he would defend Saudi Arabia and the answer was not an unequivocal yes — he left just a little bit of doubt hanging in the air.
And the mass migration of the 3rd world into Europe will trigger a form of migrant-austerity that is going to further smoother an already wheezing European economy — not to mention the crimes and rapes that the media will attempt in vain to play down or cover up. This will obviously empower anti-EU nationalist movements throughout the continent, which are typically pro-Putin. So Putin is giving the future nationalist leaders of Europe an example of how to live in harmony with Islam — that you must dominate and tame it from above. Like a master to a dog.
Posted inIslam, Russia|Comments Off on Putin’s Mosque
You see what happened was these immigrants called the Goths were welcomed into Roman territories because some people felt bad for them. And then the Goths suddenly decided they were being oppressed, you see…
At this point he is disrupted by the Canadian illegal immigrant children who are overfilling his class.
* Mr. Garrison is a Right Wing Homosexual. He always sides with the political right on issues that having nothing to do with Homosexuality. He is a Gay version of Thomas Sowell.
Posted inSteve Sailer|Comments Off on Steve Sailer Themes On South Park
From Chateau Heartiste: A long time ago, the now-defunct Chateau Heartiste Twatter, censored on trumped-up charges by an obese bluehair, contained within its trove of 140 character bits of wisdom a prophecy, if you will, that the legal sanctification of gay marriage would inevitably and assuredly lead to the decriminalization and eventual social acceptance of a satanic host of other abnormal arrangements, including polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, cuckoldry fetishism, and… yes… pedophilia.
(Searching for this prophetic tweet is now impossible, so you’ll have to take my word for it.)
Twatter readers, red pillers all of them, nevertheless could not accept the CH prediction of the eventuality of pedophilia as necessarily consequent from the social and legal embrace of the gay marriage trojan condom. Those other CH predictions of glorious cultural progress – polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, cuckoldry fetishism – seemed so much more plausible to them than that there would ever be a time when the people would become so depraved that twisted rationalizations for pedophilia come as easy to them as rationalizations for gay marriage come to them today.
I’m attracted to children but unwilling to act on it. Before judging me harshly, would you be willing to listen?
Another CH prophecy heralding the dawn of Shitlibistan coming true right before your eyes. No need to wait for this one, either. The right side of history operates on a compressed time schedule.
You have to be made of stern stuff to broach the topic of pedophilia —
true pedophilia, not that phony “pedophilia” of which dumbfuck disingenuous, aging hag fat feminists accuse straight men for the sin of possessing a normal healthy male sexuality and being attracted to adolescent women with the full suite of secondary sexual characterisitcs
— without surrendering to an automatic, and psychologically healthy, reflux disgorging the nature of the topic from your thought channels. We’re not going to discuss the neurobiological possibility of pedophilia — a possibility which may exist but if so merely warrants that “sufferers” are absconded to the icy wastelands with extreme prejudice so their urges can never be made corporeal — but instead prefer to focus on the leftoid reaction to the neurobiological possibility of pedophilia, which creates a powerful cognitive dissonance because the vile nature of pedophiles rubs against the two predominant moral senses of liberals: fairness and harm avoidance.
What is the sensitive, tolerant, open-minded, GoodWhite liberal to do? If pedophiles “can’t help it” — just like gays can’t help it — then is it not imperative that “society” (aka the CisWhite Privilege Zone) accept them for who they are, be more fair toward them, and reduce any discriminatory and exclusionary harm against them? But children can’t consent, right? Oh dear oh my this is a pickle, frets the shitlib. But if this is the pedophile’s nature and he is proud of who he is (just like fatties and trannies are rightly proud of who they are), asks the feminist, shouldn’t he have the right to be free of the patriarchy’s judgment?
The fretting is on full display in that Salon article’s comment section, where you can practically see the smoke coming out of all those liberals’ ears as one moral abstraction exercise after another fries their androgyne circuits, and their rationalization hamsters spin themselves into an oblivion of scattered tufts of fur.
What you are witnessing is the first tentative equalist leftoid incursion on the final Western cultural taboo. Most shitlibs aren’t quite ready to “go there” yet, but their pained and labyrinthine babble betrays a weakness within them to abandon this distinctly conservative moral objection against any form of pedophilia acceptance. Leftoids know, even if they won’t admit it now while the taboo is still powerful, that absent no-nonsense authority figures to stop them from indulging their worst instincts they will eventually find their way to pedophilia nonjudgmentalism.
The problem now for leftoids becomes, “Well, if we draw a judgmental line in the sand at pedophlia, that will open the discourse to drawing judgmental lines in the sand for a lot of other misfit paraphilias that we have championed for the past sixty or more years. Do we dare provide support for this last taboo and risk the edifice of our entire lost world crashing down upon us?”
And there we discover the leftoid’s underbelly: her nonjudgmentalism. What a caustic, deranged, demonic philosophy is nonjudgmentalism, that one day soon it will be put to the project of normalizing the vilest freaks in the human panoply. It is already underway: faggotry, obesity, ugliness, stupidity, sluttery, single mommery… even antipathy to racial self-preservation!… are being normalized from the center outward by the nonjudgmentalism anti-matter philosophy that motivates equalist leftoids.
Leftoids are toddlers in lumpy adult bodies. They throw tantrums over the stupidest shit, and if you cave to their demands just to make the noise stop they learn that throwing tantrums is a profitable way to get what they want. Like toddlers, leftoids need to be sternly admonished, and sometimes SPAKNED, into submission. Truth is, most leftoids have a secret inner submissive begging for a strong patriarchy to set strict boundaries on their behavior.
“I’m a pedophile, please hear my story.”
Brace yourselves, because the blowback to our emerging Weimerica is shaping up to be violently spectacular.
* I just watched “Going Clear,” a documentary about Scientology, and the way the world inside the bubble of scientology apparently operates made me think that’s kind of what the world would be like if every single person was a libertarian ideologue. I mean, Scientology is basically a corporation that exists to not pay taxes, and to pay its flock of brainwashed faithful 40 cents an hour as employees.
* As a retail tax attorney for over 2 decades, there is nothing in a typical 1040 efiling of a legal noncitizen resident to preclude such a person from getting EITC. There are a few questions and the dependent, school, residence information, but basically there’s one box to check off that the taxpayer has been advised that this is avery important legal document and don’t lie. And a few people who’s income suddenly exceeded the threshold to so qualify had no problem leaving my office in a huff to find some other less law-abiding tax preparer to make their document more …EITC eligible. Again speaks to the idea that most enforcement provisions despite promises otherwise to get the law passed fall by the wayside very quickly.
Further the IRS has few institutional controls to prevent rampant fraud. In one recent tax year, it allowed thousands of refunds to be direct deposited to fictional taxpayers and stolen SS numbers all registered to one address in noted small town America hamlet of Vilnius, Lithuania. That is but one of thousands of examples under the Obama regime.
* Compton got Hispanified over the past few decades and benefits from the relative wealth of the Los Angeles metro area compared to many other parts of the state. The general rule is to follow our West Coast version of the Canadian border test. There is a type of longitudinal wealth gradient that runs downhill when driving east from the beach. Billionaires Beach in Malibu is a few hours, and light years, from troubled spots in the Inland Empire and beyond east of LA.
* The real question is, Steve, is that why do certain economists, politicians and other immigrationist fellow travellers lie, lie, lie and lie, through their teeth, when at some level – if we discount the possibility that they are simply ignorant gullible fools – that mass third world immigration to the west is ‘beneficial’, when the actual empirical evidence, if one cares to study it without prejudice and with cold, hard rationality, is absolutely overwhelming that it is a huge fiscal and economic liability?
* The left’s main project is destroying the West. Welfare statism will survive enough in the short term to facilitate this goal.
I certainly would not describe the main priority of the right’s base to be destroying the welfare state. I think intuitively if not consciously most white people realize that without ethnic aliens in our mix a welfare state would neither be especially costly nor unsustainable. Of course blacks cost us hundreds of billions a year but a meaningful solution to the black question is not going to happen in any foreseeable future, so the best politically feasible thing to promote is the end of third world immigration, especially of the illegal variety.
* Reuters is criticizing the Hungarian government for building it’s new border fence efficiently. Writes Reuters about Hungary’s new 110 mile fence: “It was erected at a cost of 22 billion forints (about $80 million), a rare example of efficiency in a country which built its last underground metro line ten years behind schedule at triple the projected cost.”
The Reuters article described this effort by the Hungarian government to look after the interests of the voters and solve the migrant problem quickly, efficiently, and cheaply as “ruthless efficiency.”
The article further goes on to demonize Hungary’s Orban by pointing out that Orban has “moved quickly to stir public opinion this year with a series of campaigns, amplified by friendly media, including a new state controlled news channel.”
Because leftist governments in places like America and the UK would never operate news media (perhaps with acronyms like BBC, PBS, and NPR), would never spend taxpayer money propagandizing the voters, and would never collaborate with the media to push an ideological agenda.
* As your video notes, three quarters of the migrants are horny Muslim males 15-40. So what provision is Germany making to sexually service them?
Are each bunch of five Muslim men going to pass around the one Muslim woman who came with them? Is Germany going to pay for German whores to service them as part of their welfare benefits? Are they going to be serviced by their young Muslim boys?
In one year they will constitute a ten percent increase in the number of young breeding age men in Germany. So who will volunteer to be their “comfort women”? The liberal German chicks holding up the “Welcome to Germany!” placards?
Maybe German liberals could create a Go Fund Me site or something. The last army of men who invaded Germany in 1944 were a bit more “informal” in procuring sex, but I suspect this is not something the Germans want to repeat.
* The burden on Social Security is immense. Green card holders bring over their elderly parents who are eligible as “family members.” If 65 or older they apply for SSI as “aged” disabled, which means over 65 which means automatically eligible since they are old, and they get SSI, which means they also get Medicaid to pay their Medicare premiums. When working in California a few years back I was shocked at the number of nursing homes full of non English speaking foreigners, and it’s not just Spanish.
A friend who works at Social Security says his biggest gripe is when illegals finally get their green card. Their U.S. born children can “sponsor” them. This takes years but they get it before age 62 then its off to Social Security to claim all the contributions most Americans think they never get. My friend says if they cite when they used false SSNs or others peoples SSNs they have to match up the records and give them credit for all those work quarters with their new legal SSN. Of course using wrong SSNs is a felony, but no matter, they get decades of work credit.
But if not they can wait until age 65 to become disabled “aged.”
* I don’t think many on the alt-right support Trump because of his nuanced reasoning, alpha-male character, stance on climate change, hot gfs/wives, understanding of foreign policy issues, or success at inheriting/creating wealth. Etc.
Instead, it’s Trump’s stance on immigration policy.
With bonus points for his disdain of political correctness. And his willingness to cross his fellow billionaires and media celebrities.
If not for the dreadful quality of the other candidates (excluding the 0%-polling Jim Webb), Trump wouldn’t be getting traction from this quarter. His core Flyover Country support would be lower, too.
It seems to me that Shaeffer’s alluding to that. Trump has seized on immigration as his springboard. Will he pivot to the mainstream consensus, when it suits his purposes? Trump may well have Napoleonesque ambitions as a Great Man, in the mold of Huey Long, Juan Peron, or Silvo Berlusconi.
Under the circumstances, it’s a risk worth taking.
* The central lie here is pretend belief in racial equality. Nobody believes that if the population of Japan suddenly died out and was replaced by Africans that the land mass that used to be Japan would still be an economic super power. Nobody believes that when Muslims take over a European country the economy and the left’s precious social justice will be improved. So why does the left support mass Muslim immigration? Pure racism, they’re not white and they’re not Western. They don’t care about the consequences as long as whitey goes. But then we’ve seen that in the last 50 years of city after city being destroyed by their hate in this country.
* What Schaeffer is commenting on here is the fact that Trump’s political rhetoric is aimed at the 85-100 IQ crowd. This is the fat to left side of the Bell Curve and a huge demographic to appeal to. Schaeffer is not insulting Trump — he is just saying that even with Trump appealing to this crowd, his arguments have more integrity than the Open Borders crowd.
Personally I don’t need Trump to appeal to my IQ tranche. It’s pretty obvious he is anti-immigration, anti-free trade, and anti-neocon. I would settle for just two of those! I want him to be able to sell these and other policies to people who watch professional wrestling.
And it’s clear Trump is an intelligent man and is more than capable to make complicated appeals to intellectuals. But he is smart enough to know that is not how you win an election.
* Is “libertarian” a new euphemism for truculent innumerate ahistorical fool?
1. If you want both less welfare and more immigration, show us how smart you are by convincing Congress to abolish welfare before you open the borders. If, like Bryan Caplan and Alex Tabarrok, you want to open the borders first so immigrants can all get welfare for some indefinite, possibly perpetual, period before welfare is abolished, you are just an enemy of all your fellow citizens.* Notice that changes in welfare spending are easily reversed but getting rid of poor immigrants after they arrive is very difficult.
2. US welfare spending has increased remorselessly since 1965 from 8% to 19% of GDP (!) (figures from OECD in 2014) despite a large influx of immigrants. There is no sign whatever that increasing the immigrant fraction of the population dampens enthusiasm for welfare spending. Indeed, the trend is otherwise– and immigrants attract more welfare spending than natives because of their higher fertility.
3. Immigration makes government grow, not shrink. Immigrants and their spawn require more policing than natives as well as more public education, public healthcare, public housing, etc. Also natives seek government jobs as a refuge from labor competition from immigrants. Native politicians go along eagerly because government growth means more power for them. US federal, state, and local bureaucracies have massively expanded since 1965 (the federal civil service payroll has been restrained since the Bush ’41 administration but that means nothing because massive hiring has been “contracted out.” Naturally federal contracts are awarded to cronies).
*And don’t insult our intelligence with “guest worker” proposals. We all know that guest workers never leave and always end up on welfare with their spawn. If you bring up guest workers you simply prove yourself a liar or a fool.
* My impression from Facebook groups of Tea Party and Ron Paul 2012 supporters is that libertarianism at the mass level is largely an ethnic pride movement for people who identify primarily with the Founding Fathers and with the American Revolution.
* Immigration moratorium was the best thing to ever happen to White middle class Americans. The proof is that 1950s got American White families the highest standard of living ever, anywhere. And 1950s was smack in the middle of the immigration moratorium.
When the moratorium was lifted in 1964, by 1973 the wages of a man with a high school diploma began stagnating then declining, NEVER to regain the old 1950s level.
* The point about California is it used to be one of the wealthiest and best educated states and after mass immigration it’s near the bottom.
Clear and unequivocal proof that the economic arguments for mass immigration are either wrong or deliberate lies.
Posted inHungary, Immigration, Islam, Libertarian, Rape|Comments Off on Alex Tabarrok’s “Open Borders and the Welfare State” vs. Peter Schaeffer’s Comment Tsunami
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
relentless mobs of abusers after her critics. Roberto Rosario, a Puerto Rican software developer and diversity activist, says he has been