March 5, 2015 The Sodomizing Of America Luke Ford No sacred cows.

The Sodomizing Of America

Posted on March 5, 2015 by Luke Ford

Lisa Schiffren writes: “It is precisely this sort of tawdry, “knowing” faux sophisticated sex trash that is sinking the New York Times, week by week. This is the ‘gay sensibity’ normal people, including normal gay people, dislike having to come up against while trying to read a newspaper. You know what is hot? Mystery. Keeping your sex life to yourself. Screwing in cabs is for people too poor to afford their own apartments.
Last week the Times dropped the Housing section. Hope Style is next.”

Chaim Amalek: “Once Islam takes over America, such silly articles will be a thing of the past, and we will instead consider the arrival of gender-specific cab services.”

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off

Should Jewish citizens in a Gentile land be voicing their displeasure at Gentile representatives who do not show up to a speech by the leader of the Jewish state?

Posted on March 5, 2015 by Luke Ford

I’m noticing shuls in 90035 and my friends in 90035 are annoyed that their black Congresswoman Karen Bass did not show up to the Israeli prime minister’s speech yesterday.

Rabbi Mayer Schiller said in 1999: “The State of Israel poses a problem for Jews living in the diaspora. A Jew living in America, France or England but yet somehow says I am an Israeli or a Zionist, that creates a tremendous amount of tension. Herzl envisioned Zionism as Jews leaving Gentile nations and going to live in Israel, not staying in France and England and saying I am a Zionist. Jews living in America, England, France, etc, have three moral possibilities: They can be loyal citizens, they can be Zionists which means to leave [for Israel] or they can adopt the Neterui Karta position of non-involvement in the affairs of the nations.”

I wonder if American Jews rallying Gentile American politicians for Bibi Netanyahu and the Jewish state consider that their actions might have consequences that are negative for Jews.

I notice among some people an attitude towards America of let’s take all we can get.

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off

How To Be A Fascist

Posted on March 5, 2015 by Luke Ford

Growing up a Seventh-Day Adventist, the word “Papist” was commonly thrown around to connote views we despised.

“Fascists” functions similarly in the world today. It’s the worst thing ever. It’s also about the last political movement where you will find Jews. Fascism is a form of nationalism and Jews have an instinctive fear of Gentile nationalisms as they have often been bad for Jews. Countries that are fascist are not user friendly for Jews, gays and other minorities.

On the other hand, Israel seems a bit like a fascist state and Judaism seems a bit fascist. Israel and Judaism are certainly nationalistic movements that put the people first before the individual.

Alex Trivunovic: “Many Fascists of my acquaintance use Israel as a model of what they’d like to accomplish in their countries.”

From WikiHow:

Fascism (from the word fascis) is an oft-misunderstood ideology, equated with war and violent tyranny. Both the modern-day left and right wings use it as a buzzword for anything that they consider to be threatening, be it increased state authority or socialized medicine.

Fascism is some ways quite a visionary ideology, but is also quite traditionalist, built around the principles of nationalism, authoritarianism, and mass action. As a totalitarian ideology, it embraces the State as an organic and all-encompassing entity, and demands the mass mobilization of the populace to actively participate in the running of their State.

1. Read up on the writings of Fascist authors and of those who inspired them. Enrico Corradini, Julius Evola, and Corneliu Codreanu are all excellent sources on Fascist/proto-Fascist ideology. Among the more philosophic roots of Fascism are rejection of decadence and materialism, and the value of action over compromise. Fascism views life as a constant struggle, and so to be a Fascist is to be a human of strength and willpower.

2. Read up on your own country’s history. To apply Fascism, one must have a spirit of Nationalism – valuing the legacy of your country’s people, and putting their interests before yourself and before the rest of the world. Take pride in your ancestor’s accomplishments, and strive to do good in their name and uphold your country’s noblest traditions. Action begins at the local level, so find opportunities to volunteer around town. In Fascism, what is good for the community is good for the People and the State.

WARNINGS:

* Don’t mistake Fascism for something like Nazism. Nazism is quite different, particularly in its inherently racist ideology and justification of genocide. Fascist leaders such as Mussolini were quite different than Nazis like Hitler. Educate yourself on how they are different, and if someone thinks the two are the same, politely correct them.

* Don’t go around calling yourself a Fascist. In today’s modern world, the “f-word” will cause people to label you and refuse to listen to anything you have to say. If you want to talk about Fascism with someone, talk about its varying component ideas, such as nationalism and class collaboration. If someone finds themselves agreeing with you, tell them that what you have just described is Fascism.

* Due to Fascism’s totalitarian nature, this means that certain other ideologies like Communism cannot be tolerated in Fascism as they are viewed as subversive to the well-being of the State, and so freedom of speech cannot always be guaranteed for such dissidents.

Posted in Fascism, Israel | Comments Off

The Bush Dynasty & Mexico

Posted on March 5, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Columba Bush is really hard to explain. In the photos of her at age 18 she fairly cute, but nothing special. But Bush was a handsome guy from an extremely rich family. And boy did she age badly. She is also 16 inches shorter than him and from a broken and poor family.

Columbia is the product of a mixed-race marriage herself. The long article about her someone linked here recently had about six photos of her father, who looks 100% white to me. In fact, the first photo of the father from the 1940′s I first thought was an older photo of one of the Bushes. Her mother looks 70% indio/30% white.

* I guess so long as the topic closest to Jeb’s heart is the facilitation of Mexican immigration, he will remain a strong, mainstream, legitimate candidate. Imagine if the issue closest to his heart was the flip-slip, namely, the impeding of Mexican immigration.

Likewise when a European American wants to limit immigration, his reasons are immediately cast as racist. He must want to limit non-European immigration to preserve America as a European nation. Yet isn’t hispanic and other racial groups’ support for immigration essentially the flip-slide of the same coin? They want immigration because they perceive it as benefiting their people and increasing their numbers and influence in the US. Yet their support of immigration is never linked with racist motives.

* Don’t forget the North American Union that Bush was trying to promote until it got exposed.

Still no matter how you cut it, the Bush’s are traitors given their agenda.

“Really, isn’t this whole border thing, not to mention separate countries, Bad for Business?” Yes and no. American service industry would initially benefit from a massive influx of low wage, disposable Hispanics. But as the influx destroys the social safety net along with quality of life and the middle-class. Then the service industry will find almost no one to afford their low quality services and go belly up.

Of course most business types don’t look ahead more than a quarter so what happens a couple of years from now is like forever to them. It’ll come as a big surprise to the piratical scumbags.

For the rest of us, it means a nice taste of hell and no future for the kids.

* I think the bigger concern of Mexican white elites is not to get massacred by the brown people living in poverty all around them. It happened twice, first with Father Hidalgo and Father Morelos’s unsuccessful independence movement. Each time their indio army took over a city, they massacred the whites, with the padres unable to control their army.

That’s why their revolution failed: they could not bear to see this happen to Mexico City, so they did not attack it when they had a clear opportunity to do so and an overwhelming numerical superiority. Once the opportunity to kill the whites and destroy stopped, their army melted away, and they were defeated and executed.

Mexico only became independent a couple years later when the conservative white elites and army officers decided to declare Mexico an independent in reaction to a liberal revolution in Spain.

The second time it happened was the Mexican Revolution. The massacres where not so explicitly racial, it was more of a communist type revolution. But whites still disproportionately suffered at brown hands. It then devolved into multiple disorganized armies “living off the land” and causing death and starvation wherever they operated, like in the Thirty Year War. During this period, about half of Mexico’s white population fled, losing most of their property as they did, many of them fairly recent arrivals from Europe and the United States who were encouraged to come by Porfirio Diaz.

Posted in Immigration, Mexicans | Comments Off

The Eric Holder Challenge: Can You Find a City Where Blacks Aren’t Arrested More Often?

Posted on March 5, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The DOJ report said the disparities couldn’t be explained by crime rates. Of course they didn’t control for age so their controls maybe useless. The only category that I feel there is legitimate complaint is jaywalking. You could fine most people if you tried for jaywalking. So the fact that 93% of those arrested for jaywalking are black is suspicious. Also the emails and the personal accounts some backed by video and even cops are also damning.

* The walking down the middle of the street thing seems to be a problem in some places but not others. I read an article about a middle class black inner ring suburb of Detroit where the old residents are being driven crazy by new arrivals from Detroit walking in the middle of the street. But I don’t recall that in Chicago (although you’d have to be suicidal to walk in the street in Chicago).

That’s also a problem in the San Fernando Valley suburb where I live, although the divide is regional rather than racial. In the quarter square mile tract where I live, the southern three blocks have sidewalks but the northern three blocks don’t have sidewalks. So when the Northsiders walk their dogs, they walk right down the middle of the street. And they keep walking down the middle of the street when they come down to our half of the tract … where there are sidewalks. It drives my wife crazy when she’s driving that Northsiders are still walking their Labradors down the middle of the street even though the Southside has sidewalks for them to walk on.

* Walking in the the street is a “black thing” as is just stepping out into traffic whenever the mood strikes . Before I found a way around them I used to drive down Greenmount Ave. to get to work , you had to constantly be on the lookout for the morons to step off the curb and into traffic to cross the street . Once as I was driving that way a dog stepped off the curb to cross , he looked both ways , saw all the traffic and stepped back up onto the sidewalk . So the smartest creature in that 100% black part of town was a dog.

* I live near a city which is 35-percent black. I rarely venture in, but had some business there a few weeks ago. The “blacks walking out into traffic” thing was so striking that I had to tell my wife about it when I got home. There’s an insolence about it, a “Go ahead, make my day!” attitude. Perhaps a large settlement is something a lot of jaywalkers aspire to. It’s not only the young guys and the homeless guys, either. An old black lady, walking with a cane, started out across the crosswalk with the crossing sign indicating six seconds until the light change, by which time she was only a third of the way across, making us all wait through the light. Maybe she was cognitively unable to do the math required to make the judgment aboput whether or not to cross.

MORE COMMENTS:

* If the city chooses to submit, in a few, short years it will be all black. Then the black city can enjoy itself in its own ghetto. We know what happens then: Detroit.

Whites simply will not live in a majority black neighborhood, city or whatever. And for good reason.

* Why doesn’t Ferguson try replacing their white supremacist police force with some vibrant mestizo immigrants? I’m sure the black arrest rate would plummet with their fellow People of Color handling the policing.

* It’s not Blacks reading all these articles. This is unreal. It’s like a paper in an Islamic country obsessing on Israel, with about the same level of honesty.

Is there anything that can be done about this blood libel?

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off

WP: Should Shakespeare Be Censored?

Posted on March 5, 2015 by Luke Ford

WP: “His plays contain anti-Semitism, racism and sexism, sexual abuse and violence. Does it matter?”

The article, however, is all about Shakespeare and the Jews. So if the Bard is to be censored, it’s apparently primarily about whether or not he is good for the Jews.

It’s getting tiresome hearing Jews push for increased censorship of views they don’t like.

The article is written by a “Preti Taneja,” not a Jewish name. Here are some excerpts:

Shakespeare’s plays contain anti-Semitism, racism and sexism, sexual abuse and violence; they magnify the tenor of their age. But should they be censored when they might offend a particular community?
Actor Mark Rylance, former artistic director of the Globe theater, recently said that he has sometimes cut “some unfortunate anti-Semitic things” from Shakespeare’s plays:
If a character says it, it doesn’t mean the author means it but since the Holocaust . . . these statements have a lot more resonance now than they did at that time.
The Merchant of Venice is the most obvious example here. It’s the play that most thoroughly reveals the anti-Semitism of Shakespeare’s day. Rylance’s words perhaps act as a kind of warning to theater makers in our current climate of fear, heightened by the attack on a Kosher supermarket in Paris after the shootings at Charlie Hebdo magazine in January.
Yet for other contemporary writers and directors, Shakespeare’s anti-Semitism offers a chance to highlight social injustice. Director Rupert Goold’s recently revived “Merchant of Venice” for the Almeida Theatre in London was a bright, brash show that set the play in Las Vegas. It turned the spotlight on the hypocrisy of Christian fundamentalism in a digital age.
The anti-Semitism of Shakespeare’s words was emphasized in one shocking scene where, following Shylock’s forced conversion from Judaism to Christianity, Bassanio’s men spit on him and film his humiliation on their mobile phones. He struggles to his feet and runs through the audience, implicitly damning all silent observers with his pained cries. On stage, Bassanio’s men laugh; to them, anti-Semitism is no more than a moment’s entertainment. The implication is of course that soon their videos will find an airing on the Internet.
It was deeply disturbing: a reminder of how anti-Semitism is alive in the heartland of kitsch and capitalist America. Reviewers called the show “revelatory” and “provocative”; two comments that support productions that don’t shy away from problematic subject matter in difficult times.
But my brief canvas of the audience after the show revealed opinion was divided. Some agreed with the reviews; others felt Goold’s production was irresponsibly extreme, guilty of expressing the racism it purportedly critiqued.

How come we never hear about the need for censoring Jewish texts because they contain anti-Gentile references?

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off

Major Jewish Group Slams ‘Despicable’ New York Times Claim That Netanyahu Speech Asks Democrats to Choose Between Obama and Israel

Posted on March 4, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Algemeiner.com:

Major Jewish human rights group the Simon Wiesenthal Center expressed disgust at the New York Times on Wednesday for claiming that the debate over Iran’s nuclear program boils down to a question of loyalty to either President Obama or Israel.
“It’s despicable. On every level it’s an insidious editorial comment and beyond that, it’s also 1,000 percent wrong,” Associate Dean Rabbi Abraham Cooper told The Algemeiner a day after Netanyahu addressed Congress on the Iranian nuclear threat. “It’s not just Israel that is in the cross-hairs of a nuclearized Iran.”
“For anymore – before, during or after this speech – to reduce this to some personal grudge match between [the] Israeli Prime Minister and President Obama is just doing everybody a disservice and is not dealing with the facts,” he added. “It is just a political mindset that wants to narrow the field of discussion.”
The New York Times article alleged that for Democrats, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday “sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state.”
The Times claimed: “Mr. Netanyahu’s hotly disputed address constituted a remarkable moment in Washington: a foreign leader taking the podium before members of the House and Senate to argue against the policies of the sitting American president. In doing so, the Israeli leader was essentially urging lawmakers to trust him — not Mr. Obama — when it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
Cooper, who called the speech “a historic moment,” defended Netanyahu’s talk and sought to clarify what the prime minister had said at the podium. Quoting the Israeli leader, Cooper affirmed that Israel is not against a deal with Iran, but that the Jewish state and its neighbors instead want a deal they can “literally live with.”
“He’s talking about an existential threat to his people and some of the Democrats that I heard, they think that this is a spectator sport. Outrageous,” Cooper told The Algemeiner. “It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It’s life or death.”

In my experience, when someone says something is “despicable” and “it’s an insidious editorial comment and beyond that, it’s also 1,000 percent wrong,” there’s a very good chance that what they are reacting to is dead on.

I never read the New York Times article in question until I saw Rabbi Cooper’s hysterical reaction.

OK, here’s the lead from the Times: “WASHINGTON — President Obama’s task of selling a potential nuclear agreement with Iran to a skeptical Congress became far harder on Tuesday after an impassioned speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to lawmakers already nervous about the deal.”

That seems accurate.

Here are the next few paragraphs, and again, they are not disputable except by some rabbinic version of Jesse Jackson:

“The president has a very heavy burden of persuasion here,” said former Representative Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat and the onetime chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who now directs Indiana University’s Center on Congress. “That task is made much more difficult when a powerful case is stated against the emerging deal, as the prime minister has done.”
Although Mr. Hamilton said he doubted many minds were changed by Mr. Netanyahu’s words, he said that “what a speech like this does is reinforces and intensifies the opposition at a critical point.”
To be sure, others argued that Mr. Netanyahu’s address would have an effect opposite to the one he intended — prompting lawmakers undecided about the deal to chalk up Mr. Netanyahu’s message as raw politics and discount it.

Yep, the Times is engaging in something despicable and insidious.

“If anything, today’s speech pushed moderate Democrats into more of a wait-and-see approach, because it was such a rare event to see a sitting prime minister come over and take issue with a U.S. president on a matter of foreign policy importance,” said John Ullyot, managing director of the High Lantern Group and a former top Republican foreign policy aide in the Senate.
Mr. Netanyahu’s hotly disputed address constituted a remarkable moment in Washington: a foreign leader taking the podium before members of the House and Senate to argue strenuously against the policies of the sitting American president. In doing so, the Israeli leader was essentially urging lawmakers to trust him — not Mr. Obama — when it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Mr. Netanyahu’s address was the third he has given to a joint meeting of Congress. He also spoke in 1996 and 2011.
Visibly irritated by Tuesday’s speech when asked about it in the Oval Office afterward, Mr. Obama dismissed the pressure from his Israeli counterpart, pledging to take his case “to every member of Congress once we actually have a deal.”
But as he makes that crucial sales job — which will involve persuading lawmakers to go along with the easing of a complex set of sanctions against Iran, some put in place by Congress — Mr. Obama must now overcome not only the animosity of Republicans but also the words of the leader of Israel, whose powerful speech will serve as the counterpoint to a president they already distrust.

I give up. This New York Times article is completely reasonable. Only a professional agitator like Rabbi Cooper would get up in arms about it.

I wonder if rabbis at the Simon Wiesenthal Center understand the consequences of overreach?

Anti-Zionist Philip Weiss writes:

The good news about yesterday’s speech by Netanyahu to a joint meeting of Congress is that lots of media are taking on that boy’s role, and pointing out the nudity: exclaiming over the fact that a foreign leader came into our house of government to try and overrule our president on foreign policy. Chris Matthews was especially forceful, describing it as a takeover. While a New York Times article said that Democrats have to choose between “loyalty to the Jewish state” and the president.
But journalists have a bigger job than merely exclaiming. They must explain to readers why this outrage took place. Why did Netanyahu get this platform? The answer is the power of the Israel lobby inside our politics. And while there was some talk about the Christian Zionist component of the lobby compelling Republicans to show up, no one could explain why so many Democrats– about 175 of them– sat still for this insult to the president. They did so because of the importance of the Jewish part of the lobby inside the Democratic Party, epitomized by Alan Dershowitz in the gallery. This was surely obvious to viewers. But the media were silent on that score.

Posted in Baruch Cohen, Iran, Israel, Simon Wiesenthal | Comments Off

Another Jewish Group Calls For More Censorship Of Speech They Don’t Like

Posted on March 4, 2015 by Luke Ford

ESSAY:

It is legal to yell “fire,” but for obvious reasons it is illegal to shout fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. So, should students at an anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) vote be allowed to yell “Allahu Akbar!” while shouting down mostly Jewish and pro-Israel students?
It is never questioned if college students are allowed to shout anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Chinese, anti-female, anti-any minority slurs. They are not. Students who do so could be expelled and charged for their hate speech and threats. So when a riotous, angry mob yells ”Allahu Akbar!” at Jewish students, are these words a threat?
Literally, “Allah Akbar” means “G-d is great.” However, in certain contexts, and usually outside of prayer, its use is both anti-Jewish and anti-Israel and, as can be seen in endless examples, it is often homicidal.
Recently, as a vote to divest from Israel took place at U.C. Davis, a mob of students shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as a small group of mostly Jewish pro-Israel students carrying American and Israeli flags made their way out. According to the University of California Policy Code, people are not allowed “to communicate a serious expression of intent to terrorize…’Terrorize’ means to cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm or death…”
In today’s climate, it seems most reasonable that a small group of Jewish and pro-Israel students would feel threatened, and yes, terrorized, while walking between a gauntlet of students yelling “Allahu Akbar!”
The University of California system would not tolerate these actions by any group toward gays, Asians, women, or blacks, so the time has come to put an end to this pretense. The time for yelling “Allahu Akbar!” at demonstrations, school votes, pro-Israel rallies, or anywhere that is publicly funded has come and gone, just as yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater has.

Here is the description of the writer: “Jack Saltzberg is the founder and executive director of The Israel Group, the first nonprofit established to fight the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement in North America. Saltzberg has been a nonprofit professional leader for nearly 20 years and he served in combat in the Israel Defense Forces. theisraelgroup.org”

I am particularly curious about this selection from the essay: “It is never questioned if college students are allowed to shout anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Chinese, anti-female, anti-any minority slurs. They are not. Students who do so could be expelled and charged for their hate speech and threats.”

Who will not allow college students to shout “anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Chinese, anti-female, anti-any minority slurs”? Their university? Their university will monitor them wherever they go to make sure they never shout anything negative about a minority? Who would “charge” them for their “hate speech and threats”? The school? Their mommy and daddy? Their friends? The police? The DA? What exactly would the charges be?

Jack Saltzberg appears unaware that the United States has a First Amendment and that this covers, among other groups, college students who have every right in the world to shout negative things about minorities.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Censorship, Islam, Jews | Comments Off

Are America’s interests and Israel’s interests identical?

Posted on March 4, 2015 by Luke Ford

If not, are the differences large at times? Does America have any vital national security interest in the Middle East? If so, what?

Christoph Donnellan: “No, they’re not, but then U.S. Mideast Policy is dictated by the Israel Lobby, i.e. AIPAC and other unregistered agents of a foreign power. Our interests are to stay out of Middle Eastern tribal and sectarian conflicts, and to maintain neutrality in the Israel-Arab dispute as much as possible, at least not arming and subsidizing kooks like Nutty Yahoo and his settler friends.”

Chaim Amalek: “Today’s Bottom Line: Obama is not going to do anything meaningful to derail Iran’s drive towards nuclear supremacy in SW Asia. Netanyahu looks weak for coming over here to plead with a Republican Congress that the Administration (ours) reverse course because it just won’t happen.”

Posted in America, Israel | Comments Off

Should Everybody Have To Say, I Am A Jew?

Posted on March 4, 2015 by Luke Ford

Sounds ridiculous to me. Do Jews really want this kind of flattery?

REPORT: Czech Republic President Milos Zeman on Monday urged the global community to show solidarity with the Jewish people and Israel. His remarks were made in a speech at the 2015 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference

“Now we all must say, ‘I am a Jew,’” he told a packed auditorium in Washington, DC. After extended applause from the audience, he repeated the sentiment in Hebrew, saying, “Ani Yehudi.”

“Of course, your discrimination is our discrimination,” he added. “Your victims are our victims.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off