March 30, 2015 Are Whites Hopeless? Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Are Whites Hopeless?

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Keith emails: I am a white. Have read a little bit of white nationalism. But one thing has to be mentioned about why whites are experiencing predation against them by blacks. Its because over the centuries whites have been pruning themselves of their aggressive breeds through: needless wars, psychiatric confinement, and through the criminal justice system. You can trace this back to medieval europe when they had all sorts of strange punishments for relatively minor offenses.

And so if we look at why whites are being gradually exterminated and dominated by non-whites is because they have literally castrated themselves by locking up all their “nuts”.

Jews are socially dominant because they have a higher rate of mental illness among them. Jews are known for being crazy. There are statistics and old news articles from the early 1900’s that talk about jews having higher rates of mental illness. To be totally 100% sane means to be tame and docile. Crazy means untamed and there are different levels of crazy with some people being crazy but allowed to exist within society and some crazy people that are not allowed to exist in society.

If you look at south africa the black social class that is responsible for fostering a connection to the ancestors and thus a sense of ethnic identity are the schizophrenic shamans. But whites have been locking up their schizophrenics for centuries so it is not surprising they have lost a sense of kin-identity and a sense of connection to the ancestors.

Black people by white standards are literally crazy and mentally ill. However they are allowed to get away with it because it is considered part of their culture.

So I think what we are witnessing is just darwinian selection unfolding and their is nothing that can be done about it. When a race breeds itself to be a bunch eloi they should not be surprised when they become dominated by a race of morlocks(time machine reference hg wells). In other words the white race is hopeless. It does not make sense for a white to base his or her tribal affiliation based on their race. White people do not function as a tribe and those whites who treat the white race as their tribe end up getting attacked by other whites. So white nationalism is not rational. Race realism is rational but not white nationalism.

We shouldn’t be surprised when racial selection that occurred over the course of over a thousand years to make whites more tame and docile results in other ethnic and racial groups becoming dominant over whites or preying upon whites. It is nature. And what this also implies is that there is no hope for whites. You literally cannot fix something that is the result of over a thousand years of breeding selection. You just can’t. It’s like explaining to a rabbit that the wolf is the predator. What is the rabbit going to do about it?

>>And yet 100 years ago, WASPs ruled the world.

Well I think there is something to be said for whites using various institutions and social shaming in order to make their race more tame. That situation may not account for everything that has happened to us and nature is often nuanced and complex. So you do bring up a good point about WASPs having ruled the world 100 years ago. The British ruling class is known for being eccentric though and the British Empire provided an escape route for people who may have been rough around the edges.

I also read an article once that talked about how British psychiatry had a reputation for being slightly more lenient than American psychiatry. I just find it odd how we can discuss so much stuff like jews and blacks and social class and on and on and yet there is very little discussion among any of these race realist blogs about what impact psychiatry has had on our race. It’s as if we are supposed to treat psychiatry as some sort of unquestionable force of nature. But does an unquestionable force of nature one minute declare homosexuality a mental illness and the next minute say it isn’t?

Plus you have the world wars that destroyed many of our best warriors and our most nationalistic people.

But why did our global dominance end? I’m not sure the theory I proposed accounts for it entirely, I do think the theory I proposed has a lot to do with our current situation… but as to why our global dominance ended…

Part of it may have something to do with whites are uncomfortable with power for its own sake. The British needed some sort of “white mans burden” thing to justify having an empire. So even though they were “masters of the world” they were still operating according according to a servant ethic of needing to serve the world in some ways. They never valued themselves enough to be comfortable with simply being served by the world. So in a sense they were pursuing dominance from a domesticated standpoint and one cant hold onto power from that standpoint.

The idea above is basically something Ilana Mercer, the South African jewish lady who writes on the black issue, was talking about.

The idea of whites being committed though to a servant ethic ties into the domestication policies it pursues on itself, the ones I mentioned regarding psychiatry, incarceration, social shaming, sending the warriors to foreign lands, etc.

Whites are basically a slave race and it has revealed itself to be uncomfortable with holding power. And so it should not be surprised if someone who is comfortable holding power decides to hold onto power in its stead.

But how did this race come to power? I think the non-servile elements of the white race managed to achieve certain things despite the nature of the rest of the whites. But ultimately the bulk of the white race had its will made manifest and this is why we see whites being relegated to a humiliated sort of flunky status today. Because this is what whites want. This is why white people on the BBC are always traveling around helping Africans. They are flunkies. These people are not the master race (if there is such a thing).

I don’t foresee one race becoming dominant over the entire world though.

Posted in Jews, Whites | Comments Off

Jews, Judaism & Racism

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Jazz musician and philosopher, the ex-Israeli Gilad Atzmon says:

Jewish power is the ability to silence criticism of Jewish power…

There is no doubt that Judaism, the Talmud and the Torah contain some devastatingly crude and even inhumane verses and teachings. And yet, traditionally Rabbinical Judaism was very effective in suppressing any manifestation of Jewish collective goy hatred. If Rabbinical Jews were supremacist, as some may forcefully argue, they were also timid. They segregated themselves and, largely kept their anti Goy attitude to themselves.

This changed radically with Jewish secularization. The Godless Jew transformed choseness into a form of a racially driven, tribal privilege. Yuri Slezkine in his invaluable book, ‘The Jewish Century,’ confirms that Jews were ‘Stalin’s willing executioners,’ in the Holodomor, the systematic deadly starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the early 1930s. The demography of the Spanish International Brigade is also revealing. 25% of the Brigade’s combatants were Jewish. Yiddish was the Brigade’s Lingua Franca. We have to ask what is it that motivated these young revolutionaries to fight Catholic Spain? Was it really a battle against Fascism, was Franco a Fascist? Why did they burn so many churches, after all, one would expect these Jewish revolutionaries to first combat rabbinical tyranny and the synagogues. Just a few years later, in 1948, the Nakba – once again, a collective of secular socialist Zionist Jews engaged in a systematic racially motivated ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

The Jews who perpetrated these colossal crimes against humanity were not rabbinical or religious; they were Godless and succumbed to left ideology…

For some time, France has been dominated by a forceful Jewish lobby (CRIF) that has been able to determine the boundaries of discussion as well as freedom in general. It is interesting to examine the treacherous role of the current socialist government in that respect. In some of my recent writing I argue that both Jewish and Left politics contain an element of animosity towards working class people. Jews are generally fearful of the Working Class because it is always that class that turns against them. The Left is also dotted with antagonism towards working people (those who are now reduced into a Workless Class), because of the embarrassing fact that the working people have never joined the promised revolution. In France we see a strong bond between the uniquely unpopular socialist government and a tribal lobby group that is concerned solely with Jewish interests. How embarrassing…

Jewish power is not a Zionist phenomenon. In fact, it is mostly sustained by the Left, by Chomsky type activists, Democracy Now and to a far lesser extent Norman Finkelstein whom I appreciate as an intellectual (though I hardly agree with him on anything). The tactic is obvious. We are pushed to operate within a given discourse that contains some clear boundaries. We are restricted by terminology that is designed to block real scrutiny of the most troubling issues and conceal the truth…

I think that belonging is inherent to human nature and it takes different shapes at different times. I believe that racism and nationalism have been replaced by ID politics. We are trained to talk ‘as a’- as a Jew, as a black, as a gay, as a disabled person, and the forms of these sectarian political structures are very interesting…

We always have to ask ourselves, who benefits? Don’t we want to be Americans or French again? Or do we prefer to operate within marginal sectarian cosmopolitan ID settings? I am not sure. Again, if health, education and labour are at the core of a healthy society, ID politics operates as a clear obstacle. It prevents us from dealing with ‘real issues.’ We discuss gay marriage and anti-Semitism instead of building factories, hospitals and schools…

It may be possible that Jewish power will be restricted in the near future. It may even be possible that some future Jewish suffering is inevitable and this is, of course, unfortunate. I am confident that the Jewish elite is not going to be affected by such circumstances. If anything, they will be the first to benefit from any such a development. Ask yourself how many Rothschild died in the holocaust? Would Israel have been established without the Shoah? Would the Jews be as powerful without the Holocaust? These are open questions and in order to understand Jewish power we must engage in these topics and grasp once and for all the sophistication of the Jewish tribal matrix, the way in which it evolves and so on…

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off

Family Values

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Tina posts: This is their way of dancing I guess. My daughter is half puerto rican and asian. And no way she is going to grind on her cousins like this. This leads to sexual intentions. My ex dance to this type of music with his cousins. I don’t like it when I see it. He told me when he was young, his cousin asked to suck his penis. Latino girls say this is ok and they do it to their family? Then go grind on your fathers then….it’s sad to see their own families grinding on eachother, and their excuse……”we’re brought up that way”. Any human being would know this is wrong.

Posted in Dance, Latino | Comments Off

A Great Testosterone Story

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

A friend says: I know this guy

Idiot liberal

He was talking about his father

His father went to the doctor

They diagnosed him with “too much testosterone”

So he started taking these pills

And the guy was elated because his father apparently stopped watching Fox News – which he used to watch fervently

And he turned into a liberal!!!

I don’t find that funny. I find it disturbing.

It’s very dystopian

He took the femininity pills and they emasculated him!!

Robbed him of his manhood and his rational will

Um it’s terrifying

And sad

People buy into that stuff

Who decides who had too much testosterone?

* A husband I know gets sick and his wife asks him, “Can you increase your disability policy?”

From a male perspective, women can seem terribly unromantic and pragmatic. They often don’t pause much before moving on to their next meal ticket.

I keep explaining to men, “Women aren’t bad because of their pragmatism. That’s just how they’ve evolved to survive, to deal with bigger dangerous men by trickery and deceit.”

* I wonder if God was sending me a message by giving me a traffic ticket last week outside the Museum of Tolerance? Perhaps the road I’ve been traveling on of late is the wrong one and I need to instead use my talents promoting diversity and multiculturalism?

* Why do people immediately assume I have lots to say about suicidal beta males like the German Wings pilot and German Wings pilot and Elliot Rodger types?”>Elliot Rodger types?

Posted in Testosterone | Comments Off

Black Guy Hates Free Speech

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Barrett Holmes Pitner writes: Regardless of how repugnant we all may find the n-word to be, it should be clear to any rational person that this scandal isn’t about a black person saying “my nigga” in a rap lyric or even about a white youth saying it to his friends. This is about a group of youths gregariously chanting that those “niggers” should be hanging from trees. One usage expresses the support of murder, and one does not. This is how free speech transitions to hate speech and then to dangerous speech.

America needs to start a debate between free, hate and dangerous speech. Internationally this discussion has progressed further than here. In America the emphasis has been on hate crimes, which advocates for increased punishment for crimes perpetrated because of hatred of another’s race, religion or sexual orientation. Internationally the focus has shifted towards dangerous speech, which is a form of hate speech that clearly correlates to negative outcomes.

Susan Benesch, the Director of the Dangerous Speech Project in her paper, “Countering Dangerous Speech: New Ideas for Genocide Prevention,” says that “by teaching people to view other human beings as less than human, and as mortal threats, thought leaders can make atrocities seem acceptable — and even necessary, as a form of collective self-defense.”

The international emphasis of this discussion is centered around recent genocides and mass killings such as in Rwanda, Srebrenica and during the Holocaust; when the leaders of these atrocities publicized dangerous hate speech to disseminate ideologies of hatred to spur their followers to act, cow bystanders into passivity, and justify their crimes.

The hate speech used in these countries directly correlated to the commission of atrocities, and this discussion of dangerous speech could be beneficial in the United States. As a nation, America has tried to progress from the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings and racial inequality while maintaining noble principles of free speech. Even now, the rather tepid addition of hate crime legislation constantly meets with resistance from many conservative lawmakers and parts of society. They argue a crime is a crime no matter its motives, and justice must be evenly meted by law enforcement. Coincidentally, the Department of Justice has just published its report finding that the Ferguson police department — and one would imagine many others in the country — is dangerously biased in its policing and treatment of its black citizens. It makes one wonder if any of the cops charged with protecting black communities were ever members of an organization or community that was comfortable referring to black Americans as niggers? The fraternity scandal demonstrates how racist, oppressive and dangerous traditions are still alive and well, and may contribute to the continued oppression of minorities.

Posted in Blacks, Censorship | Comments Off

Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Thane Rosenbaum writes: All of us know, however, and despite what we tell our children, names do, indeed, hurt. And recent studies in universities such as Purdue, UCLA, Michigan, Toronto, Arizona, Maryland, and Macquarie University in New South Wales, show, among other things, through brain scans and controlled studies with participants who were subjected to both physical and emotional pain, that emotional harm is equal in intensity to that experienced by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic. Physical pain subsides; emotional pain, when recalled, is relived.

Pain has a shared circuitry in the human brain, and it makes no distinction between being hit in the face and losing face (or having a broken heart) as a result of bereavement, betrayal, social exclusion and grave insult. Emotional distress can, in fact, make the body sick. Indeed, research has shown that pain relief medication can work equally well for both physical and emotional injury.

We impose speed limits on driving and regulate food and drugs because we know that the costs of not doing so can lead to accidents and harm. Why should speech be exempt from public welfare concerns when its social costs can be even more injurious?

In the marketplace of ideas, there is a difference between trying to persuade and trying to injure. One can object to gays in the military without ruining the one moment a father has to bury his son; neo-Nazis can long for the Third Reich without re-traumatizing Hitler’s victims; one can oppose Affirmative Action without burning a cross on an African-American’s lawn.

Of course, everything is a matter of degree. Juries are faced with similar ambiguities when it comes to physical injury. No one knows for certain whether the plaintiff wearing a neck brace can’t actually run the New York Marathon. We tolerate the fake slip and fall, but we feel absolutely helpless in evaluating whether words and gestures intended to harm actually do cause harm. Jurors are as capable of working through these uncertainties in the area of emotional harms as they are in the realm of physical injury.

Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency. No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon.

Posted in Censorship, Jews, Nazi, Thane Rosenbaum | Comments Off

Australia Must Have Zero Tolerance for Online Hatred

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Link: Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any democratic society, however, freedom of speech is not the only right that we have: People also have the right to be free from racial vilification, bullying and abuse, writes Tanya Cohen.

Here in Australia, it’s just common sense that freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the right to offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate, vilify, incite hatred or violence, be impolite or uncivil, disrespect, oppose human rights, spread lies or misinformation, argue against the common good, or promote ideas which have no place in society. We all learned this in school, and it’s not something that’s even up for debate. Hate speech is not free speech, as the oft-repeated saying goes. Freedom of speech is something that comes with responsibility and it has to be balanced against other human rights, such as the human rights to dignity and respect. This is something that more or less everyone here agrees on, including libertarians. Journalists and human rights activists are the biggest supporters of our hate speech laws, but the laws have universal support among all sections of Australian society. Freedom of speech is a core Australian value, but it’s not the only value we have. As Australians living in a society built on diversity and multiculturalism, we simply refuse to tolerate any forms of racism or hatred. The need to protect vulnerable minorities from all forms of hate speech is something that practically all Australians firmly agree with (aside from a few racist bigots who want to incite hatred against vulnerable minorities as “free speech”, of course). Our courts have ruled multiple times that it doesn’t matter whether your statements are “true” or “balanced” or not – if the statements are likely to paint vulnerable minorities in a negative light and/or incite hatred against vulnerable minorities, then those statements are illegal in Australia, as they should be.

Our federal Racial Discrimination Act makes it illegal to say things which may offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate vulnerable minorities. This law has been successfully used to convict right-wing hatemongers like Andrew Bolt. When the Abbott Government recently proposed watering down our federal laws against hate speech (they wanted to replace the words “offend”, “insult”, and “humiliate” with the word “vilify”), it outraged the entire country, and human rights groups like Amnesty International Australia and the Human Rights Law Centre launched a highly successful campaign to force the government to back down. Across the country, people held protests against the proposal to weaken our federal hate speech protections, and polls found that almost everyone in the country was staunchly opposed to any proposals to weaken legal protections against hate speech (according to one Fairfax poll, at least 88% of Australians agreed that it should always be illegal to offend, insult, or humiliate minorities, and all other polls showed similar results). Every single human rights group in the country spoke out against the proposals to weaken federal protections against hate speech, and even right-wing libertarians were outraged that anyone would propose watering down laws against hate speech. In the end, we won. Not only did the Abbott Government abandon its plans to weaken our federal protections against hate speech, but they recently announced that they would actually be strengthening legal protections against hate speech. The people of Australia successfully showed the Tony Abbott administration that we simply won’t stand for any attempts to water down laws against racial hatred.

Australia is fully dedicated to protecting the basic human rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised segments of society, including their rights to dignity, honour, respect, and non-discrimination, and their rights to not be subjected to hatred. Unfortunately, across the Atlantic, there is a web of hatred and intolerance being spun online – and this web is easily accessible to Australian citizens. In Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission does its best to prosecute and remove all forms of hate speech on the Internet, and the Racial Discrimination Act can be used to seize anyone’s Internet records if they’re suspected of hate speech. But, in the US, there is no human rights culture whatsoever. To this very day, the US refuses to pass any kind of human rights legislation, and hate speech remains completely legal there. There are absolutely no laws of any kind against racial vilification in the US. To people in a human rights-based culture like Australia, this sounds hard to believe. After all, even our most dedicated free speech absolutists still firmly agree that racial vilification and incitement to hatred should always be illegal. Even George Brandis himself – the far-right ultra-libertarian who wanted to water down our federal hate speech laws – said that racial vilification, Holocaust denial, and offensive opinions which weren’t participating in a public discussion should always be illegal. George Brandis is by far the most extreme free speech fundamentalist in Australia, but even he agrees that racial vilification and incitement to hatred – including Holocaust denial – must always be legally punished. Brandis’s proposals were universally seen as recklessly removing all limitations on “freedom of speech” at the expense of vulnerable minorities, but they still included at least SOME limitations on racial vilification. In the US, there are no laws against any kind of racial vilification whatsoever. Racial vilification goes against the very core values of this nation, hence why it remains so highly illegal. Freedom of speech does NOT give one the right to oppose the values of the nation. Racism is NOT what modern-day Australia is all about, and it has absolutely no place whatsoever in modern Australian society.

There are two sides to the free speech debate in Australia: the people who believe that all offensive or insulting speech should always be illegal (the vast majority of Australians), and the people who believe that only racial vilification or incitement to hatred should be illegal (the far-right, ultra-libertarian free speech fundamentalists). There isn’t a single person in Australia who thinks that there should be NO legal restrictions on hate speech or vilification, so it’s hard for us to believe that, in 2015, there is actually an advanced country where hate speech remains completely legal. But it’s entirely true. In the US, there are no laws whatsoever against any kind of hate speech, and even the most severe forms of racial vilification and incitement to hatred are allowed. The United States even protects the right to advocate violence against vulnerable minorities as “free speech.” In fact, even hate speech which isn’t part of any kind of public discussion is protected as “free speech” in the US. This is absolutely unfathomable to Australians, as even ultra-libertarian George Brandis’s much-maligned proposal to weaken our federal hate speech laws still included protections against hate speech that wasn’t part of a public discussion. George Brandis himself said that, for example, posting Holocaust denial on the Internet or chanting racist slogans at sports stadiums would remain illegal under his proposals since they weren’t contributing to any kind of public discussion. Most Australians believed that George Brandis’s proposals went way too far in allowing racist hate speech, but his proposals didn’t go anywhere NEAR as far as what’s allowed in the US. In Australia, racist speech is never acceptable, even when it’s part of a public discussion – the Australian people made this very clear to Brandis. But, in the US, racist speech is ALWAYS allowed, even when it’s NOT part of a public discussion. Those racist chants by University of Oklahoma students would still be highly illegal under George Brandis’s ultra-libertarian proposals, but they’re actually completely legal in the US – and American so-called “progressives” actually AGREE that this kind of racial vilification should be completely legal. In fact, I’ve actually had “progressive” Americans tell me that Brandis’s outrageous proposals “didn’t go nearly far enough” in protecting “freedom of speech.” Yes, these people are genuinely considered “progressive” in the US. It absolutely boggles the mind how unbelievably backwards the US is when it comes to basic human rights.

Human rights groups, the UN, and the international community have demanded that the US pass laws against hate speech for several decades now, but the country steadfastly refuses to do so. There simply isn’t any human rights culture whatsoever in the US, and even America’s so-called “progressives” still seem to oppose the creation of anti-hate speech legislation, citing “freedom of speech.” In Australia, it would be absolutely laughable for someone to call themselves a “progressive” while opposing laws against hate speech. After all, even our far-right nationalists still support laws against hate speech. You simply cannot call yourself a progressive in Australia unless you support the outlawing of all un-progressive speech. One of the most fundamental goals of the Australian progressive movement is ensuring that anyone who voices un-progressive ideas is aggressively prosecuted, and this is something that all Australian progressives firmly agree with. But, in the US, “progressives” actually believe that hate speech and even severe racial vilification should be protected as “free speech.” In fact, even minorities in the US still tend to oppose anti-hate speech laws which are designed to protect them. I recently had an African-American tell me that it was “ridiculous” to prosecute people for making racist comments. Minorities in the US really don’t seem to understand the harmful effects that hate speech has on them and the very real danger that it places them in. To people in civilised countries like Australia, it’s just terribly sad to see how brainwashed the people of America have become. Americans have been conned into thinking that freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything (especially if you have money). They genuinely believe that freedom of speech gives people the right to spew hatred, racially vilify vulnerable minorities, argue against the common good, and oppose human rights. It’s profoundly sickening to anyone in a human rights-based culture like ours, but, to Americans, it’s perfectly normal, and there is unfortunately nothing that we can do about it. We’ll never be able to change the deeply backwards way that Americans (including American so-called “progressives”) think.

America’s refusal to crack down on hate speech – in clear defiance of international human rights law – makes it very difficult for other countries to protect human rights online. Civilised countries all have laws against online hate speech and government Human Rights Commissions to prosecute online hatred, but it’s little use when the US – which, unfortunately, still controls most of the Internet – refuses to protect basic human rights. Not only does America not have any kind of American Human Rights Commission to prosecute online hatred, but they don’t even have any kind of Human Rights Act making hate speech illegal in the first place (by failing to outlaw hate speech, the US is explicitly violating international human rights law). There are millions and millions of hate sites run out of the US, and Human Rights Commissions in civilised countries would seem powerless to stop them. Despite countless human rights organisations telling the US that it needs to crack down on hate speech – especially online hate speech – America continues to protect hatred and intolerance as “free speech,” which means that these hate sites are allowed to continue to spread bigotry and discrimination around the world with impunity.

Well, if the US isn’t going to stand up for human rights, then it’s time for civilised countries to take stronger measures to protect fundamental human rights online. What I propose is something called a Human Rights Online Act. This Act would not only make it a severe criminal offence on the federal level to publish, distribute, promote, or access hate speech online, but would also implement a federal Internet filtering system to protect Australians from being exposed to hate sites run out of the US. The Internet filter should block access to all hate sites, and anyone who tries to access any hate sites should be sent to gaol, much like people who access child pornography. In keeping with other human rights legislation in Australia – like the proposed Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which was unfortunately narrowly defeated by the efforts of the far-right – anyone accused of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating other people should be required to prove their innocence or be declared guilty automatically, and this should also apply for anyone accused of publishing, distributing, promoting, or accessing online hatred. The principle of guilty until proven innocent is the only principle that really works when it comes to cracking down on hate speech, and every human rights group in Australia supported the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill declaring people guilty of hate speech until proven innocent (in fact, most human rights activists felt that the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill actually didn’t go nearly far enough). Ergo, I propose something like the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill be passed with special emphasis on combating online hatred. Someone needs to protect vulnerable minorities from being exposed to this toxic hatred, and, if the US won’t, then Australia needs to.

Internet filtering should not just filter out hate speech. It should filter out anything that violates human rights and/or poses a danger to society. Our Australian Classification Board bans any film, video game, book, or other form of media if it offends against community standards, contains content harmful to society, or is demeaning to human dignity. If a book, film, or video game contains content that degrades human dignity, then it therefore constitutes a violation of human rights, since human dignity is a fundamental human right that all civilised governments are tasked with upholding. Unfortunately, the Internet has made it difficult for the Australian Classification Board to do its job. In the US, the government cannot ban any movie, book, or video game, no matter how dangerous, harmful to society, or degrading to human dignity. As such, certain people have taken advantage of this in order to sell their disgusting products to Australia through a digital format, where Australian Customs will be powerless to stop them. When the Australian Classification Board banned the vile computer game Postal 2, the game’s distributors proceeded to set up an online store for selling the game digitally to Australian customers – and nothing could be done about it aside from prosecuting anyone who bought the game, which would be very difficult to do without comprehensive Internet filtering of the sort that I’m proposing. Thanks to the US and its lack of human rights legislation, not only does hate speech and vilification flow into Australia through the Internet, but so does obscenity, rape porn, gratuitous violence, and other filth that has absolutely no place in a civilised society.

Unlike in the US, Australia has human rights-based press regulation and rules about who can own media outlets, in order to prevent right-wing hatemongers from gaining too much influence. Freedom of speech should never allow anyone to oppose human rights or attempt to undermine progressive policies, and right-wing hate outlets like the ones run by Rupert Murdoch have been able to oppose progress and manipulate public opinion against the common good in this country for far too long now. During the Finkelstein Inquiry, Australian progressives and human rights activists unveiled rules that would require all blogs to register with the government. I believe that this proposed law should be revived as part of the Human Rights Online Act. All Australian websites should be required to register with the Australian Human Rights Commission in order to ensure strict compliance with human rights. If any websites contain content that opposes human rights, then they should be shut down immediately and their owners sent to gaol. In addition, all Australian websites should be required to promote human rights. Any website found to inadequately promote human rights should be shut down by the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the owner fined or sent to gaol. Like the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, this would effectively shut down the Murdoch media empire and all other right-wing hate outlets.

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any democratic society, and I cannot possibly stress enough how important it is that we have the inalienable right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and all societies need to uphold freedom of speech to the maximum possible extent. However, freedom of speech is not the only right that we have. People have the right to be free from racial vilification as well, and this also applies to the Internet. Hate speech online not only has the potential to devastate the most vulnerable and marginalised segments of our society, but it has also been proven to incite hatred, violence, and murder. When Frazier Glenn Miller shot up a Jewish community centre last year, it didn’t start with the shooting. Miller had been an active member of numerous online hate communities for years. The same goes for Anders Behring Breivik, who went on the deadliest shooting spree in recorded history, targeting minorities and “cultural Marxists” in Norway after being an active member of hate sites run out of the US (like all civilised countries, hate speech is highly illegal in Norway, but they are powerless to stop their citizens from accessing American hate sites). Acts of racial violence always start with words, and the only way to prevent them from happening is to crack down on all forms of hate speech. The people who promoted racist, Islamophobic hate speech online are every bit as responsible for the Norway massacre as Breivik himself was. The massacre in Norway is a strong warning for anyone who thinks that racial vilification is acceptable. Was it “free speech” when white supremacist terrorist Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 innocent people in Norway based on racial hatred? Was it “free speech” when Frazier Glenn Miller shot three innocent people to death at a Jewish community centre? Was it “free speech” when the Nazis killed twelve million people in concentration camps? The US might think so, but Australia certainly doesn’t.

International human rights law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) makes it very clear: all nations are required to outlaw all forms of hate speech, including any ideas based on racial superiority or hatred. The United Nations has emphasised many times that cracking down on online hate speech is a crucial aspect of the battle against intolerance in the modern era, and the UN requires all nations to prosecute online hate speech along with all other forms of hate speech. Online hatred is a scourge that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of our beautiful and harmonious multicultural society. We cannot force the United States to respect basic human rights – after all, not only does the country still refuse to ban hate speech, but it also still doesn’t even have universal healthcare – but we CAN take a stand against online hatred in our own country. While it’s important to oppose Internet censorship and ensure that any measures to crack down on online hate speech do not interfere with legitimate freedom of speech, Australia cannot continue to stand by while an ocean of online hatred from the United States continues to flow into this country.

Online hate speech coming from the US does affect Australians, including the most vulnerable and marginalised members of Australian society. Recently, a disgusting American neo-Nazi website called The Daily Stormer published a series of articles racially and religiously vilifying Muslim Australian human rights activist Mariam Veiszadeh, and encouraging others to do the same. Mariam Veiszadeh is a human rights activist and lawyer who has been at the forefront of expanding Australia’s legal protections against hate speech, and she does not hesitate to take to court anyone who spouts racism, Islamophobia, or other forms of hate speech. But, since The Daily Stormer is a US-based website, the site took full advantage of America’s lack of human rights laws, saying that there was “absolutely nothing that Mariam can do” to stop them. That same website has published numerous articles racially vilifying other Australians, including Jews, Arabs, Pacific Islanders, Indigenous people, and more. But even that is nowhere near as bad as sites like Chimpout, an American website dedicated entirely to mocking and celebrating the deaths and murders of innocent black people (including Indigenous Australians). The content on Chimpout is some of the most vile, extreme racial hatred and vilification imaginable. Users of the site will post news articles about, for example, black babies being killed, and they will celebrate those murders as “niggers being made good” (in the view of the site’s users, “the only good nigger is a dead one”). When a Torres Strait Islander woman in Cairns killed her eight children, the site’s users celebrated it and said that she was “doing a huge favor for Aussie taxpayers.” Can anyone with a conscience honestly believe that this sort of behaviour is acceptable? Can any sane, reasonable individual honestly believe that this sort of vile, hateful, inhuman filth has any place whatsoever in society? This sort of disgusting vilification may be acceptable to Americans, but it’s DEFINITELY not acceptable to Australians.

Hate speech – whether in real life or on the Internet – has absolutely no place in Australian society, and it has absolutely no place in any modern democracy, for that matter. Laws exist to enforce acceptable behaviour and, if something is unacceptable to the vast majority of the population (which bigotry certainly is), then there is absolutely no logical reason why it shouldn’t also be illegal. Bigotry is illegal for the exact same reason that robbing a bank is illegal: it is completely unacceptable behaviour. Freedom of speech does not allow anyone to say things which the vast majority of people find to be completely unacceptable. Bigotry may be acceptable to Americans, but it is most certainly not acceptable to Australians. Freedom of speech should never be a license to hurt people, to undermine progress, to abuse human rights, or to be a right-wing bigot. It’s time for the Australian Human Rights Commission to begin filtering the Internet to protect Australians from the insidious online hatred that flows like an ocean out of the United States. There can be zero tolerance for intolerance, and human rights institutions in this country must be willing to go to any lengths in order to combat the toxic forces of hatred and bigotry. Hateful, hurtful, insulting, or offensive speech can never be “free” when one considers the devastating cost it has on society and on its victims. Hate speech certainly isn’t “freedom” to Indigenous Australians and other highly vulnerable, marginalised members of our society. Rather than silencing dissent, outlawing hate speech assists dissent and prevents the bullying of groups into silence. Hate speech is itself a form of censorship, as it silences the voices of minorities – marginalized groups who are already widely denied a voice in society. Minorities cannot speak out freely when they are bullied and intimidated into silence by hate speech. Hate speech harms minorities not only mentally, but also physically as well. Research has shown that bullying causes brain damage, and speech can do real physical harm. Hate speech also incites others to physically attack minorities, who already face high rates of violence.

As a member of Australia’s Jewish community and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I can proudly say that Australia’s Jewish community has played the single largest role in passing and expanding hate speech legislation in Australia, and Australia’s Jewish community also played the single largest role in forcing the Abbott government to back down when it recently tried to weaken our federal hate speech laws. The changes to federal hate speech laws were staunchly opposed by every single human rights group and minority advocacy group in Australia, but Australian Jewish groups definitely played the largest role in making the Abbott government abandon its plans to weaken our federal hate speech laws. In fact, The Times of Israel actually ran an article titled “Australian Jews block change in local race-hate laws“. Without the immense pressure from Australia’s Jewish community, our hate speech laws would have been watered down like Brandis wanted them to be. I am immensely proud of the fact that Australia’s Jews have been at the forefront of protecting and promoting human rights in this country. The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) – which works to combat online hatred in Australia and abroad – is staffed entirely by Jewish Australians. Without Australia’s Jews, hate speech legislation in this country would not be anywhere near as strong. In fact, it might not even exist at all. The Jewish role in human rights activism is a source of immeasurable pride for me.

I’ve dedicated my life to promoting and defending human rights in Australia. I’ve worked for Amnesty International Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, and the Human Rights Working Group of the Greens NSW. I know human rights very well. As any human rights activist can tell you, hate speech is violence, and verbal violence can be even more harmful and dangerous than physical violence. It also tends to lead directly to physical violence. Hate speech kills people, just like climate change denial and spreading false information about medicines does. We don’t allow people to spout lies about vaccines and most people also agree that we shouldn’t allow people to spout lies about climate change, so why should we allow people to spout lies about vulnerable minorities? Speech has consequences, and nobody should be allowed to say things which are simply wrong. When the Abbott government was trying to water down our federal laws against hate speech, it was widely said that watering down the hate speech laws would lead to race riots and even genocide. To quote the great human rights activist Tim Soutphommasane of the Australian Human Rights Commission, “genocide begins with word”. This is entirely true, as genocide has always started with hate speech, from the Holocaust to Rwanda. Right-wing bigots simply cannot be allowed to undermine social cohesion and manipulate public opinion against the common good. When the general public is exposed to dangerous ideas like the kind spouted by right-wing bigots, the results can be nothing short of catastrophic. Tim Soutphommasane and other human rights activists have repeatedly expressed their desire to launch a major crackdown on online hatred, but nothing really significant has actually been done so far. If Australia doesn’t stop the plague of online hatred from entering this country, the consequences could be fatal for our multicultural society. If one wants to see what could very well happen if online hatred is not stopped, look no further than the Holocaust. We simply cannot allow history to repeat itself. Hate has consequences, and the only way to stop those consequences from happening is to crack down as hard as possible on all manifestations of hatred, along with all other content that’s harmful to human dignity and to society.

Like all democratic rights, the right to freedom of speech comes with significant responsibility and has to be balanced against other rights. Nobody has the right to spread lies, falsehoods, or misleading information. The right to accurate information – and the right to be fully informed – are needed in order to fulfill democratic duty, and spreading misinformation can be very dangerous (just ask the countless people who have died thanks to anti-vaccine propaganda, or the countless people who have died thanks to the gun lobby’s propaganda in the US). This is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles, as withholding information or spreading misinformation manipulates free choices and therefore subverts liberty. As any human rights lawyer could explain, the human right to freedom of speech must be balanced against other human rights, including the human rights to protection from vilification, libel, slander, propaganda, misleading information, incitement, insult, offense, hatred, discrimination, and so forth. Freedom of speech is also never a license to oppose human rights. You cannot oppose racial equality, you cannot support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, you cannot oppose marriage equality, you cannot support laws that curtail civil liberties, you cannot oppose a woman’s right to have an abortion, you cannot support inhumane treatment of refugees, you cannot oppose liberal democracy, and you cannot support the death penalty, to name just a few things. A society based on fundamental human rights has absolutely no place for anyone who opposes these fundamental human rights.

The United States has no human rights culture whatsoever, so they don’t have laws against any of these things. Australians should be extremely thankful that we do not share the same values as the bigotry-supporting, human rights-opposing United States. Under Brandis’s ultra-libertarian, free speech fundamentalist proposal, ONLY incitement to hatred would be illegal, which most Australians (especially human rights activists) thought weakened our hate speech laws far too much. But, in the US, there aren’t even any laws against incitement to hatred. In fact, there are no laws against racial vilification whatsoever. The main concern about George Brandis’s proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act was that his amendments might allow certain racist comments to be made if those comments were made as part of a “public discussion”. In the US, however, ALL racist comments are allowed, even when they’re NOT made as part of any kind of public discussion. For people in a civilised country like Australia, that sort of thing is just unimaginable.

Can you even IMAGINE the massive outrage that would ensue if a politician ever proposed completely abolishing all racial vilification laws in Australia? They would lose their job instantly, and they would become the single most hated person in the country. In fact, George Brandis became the single most hated person in Australia when he proposed merely WATERING DOWN our federal hate speech laws and his proposal was universally seen as a horrific attack on the basic human rights of minorities, so it’s hard to imagine just how hated a politician would be if they actually proposed completely abolishing all hate speech laws in Australia. That’s not something that anyone in Australia would ever even consider. In a human rights-based culture like Australia, you have freedom of speech, but you cannot use your freedom of speech to harm people or to harm society. You cannot offend or insult people, you cannot promote unacceptable ideas, you cannot say things which aren’t constructive, you cannot oppose human rights, you cannot incite hatred or violence, you cannot argue against the common good, and you cannot say things which simply aren’t true. All rights are bordered by other rights. This is the core of Western Enlightenment thinking. When it comes to balancing freedom of speech against other human rights, the Internet should be no different. Our hate speech laws exist to protect the most vulnerable and marginalised members of our society, but, by failing to filter the Internet – thus allowing vulnerable minorities to be exposed to online hate speech from the anti-human rights US – we are failing in our human rights obligations.

Multiculturalism is one of Australia’s greatest success stories. But, for far too many people, racial vilification remains a sad reality – especially online. Under international human rights law, Australia is required to vigorously prosecute all forms of hate speech, including online hate speech. But, at the moment, Australia is not doing nearly enough to truly fight against online hatred. It’s time for us to strongly consider Internet filtering to crack down against online hate speech. Human rights groups like Amnesty International have endorsed Internet filtering as an effective way to combat online hate speech (so long as those Internet filters are not abused to restrict legitimate freedom of speech on the Internet). Australia’s very own Human Rights Law Centre has repeatedly stated that Australia needs to block access to hate sites, but that Internet filtering should never be used in order to curtail freedom of speech online. Obviously, it’s important to ensure that any Internet filtering does not interfere with freedom of speech online, as Australia needs to staunchly oppose all forms of Internet censorship. However, hate speech is not free speech, and it’s not protected by freedom of expression. Freedom of speech should never be something that hurts people. Australia needs to strongly protect free speech online while actively prosecuting hate speech online.

Human rights organisations in Australia have long complained that we need to pass and enforce much stricter legislation against online hate speech. Currently, we are failing to truly fight against online hatred, and this is damaging our international human rights reputation. Countries like the UK and France are much more stringent in protecting human rights online. Failing to adequately filter and prosecute online hate speech means that we are opening the doors to all manner of racial violence and perhaps even genocide. The only way to get rid of hatred and intolerance is to vigorously and aggressively prosecute all manifestations of hate speech. If Australia is truly serious about being a modern, advanced liberal democracy that genuinely respects basic human rights, fundamental civil liberties, and essential individual freedoms, then it’s time to get serious in our fight against hate speech and other human rights abuses on the Internet. The time to start seriously protecting human rights on the Internet is right now. Not only do we need to protect the most vulnerable and marginalised groups from being exposed to online hatred, but we also need to prevent the general public from being exposed to it as well. When right-wing hatemongers are allowed to manipulate public opinion against the common good, things like the Cronulla rioting – or, even worse: the Holocaust – can and do happen. Every genocide in history has started with hate speech, from the Holocaust to Rwanda to Srebrenica. Do we really want history to repeat itself right here in Australia? If not, then it’s time to seriously start cracking down on Internet hatred, along with all other human rights abuses on the Internet. If we don’t, the consequences could be even worse than any of us could possibly imagine.

Posted in Australia, Censorship, Jews | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: Will the War on Microaggressions Have Disparate Impact on Jews?

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Kors and Silverglate are representative of a once powerful tradition of Jewish civil libertarianism that felt that it was good for the Jews that universal rules of freedom of expression applied to everybody. Jazz critic Nat Hentoff, now 89, is another example. (Here’s Hentoff interviewing martyred Jewish comic Lenny Bruce.) A society in which people are not formally punished for being verbally aggressive seemed like it would be good for the Jews.

In recent decades, however, Who? Whom? thinking has become more popular. Why put up with a lot of guff when you have the power and privilege to award yourself plenty of Victimization Pokemon Points? Instead of a Single Standard, why not have a Double Standard? A Single Standard was appealing in Lenny Bruce’s day, but in Jon Stewart’s day, it’s more fun to ruin the career of Rick Sanchez for pointing out that Stewart isn’t a minority victim.

But successful as that has been in the short run, in the long run, will that kind of thinking be good for the Jews? Or will aggressive newcomers, like those University of California student politicians, use the Jewish tendency toward verbal aggressiveness to take down the current top dogs, using the widespread distaste for Israel in the rest of the world as an opening wedge for dislodging American Jews from their positions of power and privilege?

Perhaps the Kors-Silverglate-Hentoff theory of a Single Standard of liberty and objective fairness might be more prudent for Jews in the long run?

COMMENTS:

* The Jews of America are going to be okay. I’m not worried anyone’s going to cramp their style or make them hold their tongues. Nobody puts Baby in the corner.

* The war to eliminate microagressions will work, by design, to the primary benefit of those who complain a lot.

Do Jews complain a lot?

* The key article that started the modern trend of trying to criminalize speech that offends minority groups was by Richard Delgado, a Mexican American law professor (who looks more like he’s Japanese to me). It’s called Words the Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults

http://home.wlu.edu/~mayocke/SpeakingFreely/Words%20that%20Wound.pdf

Another especially important is by Charles Lawrence III: If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3115&context=dlj

Delgado responds to his critics in this article:

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1712&context=californialawreview

The two primary critics he responds to are Nat Hentoff and Nadine Strossen. (Others are Marjorie Heins, NYT columnist, Anthony Lewis and Benno C. Schmidt, who despite being a New York City attorney, academic, and venture capitalist with a German last name, is of Texas-German ancestry rather than Jewish ancestry).

The authors Delgado cites as supporting the criminalization of “hate speech” are himself, Rhonda Gay Hartman, Jean C Love, Mari Matsuda, Shawna Yet, and his co-author David Yun.

In summary, your claim that Jews have moved away from their prior strong support for free speech, supposedly because they now want to protect their privileged status from criticism, is not founded. Though they make up a very large percentage of law professors, not a single one of the leading advocates for criminalizing hate speech is Jewish, while at the same time Jews are prominent in opposition, and 80% of those its leading proponent identifies by name.

* Give me a break. Less than two weeks ago, Taki’s published a piece discussing the efforts of Monroe Freedman (then dean of Hofstra Law School) to develop such a law:

Takimag

And a leading advocate is NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron

And Ezra Levant says that Canada’s hate speech laws were enacted at the request of the Canadian Jewish Congress:

* Steve Sailer: …a lot of the leading supporters of freedom of expression for everybody are Jews old enough to remember Lenny Bruce. You mentioned Nadine Strossen, for example. She’s one of the younger ones at 64.

Like I’ve been saying, perhaps contemporary Jews should listen to the wisdom of their elders. Right now they don’t seem to have much to worry about in terms of Victimism Pokemon Points, but that may not be true forever. For example, I know one of the student politicians involved in the UCLA BDS whoop-tee-doo: it’s a big world out there and things change.

Prudence would suggest that Jews should try harder to hedge their bets, rather than go all in on Diversity Uber Alles.

* Which group has the competence and asabiya to dethrone our Jewish elites?

Blacks? They’ve got anger, unity, charisma, and the whole slavery/segregation thing to guilt trip the rest of us. Unfortunately for them, they lack discipline and competence. Jews have been very effective at using blacks as pawns, while also bringing them under control when necessary (ie pushing out Dinkins after the Crown Heights riots in NYC, getting Al Sharpton marginalized until he agreed to tone down his rhetoric, forcing Obama to bring on lots of Jewish advisers like Rahm/Plouffe/Axelrod to compensate for hanging out with Rev Wright).

Latinos? They’re just as incompetent and undisciplined as blacks, but with none of the energy or charisma or guilt tripping legacy. Also, of the few competent and charismatic Latino leaders in existence (many of whom are Cuban), there’s a tendency to assimilate into the white population and lose their connection with the Latino masses. Linda Chavez and Marco Rubio don’t inspire blue collar Latinos at all, but neither do leftists like Sotomayor or Julian Castro. Anyway lots of these Latino leaders become pawns of Jewish power brokers, as we’ve seen with Rubio, Cruz, and Castro.

Native Americans? Sorry, but I don’t see that happening. They’re mostly involved in small scale stuff, like getting angry about the Washington Redskins and protecting casino gambling. They’re also susceptible to manipulation on the rare occasions when anyone pays attention to them (for some reason, Americans tend to ignore Natives these days). For example, look at how Jack Abramoff played his Native American clients and how much he disdained them (“monkeys,” “troglodytes,” and “morons”).

Middle Easterners (Arabs, Persians, Turks, Maghrebis, etc.)? The ethnic divisions and religious divisions (Shiite, Sunni, Christian) are too significant. It’s also pretty easy for Jewish neoconservatives to whip up anti-ME fury anytime among evangelicals anytime they want. I could see Jewish Democrats getting white liberals (gay, feminists) angry at them too, if the need arose. In the EU, the growth of ME populations has resulted in the rose of right-wing gentile/Jewish coalitions. I’m sure Jews could replicate that here in America. Also, they could play up the mistreatment of blacks under ME rule (ie blacks in Darfur, Afro-Iraqis, Africans in Libya, etc.).

Asians? They tend to be too introverted and politically apathetic to succeed here. There have been plenty of affluent and well educated Asians in California for many decades. How much political clout do they carry? Despite their high level of education and strong representation in elite colleges, how many present Asian leaders do we see in business, finance, politics, intelligentsia/academia, or media?

Indians? There’s plenty of religious and linguistic/ethnic divisions among them. I also don’t see much of a move to separate themselves from the mainstream. There are also quite a few Indians in the UK and Canada, who do adequately well in politics/intelligentsia but aren’t especially dynamic. Also, the Indians who do the best politically (Jindal, Haley-Randhawa) are usually highly conservative Republicans, not reactionaries. In my opinion, Indians are too foreign for most Americans to accept, except when Indians choose to Americanize themselves. There are some prominent Indians in the media too (Sanjay Gupta, D’Souza, Zakaria, Velshi), but they tend to be pretty assimilated and also not that connected with their Indian heritage (all those men have white wives).

-Armenians seem like a group that could do well if they had larger numbers, but there are too few to matter.
-White ethnics do alright in local elections (Italians in NYC/NJ, Poles in Chicago, Irish in Boston), but only the Irish do well nationally.
-Mormons will do well regionally as their numbers grow, but they are not going to be very effective on the national level.
-Christian Middle Easterners could do well too (they’ve flourished in Latin America), but they’re ME ethnic background is too controversial. Pollster John Zogby hasn’t done too well promoting Arab-Amerian interests and seems to have been marginalized in recent years. Also, lots of Christian MEs tend to assimilate in (Doug Flutie, John Sununu, etc.).

Posted in Censorship, Jews | Comments Off

Mao’s Ethics Teacher

Posted on March 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

* ‘Each country has its own national spirit just as each person has its own personality …. A country is an organic whole, just as the human body is an organic whole. It is not like a machine which can be taken apart and put together again. If you take it apart it dies.’ (Mao’s ethics teacher at Peking, Yang Chang-chi, whose daughter became his first wife)

Mao was probably responsible for the deaths of about 70 million Chinese. He was history’s biggest mass murderer.

* I spent Shabbos listening to Jews kvetch about their latino workers who fail to put much effort into their $10 an hour jobs. “You have to be very tough on latinos,” said one Jew. Another Jew tells me, “All they want to do is to play with their smart phones, eat, drink and have sex.” Still, Jews I know would 10 times rather hire latinos than blacks. I also learned about how to use strict HOA (Home Owner Association) rules, zoning, guards, gates, security systems, patrols, etc to keep out undesirable latinos and blacks from pristine white, Jewish and asian subdivisions. Baruch HaShem! George Zimmerman lives!

Paul D. Meehan writes: “Luke, get a new religion. This one is rotting you from within.”

* Chaim Amalek writes: “I have heard similar talk. Once from a Jew boasting that he supported locating public housing for the dark ones but only if far away from the Chosen Ones. Also, in New York, Latinos have replaced black men in virtually all construction job sites (except big union jobs, maybe), in retail jobs, and food service jobs. No black men to be seen. In other news, I was on a subway the other day when a black man of a certain age walked in and started hustling for money. He was facing a car full of hostile faces, none of whom gave him a single kopek, which got him to muttering that he was a “Hitler who is gonna kill all you mother F-word”. How sad. This gentleman might wish to move to St. Louis.”

“Luke, that a shiksa does not know of the Museum of Tolerance in LA fills me with dread. If a shiksa in New Zealand does not know of it, how can a Mexican or Arab in Los Angeles be socialized by it?”

“Do you know what we Torah Jews call a Jewish man who is not sexually drawn to a “buxom Nordic Aryan Blond?” A flegellah.”

I think Hashem made Mexicans to be our shabbos goys to work for us for little so that we have enough money left over to pay for yeshiva.

Chaim: “There are plenty of Mexicans out there in LA who have more of everything than Luke, even if Luke is the sharper blogger.”

* A Jewish friend messages me: “Luke, thank you for your important posts on FB. It takes courage and strength to post in favor of Jews and Israel in this world and you exemplify both.”

* Orthodox Jews with large families rarely have pets or social justice causes because there’s no spare time.

Susan Williams Children should have pets..
3 hrs · Like · 1

Susan Williams I think Luke has a cat…
3 hrs · Like · 1

Alex Trivunovic Obvious joke…
3 hrs · Like · 1

Susan Williams Listen Alex Trivunovic I did not infur anything by that comment…you Sheygetz
3 hrs · Like

Alex Trivunovic What’s a sheygetz?
3 hrs · Unlike · 1

Susan Williams A goy who is chasing yidish girls
3 hrs · Unlike · 1

Susan Williams Unclean
3 hrs · Like

Alex Trivunovic I am unclean! Not any Yidishe girls for me to chase unfortunately.
3 hrs · Unlike · 1

Susan Williams Luke may know some
3 hrs · Like

Alex Trivunovic I’m sure he does, that doesn’t really help me. Very far from LA.
3 hrs · Like

Susan Williams Baruch HaShem me too 10,000 ks
3 hrs · Unlike · 2

Susan Williams Luke is surrounded by Jewish girls and he is yet to make a choice….soon they will all be promised away…make it your life work Alex Trivunovic to find a virgin for him…
3 hrs · Unlike · 1

Alex Trivunovic If i find a virgin, i’m keeping her.
3 hrs · Unlike · 2

Chaim Amalek And this is why so many white women are so obsessive about the large rescue dogs they share their beds with.
2 hrs · Unlike · 3

Susan Williams Chaim Amalek this is evil!
2 hrs · Like

Chaim Amalek I have seen it too many times not to notice it, Susan. Is not truth a defense against such an accusation? Oh well, my kind are used to such slurs.
2 hrs · Unlike · 2

Chaim Amalek 30 years ago white female spinsters were into cats. Today, they are into large mangy dogs that they invite into their beds. Hashem only knows what goes on in those beds.
2 hrs · Like

Susan Williams These spinsters should be taken up by you and Luke Ford to save them from this sin….
2 hrs · Like · 1

Susan Williams Alex Trivunovic could prolly manage a few….maybe he is a Mormon…….set to save women from animal lust..
2 hrs · Like · 1

Chaim Amalek Yidden may not have pets, but we are allowed to have a goy or two around on shabbos to turn our lights on and off. But only the ones with penises, since the goyellas can harm shalom bais.
2 hrs · Like · 1

Susan Williams I would not mind a shabbos goy
2 hrs · Like

Chaim Amalek By the time a woman is sharing her bed with her large dog it is too late. The better course of action is to forbid unmarried women in their child bearing years from having a dog as a pet. Also, all animal shelters need to be closed immediately, as they absorb too much of the procreative energy of the white women. In New York City, the animals in them would be relocated to the eastern territories out on long island. Or perhaps a special homeland could be created for unwanted animals, where they could do no harm on real humans.
2 hrs · Like · 1

Alex Trivunovic You can be your own shabbos goy susan!
2 hrs · Like · 1

Susan Williams I share my bed with a small dog when my husband is away
2 hrs · Like

Chaim Amalek Nebech!

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off

Torah Talk – Parasha Shemini ( Leviticus 9:1–11:47)

Posted on March 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

This is the final Torah Talk before Passover, which begins Friday night. Listen here.

Here’s Chaim Amalek’s running commentary on the show:

WHY are goyim so dumb?
If a Jew tells a goy to suck off a rabid dog and when he attempts to do so he gets bitten, is the Jew to blame?
It costs more to be a Jew than it does to be a goy. We have to pay for tuition for yeshiva, kosher food.
Also, if the money for these positions is coming from the goys, so what?
Luke, what is to be done with the Jews? I say expel them to Israel.
Anti-Israelism is one way to attack Jews that is acceptable.
Of course they were staring at her.
Jesus
The goy can express his desire to serve God by serving the Jew.
And the yellow ones can do our science. For yidden there is only torah. Torah is our art.
Protestants, many of them, feel that if you don’t accept Jesus, then you will go to hell no matter what sort of life you have lived.
Mormonism is the way to go.
Best women
Natural blondes.
Jews may not be big on contributions to art, but without us, there’d be no atom bombs, let alone H-bombs.
H-bombs are our cathedrals.
Women should not study Torah. They should bake bread and raise the kids, maybe work a job so the husband can spend his days learning torah.
Bad sign, yawns.
A Jew without a goy is like a farmer without oxen.
The goy will miss us once the Chinese take over.
A lump of burning coal left on its own soon grow cold.
Every fat Jewish women of child bearing years is a posthumous victory for adolf hitler
There are not many fat Jews in Manhattan.
Except for me. 350 pounds and rising!
Give me thick steaks, cheeses, chocolate.
If the Holocaust really happened, then why do so many Jews still have gas ovens?
ask her that question and she will be yours
Only the Holocaust can save you now.
I say you should write a piece for the LA Jewish Week entitled “Ten Good Reasons to Hate the Jews”
Certainly it would be worth another cover.

* Was It Rational For Egypt To Enslave The Israelites?

* Whatever alien fire is, I fear that it attracts me. “In the third reading (עליה, aliyah), fire came forth and consumed the sacrifices on the altar, and the people shouted and fell on their faces.[11] Acting on their own, Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu each took his fire pan, laid incense on it, and offered alien fire, which God had not commanded.[12] And God sent fire to consume them, and they died.”

You can still be a rebel and live in Orthodox Judaism, you just can’t be an indiscriminate and kneerjerk rebel. You can’t kindle strange fire in the sanctuary, so to speak. There are atheists and cheats and heretics and free thinkers and fornicators and adulterers in Orthodox Judaism, but if you are going to violate communal norms, you need to do it quietly if you want to stay within the community. Don’t bring your strange fire to shul.

The closer you get to holiness and to holy people, the greater the need is for you to be on your best behavior.

I was seeing this girl who was in and out of Orthodox Judaism. One minute she’d be boasting about her kinky hookups and the next minute she’s be walking around the apartment reciting tefillin and this was fine around a certain edgy crowd I knew on the outskirts of Orthodox Judaism, but when she was at a Shabbat dinner at the rabbi’s place asked him if it was OK to drive on Shabbos if one felt unsafe walking, she had gone too far. There’s no way an Orthodox rabbi can grant you permission to do that.

“Philo interpreted Leviticus 10 to teach that because Nadab and Abihu fearlessly and fervently proceeded rapidly to the altar, an imperishable light dissolved them into ethereal beams like a whole burnt-offering and took them up to heaven.[28] Thus, Nadab and Abihu died in order that they might live, exchanging their mortal lives for immortal existence, departing from the creation to the creator God. Philo interpreted the words of Leviticus 10:2, “they died before the Lord,” to celebrate their incorruptibility and demonstrate that they lived, for no dead person could come into the sight of the Lord.”

Another way for me to understand “strange fire” is to interpret it as narcissism. Many religious leaders are narcissists.

Sam Vaknin says:

God is everything the narcissist ever wants to be — omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent, admired, much discussed, and awe inspiring. God is the narcissist’s wet dream, his ultimate fantasy.
The narcissist idealizes and devalues authority figures. What greater authority figure is there than God? In the idealization phase, the narcissist tries to imitate authority figures. They cannot go wrong. The narcissist regards these authority figures as bigger than life, bold, brilliant, perfect… As the narcissist’s unrealistic expectations are inevitably deflated by reality, he begins to devalue his former idols. They are dumb, mediocre… The narcissist goes through the same cycle with his relationship with God…
Even when devaluation, disillusionment, and iconoclastic despair sets in, the narcissist continues to pretend to love God and to follow him. The narcissist maintains this deception because his continued adherence to God, proximity to God, confers on the narcissist authority… Clergy, politicians, intellectuals, all derive authority from their allegedly privileged relationship with God. Religious authority allows the narcissist to indulge his sadistic urges and to exercise his misogyny. Such a narcissist is likely to torment his followers, abuse them… He is looking for obedient and unquestioning slaves upon whom to exercise his capricious and wicked urges. He transforms innocent religious rituals into a cult. He preys on the gullible. His flock become his hostages. Religious authority secures for him narcissistic supply. He craves attention, adulation, affirmation, applause. His co-religionists, his audience, are transformed into a source of narcissistic supply. They obey his commands given in the name of God. They admire him because he’s close to God.
The bigger the narcissist’s enemy, the more grandiosely important the narcissist feels.
The narcissist forms a relationship with this overpowering entity to overpower others. The narcissist becomes God vicariously through his relationship with Him. He idealizes God, devalues God, and then abuses God. This is the classic narcissistic pattern.

A common rabbinic interpretation of this story is that Nadav and Abihu were drunk.

I hate being around drunk people because they act stupid. I try to avoid alcohol because I have an addictive personality. I don’t want to get to like alcohol, so I limit myself to a sip of wine at kiddush and when I have the option, I prefer grape juice instead of wine.

“According to the Sifra, Nadab and Abihu took their offering in Leviticus 10:1 in joy, for when they saw the new fire come from God, they went to add one act of love to another act of life.”

Their strange fire was an act of love, just like the illegal immigration to America that Jeb Bush describes as an “act of love.”

* “Rabbi Levi (or others say Rabbi Jonathan) taught that a tradition was handed down from the Men of the Great Assembly that wherever Scripture uses the term “and it was” or “and it came to pass” (וַיְהִי, va-yehi), it indicates the approach of trouble (as וַיְהִי, va-yehi can be read as וַיי, הִי, vai, hi, “woe, sorrow”). Thus, the first words of Leviticus 9:1, “And it came to pass (וַיְהִי, va-yehi) on the eighth day,” presage that Nadab and Abihu died on that day.”

* There is a lot of attention in the Torah about what you should eat. I normally don’t like to eat bread because I am in danger of lapsing into pre-diabetes. But because of the care I take with my diet in avoiding bread six days a week (bringing my blood sugar level down from 106 to 96, anything below 100 is safe, while a score of 101-125 is pre-diabetes), on Shabbos I can eat bread as required during the three meals, even though I don’t want to, but it is religious required (unless it would cause me an adverse health reaction). I was raised a vegetarian. I’m not able to eat meat even though you are supposed to on Shabbos.

* The highlight of my week is learning Tanya. This is weird because it is not a work accessible easily to someone who has not grown up in Judaism (just like kabbalah), but if you find a good teacher, he can open up the text.

Criticism on Wikipedia: “It has been suggested that the Tanya’s concept of two souls, and the statement that the souls of the Gentile nations of the world are different from those of Jewish souls, emanating instead from the realm of evil, either has the potential to develop into, or to provide support for racism,[9] or that it endorses a kind of “metaphysical racism”,[10] or that it is “a dangerous and indeed racist idea and contrary to normative Jewish belief.”[11]

The description in the Tanya of soul differences follows on from a particularist-universalist debate in Judaism concerning the meaning of Jews as a chosen people. Among Medieval Jewish philosophy, Yehudah Halevi follows a proto-kabbalistic approach that distinguishes Jewish and Gentile souls, while Maimonides describes a universalist rationalist approach. Kabbalistic mysticism follows Halevi, developed in Hasidism. However, non-literalist, universalist readings have been found among Kabbalists and Hasidim. In normative Chabad, righteous Gentiles have souls similar in Divine receptivity to Jewish souls, while Jews can be distanced from Divine consciousness. Consequently, the Tanya has been read as describing two universal levels of psychological consciousness.”

Posted in Torah | Comments Off