November 24, 2014 William Lind On Christianity Vs Paganism Luke Ford No sacred cows.

William Lind On Christianity Vs Paganism

Posted on November 24, 2014 by Luke Ford

Right-wing pundit William S. Lind: “Christianity has never officially approved of forced conversion. The Church has always acknowledged that belief must come from the heart and the mind. This is different from Islam where once somebody has said the formula, even under threat of death, they are a Muslim, and if they ever decide they are not a Muslim, they are an apostate and under the threat of death.”

“If the culture goes, it takes everything with it.”

Q: “Is Christianity required for Western civilization? Republican Rome and ancient Greece produced wonderful civilizations.”

William: “Our culture is a product of Athens and Jerusalem.”

Q: “A lot of alternative Right types look to pagan religions, such as the Norse or Celts or Anglo-Saxons, and are inspired because the underlying culture is based on honor, loyalty and strength.”

William: “Christianity through most of its history was capable of fighting. That goes back to the early Christians enlisting in the Roman legions to show they were capable of fighting for empire.”

“In this neo-pagan revival, you see two things at work, one philosophical and one religious. Philosophically, and this lies at the heart of fascism, seeing the enormous weakness in the society around us, people on the right are looking for something that preaches strength. They look to the values of the ancient world where power was the greatest good and an act of will was a great virtue. The ancient Greeks could never conceive of a hero who lost. Almost everyone knows internally there’s something beyond this life.”

Q: “Pagan revivalists see Christianity as an outside influence that has destroyed their civilization.”

William: “This was the fascist view between the wars. They believed Christianity was a slave religion. Fascism is about rejecting the Judeo-Christian tradition and returning to the value system of antiquity. That’s what brought it down. It brought up a philosophical flaw that was fatal. Fascism said that the act of will is good in itself regardless of what is willed. Under stress, Fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler made bad decisions as an act of will. Mussolini’s fatal decision was to enter the war.”

“With the Nazis, it was a series of disastrous decisions including Hitler’s declaration of war on America and the decision in 1942 to undertake the Holocaust. The Nazi’s initial goal was not to kill the Jews. They wanted to get them out of Germany and later out of Europe. They were happy to have them go to Israel. One of [Adolf] Eichmann‘s last acts in Budapest was getting a thousand Hungarian Jews to Palestine. The British were preventing that from happening. The Nazis looked at the solution and saw they had no place to put the Jews. The British controlled the seas. What was the act of will? To kill them all.”

Q: “The Final Solution was not the first solution.”

Posted in Christianity, Fascism, Holocaust, Islam, Jews, Nazi | Comments Off

An Aussie Complaint About Obama

Posted on November 24, 2014 by Luke Ford

An Australian told me on Skype Sunday: I’ve got a complaint to make about Sambo, your president. Cheeky little bastard. When he came to Brisbane, he gave the authorities there two days notice that he wanted a venue for young people. That’s why they had to make a red zone around the University of Queensland. It wasn’t previously planned. By springing it at the last minute, he caused chaos for the Brisbane police force and for everyone who had to secure a venue with all the appropriate security a US president demands.

Then he gave a big speech, criticizing the Australian government over our climate change response and our treatment of gays and lesbians. The Queensland government has sent him a letter of protest. The Foreign Minister has sent him an update on what we’re doing to protect the Barrier Reef because Sambo’s uninformed. This cheeky bastard, everyone else who came was supplied a limo in Australia. But not the US president. He flew in a whole fleet of black limos. How many carbon emissions was he making with his overblown trips and overblown securities? And to stand up in Brisbane and lecture us about climate change when the US is the second biggest emitter?

When Sambo was in Cairo, did he criticize the treatment of gays there? Does he go to Saudi Arabia and say you should legalize homosexual marriage? Christ, they don’t even legalize them having gay sex. Why come to a liberal democracy and complain when gays suffer no impediment to their lifestyle? He’s a wanker.

We could have supplied him with something culturally appropriate. We could have picked him up at the airport with a pick-up truck filled with watermelon and cobs of corn. He would’ve felt right at home.

The US embassy warned him not to give that speech.

GERARD HENDERSON WRITES FOR THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER:

IT’S the case of a presidential address in two cities. Last Saturday, President Barack Obama spoke to an audience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane. He covered many issues but the big news from the event was that the US President used a public occasion in Australia to criticise the Australian government on climate change.

Compare and contrast Obama’s public address at Cairo University in Egypt on June 4, 2009. Here the US President effectively apologised for “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.” The only government in the region which the US President specifically criticised was his nation’s ally — Israel.

Clearly, Obama enjoyed his time in Australia. His speech in Brisbane resembled the “yes we can” rallies in the lead-up to the Democratic Party’s triumph in the November 2008 presidential election. According to reports, the White House asked for students to be present at the Brisbane address. There were young men and women from the University of Queensland along with some others from Brisbane-based tertiary institutions and some secondary schools.

Needless to say, the primarily young attendees just loved the celebrity President. So much so that he received a standing ovation even before addressing the audience. The speech had gone less than a minute when Obama referred to climate change — declaring that he had tweeted a University of Queensland study on this issue to his “31 million followers”.

So the audience was primed when the US President returned to the topic towards the end of the speech. There was instant applause when Obama advocated “the need to lead on the global fight against climate change”. Then the US President made an intervention into Australian national politics. He declared that “here in the Asia Pacific nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about and then acting on climate change” than Australia.

Ignoring the fact that world temperatures have not risen for close to two decades, Obama said that “a climate that increases in temperature … means longer droughts, more wildfires” and a threat to “the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef”. He went on to embrace the catastrophic cause, stating that “if China, as it develops, adapts the same per capita carbon emissions as advanced economies like the United States and Australia, this planet doesn’t stand a chance”.

The audience just loved it. It seems that few, if any, wanted to acknowledge that under the agreement negotiated between Obama and President Xi Jinping at the recent APEC conference in Beijing, China’s carbon emissions will continue to grow until 2030. They just shared Obama’s hyperbolic wish that the Great Barrier Reef will exist “50 years from now”.

It was clear to those present at the University of Queensland, or those following Obama’s speech on the electronic media, that the US President was criticising his hosts, Tony Abbott and Queensland Premier Campbell Newman. This despite the fact that the Abbott government’s ”direct action” commitment is similar, in likely outcomes in reducing emissions, to the approach of the Obama administration.

Certainly Abbott’s many critics in the ABC and Fairfax Media welcomed Obama’s message. ABC news bulletins gave prominence to the dressing-down on Saturday.

As did the front pages of the Fairfax Media’s Sunday papers. In Sydney, The Sun-Herald’s lead story was titled “Obama fires both barrels”, while in Melbourne The Sunday Age ran with “Obama turns up the heat”. Both reported that the US President had told Australia to lift its game on climate change.

It was much the same on social policy. Obama knows that in Australia the Coalition as well as many Labor MPs are opposed to changing the long-time legal definition of marriage to include same-sex partners. Yet Obama, a recent convert to this particular cause, used his Brisbane address to state that the US “will stand up for our gay and lesbian fellow citizens because they need to be treated equally under the law”.

Gays and lesbians enjoy wide-ranging rights in Australia. Unlike in many Muslim/Arab nations where homosexuality is a crime and gays are persecuted. Yet Obama chose to lecture about gay rights in a democratic, tolerant Australia — having remained silent on this issue at Cairo University some years earlier…

Obama’s Brisbane oration was overwhelmingly self-indulgent. The Abbott government has been among the strongest supporters of US military action against the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East. Abbott has continued the policy of the governments headed by John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard by backing US policy in the Asia Pacific…

It’s never smart to publicly denigrate your friends. US interests would have been better served if Obama had been as courteous to his Australian hosts in Brisbane as he was to his Egyptian hosts five years ago.

Posted in Australia, Barack Obama | Comments Off

Dirty Jew Slur On Fairfax Last Night

Posted on November 24, 2014 by Luke Ford

Batya emails:

Honorable J. Lacey District Attorney
County of Los Angeles
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210

Last night, about 8:00 o’clock, after a concert at LACMA, I stopped at the 99 Cents Only store, Wilshire & Fairfax.
A well dressed man, preppy looking, in his late 20’s attacked me verbally, because I was in his way. Shocked, I explained that I have a broken shoulder and it’s hard to maneuver my shopping cart He kept going and called at me: “Dirty Jew..”
Stunned, I wondered how did he know I am Jewish? I was not wearing a Jewish star? I figured later, that if you make a racial remark lets say in Chinatown about orientals, 90% of the time you’ll hit the target. Same with Jews in Fairfax. In other words, he came in to cause trouble. (Which was confirmed at the end)

How did he dare? He called me that slur from the other end of the aisle? Because he can. No one spoke out to helped me. (There were Jews with Kippa-headcover in the store.) He went on with his attack: “There was a time that Jews did not have that much power now…”

At that point I decided enough is enough and I cut him off by saying: “You are a racist. Stop this or I will call the police”.
I went to the cashier and asked for the manger. It took a long time to get one. I asked to do something as this guy was still shopping with a woman (wife?) and a boy (about 9yrs old). We called the police from the store, mastering all my willpower not to faint nor leave the store. As he was paying, I worried that he gets away with this. So, I confronted him trying to shame him in public, I said: “This how you are raise your son, calling a woman you don’t know a dirty Jew???
He calmly denied it. It never happened!!! Unbeknown to them from a safe distance, I followed them trying to get his license plate number but they kept walking across.

* Outside the store, the woman with the boy, who was shopping with him, completely lost it. She began to yell at the man: “How many times have I told you to stop this. You are doing it all the time. One day the police will arrest you.” You could hear her even around the corner…

In other words: This is a serial hate crime offender.

The police arrived shortly after. The 2 officers (I have their names) felt badly, but said that no crime was committed and did not write a report. I asked: What about hate crime/ Verbal assault/ I am a elderly…65/ A heart patient? Nada! There is nothing they can do according to their guidelines… Free speech.

I thanked them and before leaving, asked of them to double check the policy Re: Hate Crime. This morning I contacted the LA District Attorney’s office and left a recorded message with my contact number.

a. There are security cameras in and outside the store. You can have a picture of him.
b. The store manger and I are witness who can Identify him.
c. Check if he paid with a credit card.
d. When he saw that I won’t let the matter go, he called the police from his cell. They have a record of his call and his contact information.

I can’t get over it. Now days, here in a Jewish neighborhood??? Who else to contact and report this? Any suggestion?

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off

Are Attacks On Jews Attacks On God?

Posted on November 23, 2014 by Luke Ford

Which perspective do you find more useful? That different groups have different interests or that attacks on Jews are attacks on God?

A rabbi writes:

Let’s be clear.
The attack on the synagogue in Jerusalem was not an attack against Israel. And not an attack against Israelis. It was an attack on Judaism itself — and perhaps even on God. Let me put it this way: I cannot believe that Allah is pleased.
The last time that we saw horror on this level was the Shoah. Despite the contention of many historians, the Shoah was not “the war against the Jews,” to quote the title of Lucy Davidowicz’s famous book. Nor was it even a war against Judaism.
On many levels, the Shoah was a war against the God of both testaments. For the Nazis, the only “true” gods were the ancient Teutonic gods of blood and fire. This explains the Nazi admiration of the composer Richard Wagner, whose son-in-law, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, was a key expositor of German racial theory. It also explains the ultimate Nazi fantasy: a Europe consumed in a bonafide Wagnerian Gotterdammerung — a war of the gods that would ultimately bring an end to the world.
This Nazi war on God also explains something else: the savage glee with which Nazis destroyed synagogues, arks, and Torah scrolls. Who would have expected such a thing? Wasn’t the Torah, aka the Pentateuch, the first past of the Tanakh, aka the Old Testament. At the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, an exhibit of the material remnants of Kristallnacht features the Ark of the synagogue in Essen, Germany. It bears the traditional words that appear before the Ark in a sanctuary: “Know before Whom you stand.” But Nazi thugs scratched those off the defaced, desecrated Ark. In the midst of the chaos of those events, they took the time to do so. It is as if they were saying: “There is no one before Whom you stand, or before Whom we stand, or before Whom the world stands.” It is as if they were saying that the Name of God, also, is a victim – and that, beyond that, God is also a victim.

I understand the power of believing that attacks on your group are attacks on God. It gives you strength and clarity and in-group solidarity.

It does not give you empathy for your enemies, however. Ties bind and blind, notes Jonathan Haidt.

I find it more useful to understand these Arabs as pursuing their group interests, rather than deliberately engaging in a war against God. Their war against the Jewish state is really a war for their own group, a war that all groups fight. If Danes were running this land of Israel according to a Danish model, the Arabs and Muslims would want it destroyed because it would be an outpost of alien values in their midst.

Rather than ascribing anti-Jewish sentiment to a rebellion against God or to an eruption of mental illness, I see these struggles as normal group conflict. As long as there has been human history, there have been different groups with different interests in conflict with each other. During the 1930s and 1940s, Germans and Jews had different interests. The Nazis declared war on the Jews and Jews declared war on the Nazis. The Nazis (with the support of about 90% of the German population until the war against the Soviet Union turned bad) wanted an Aryan state free of Jewish influence. They acted on what they saw as their group interest by encouraging the Jews to leave Germany and Europe for Israel. After 1940, WWII made emigration to Palestine impossible. Other countries did not want to take Jews in. The Nazis had a problem. They settled on the Final Solution to the Jewish Question by killing Jews en masse.

If you look at the slaughter of rabbis in Jerusalem last week and you put yourself in the place of Arabs who believe that Israel belongs to them, you would understand why Arabs were celebrating. What weapons do Palestinians have if they want to take the land? They can’t stand up against the IDF in straight warfare. Aside from demographics, the only weapon they have are attacks on Israeli civilians, aka asymetrical warfare. The number one job of the Israeli government is protect Israelis. If Arab terrorists can disrupt that, then Jews will be more likely to leave Israel. Hamas targets civilians to drive them out of the Jewish state.

There will be tragedy in the Middle East until there is one dominant power who subjugates everyone else. If that dominant power is not Israel, it will be very bad for the Jews.

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

LilyHammer Season 3 Now On Netflix

Posted on November 22, 2014 by Luke Ford

You can’t watch this show and think that Norway is better off for the presence of Muslims and other foreigners. Why would any land want to import people who have allegiances above their new homeland?

Baltimore Sun review:

And I’ll also tell you at least one way in which “Lilyhammer” is more intelligent, edgy and sociologically resonant than the Kevin Spacey political drama — in its ongoing critique of multiculturalism, the ideology that dominates American political life but is rarely explored in mainstream media.

Series creators Anne Bjornstad and Eilif Skodvin say they conceived of Van Zandt’s Frank “The Fixer” Tagliano as a “fish out of water,” a safe and reliable comedic device. But in the musician’s performance and his own scripting for the character, Tagliano has become a way for millions of viewers to symbolically explore American cultural imperialism as well as the pluses and minuses of a belief system that privileges individual ethnic, racial and religious identification over any allegiance to a national system of values.

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off

What Does It Mean When The NYT Says A Woman Is ‘Extremely Close’ To President Obama?

Posted on November 21, 2014 by Luke Ford

I’m reading a New York Times article about David Krone, Harry Reid’s top aide, and I see this: “Mr. Krone’s wife, Alyssa Mastromonaco, a former West Wing staff member who is extremely close to the president…”

What does it mean when the New York Times says a young woman ‘is extremely close to the president‘?

Normally, I would take that to mean that the president was banging her but I did a Google image search on “Alyssa Mastromonaco” and decided no way.

Obama seems asexual to me, perhaps gay.

The Washington Post once noted about Jennifer A. Fitzgerald that she served President George H. Bush “in a variety of positions.”

Posted in Adultery | Comments Off

Lessons From #ShirtStorm

Posted on November 20, 2014 by Luke Ford

The goyishe men watch sports as their country is stolen from under them. If only my tribe wasn’t going to pay a terrible price for stealing it, I could watch and laugh.

Essay: So a team of scientists landed a space probe on the surface of a comet for the very first time ever, and that’s not really news. What’s news is that one of the guys who did it was wearing a tacky shirt.

No, really. Heather Wilhelm has a good overview of the ensuing imbroglio, dubbed #ShirtStorm on Twitter. Since the shirt in question had cartoon images of scantily clad women, you see, it was deemed off-putting toward women in science.

Chaim Amalek: “What makes this possible is the fear of losing one’s employment, and what makes that so potent is the understanding that America’s economy, for ordinary people, sucks and has sucked for about 10 years. (Or maybe 40 years. That case can be made.) Lose a job these days, and unless you are a superstar among superstars in a very hot field, you are cooked. Plus, we now have McCarthy-style blacklists, enforced by the Media and the New Commissars of Human Resources, who themselves are typically clueless women fearful of making a mistake. And there is always an H1B visa holder out there willing to take your place for two thirds the pay. And that’s what this is really about. Control over you, control over me. Vladimir Putin must be pea green with envy.”

Posted in Feminism, PC | Comments Off

Friends of the IDF

Posted on November 20, 2014 by Luke Ford

A few months ago, a secular Jewish friend went to a Friends of the IDF banquet and was given a green cloth yarmulke with “FIDF” on it. My friend doesn’t wear a yarmulke so he gave it to me. I started wearing it every day.

Then a few months ago, I hung out with some nationalists and when we were headed to a gathering, a leader in the movement asked me about my “FIDF” yarmulke. I explained what it stood for. He said, “That might not go over well with some people tonight.”

I was stunned. It had never occurred to me that wearing a little hat boosting the military of a foreign power might not be a good thing to do. I was so ethno-centric as an Orthodox Jew that I was blind.

So then I asked myself, “How would I feel if someone in the United States wore a cap to work boasting he was a friend of Putin’s nuclear forces or a friend of China’s military or a friend of Mexico’s military?” I quickly saw that I wouldn’t like it.

In America today, you don’t lose the approval of the ruling class by being too Jewish or too black or too Chinese. You only lose it by being too white.

I’ve stopped wearing this yarmulke. Never again.

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off

Why Not An American Ban On Illegal Workers?

Posted on November 20, 2014 by Luke Ford

Israel shows us the way once again on how to create a cohesive united country. Israel is the Jewish state and it conducts its affairs to benefit Jews. America should be an American state, conducting its affairs to benefit its majority white population.
If the goyim can learn from Zionism to unite in their ethnic self-interest, then Jews will be a major blessing to the world.

REPORT: An Israeli mayor has imposed a partial ban on employing Arab workers in his city in a sign of mounting security concerns after a surge in deadly Palestinian attacks.
Ashkelon Mayor Itamar Shimoni announced on Facebook that he was stopping “until further notice” the work of Arab laborers building bomb shelters in nursery schools in the city of 113,000, which is close to the Gaza Strip.
He also said guards would be posted at about 40 pre-schools near construction sites where Arabs work.
Many Israeli building workers come from the country’s Arab community, which makes up some 20 percent of the population, and Shimoni’s edict drew criticism from senior government officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu…
Shimoni brushed off the threat of legal action.
“Whoever thinks this is illegal can take me to the Supreme Court,” he told Channel Two television. “I prefer, at this time, to be taken to the Supreme Court, and not, God-forbid, to be taken to a funeral of a kindergarten child.”

Posted in Israel | Comments Off

Rabbinic Perspective On Dealing With Terrorism

Posted on November 20, 2014 by Luke Ford

Marc B. Shapiro writes: While I have enormous admiration for R. Bleich’s erudition, not all of his conclusions are widely shared. For example, in a 9/11-type scenario R. Bleich argues that it is forbidden to shoot down an airplane which is going to crash into a building and the innocent passengers will die anyway. See “Sacrificing the Few to Save the Many,” Tradition 43:1 (2010), pp. 78-86. Without getting into the possible halakhic refutations of R. Bleich’s position, and why this case is not parallel to talmudic examples which speak of killing one innocent person to save many others, my approach in such matters is first to see if a conclusion leads to absurd results, and if it does, that would generally be a proof that it is not a tenable ruling. (This was exactly the approach followed by the Maccabees when they concluded, after many were killed, that not fighting on Shabbat, even in self-defense, cannot be what God wants. See 1 Maccabees 2: 29-41)

If terrorists hijack an airplane, place a nuclear bomb on it, and fly to New York City or Tel Aviv, can it possibly be the halakhah that the plane cannot be shot down, and instead we will have to watch the city with all of its millions be killed? If I put an innocent person in my car trunk, load the car with explosives, and start driving the car to the middle of the city to explode it and kill hundreds, can it be that according to halakhah the military can’t blow up the car since an innocent person will be killed? If so, then in a state run according to halakhah terrorists will have a major new weapon: simply bring an innocent person along with them and this will prevent lethal attacks against the terrorists. In fact, they already do this in places like Gaza, and would anyone suggest that the State of Israel can’t defend itself even if it knows that an innocent person will be killed? It is thus not surprising to me that R. David Lau, when asked about shooting down a hijacked airplane to prevent it being crashed into a building, replied that it would be permissible. See here. When dealing with a 9/11-type scenario, Dov Halbertal refers to the innocent passengers as רודפים מאונס, thus meaning that it is permitted to shoot down the place. See Erekh ha-Hayyim ba-Halakhah, vol. 2, p. 382. R. Yitzhak Zilberstein states that during war the various rules about killing innocents to save others don’t apply. See Tefilah u-Refuah (Bnei Brak, 2011), pp. 58ff. He also suggests that one who is being held by terrorists intent on killing him (which is obviously the case with a hijacked plane) has the status of a גברא קטילא. This leads to the following conclusion (pp. 59-60):

ולכן יתכן שאין בהריגתו חידוש מצב של מיתה

This is in line with R. Elyashiv’s opinion that if terrorists are holding an innocent hostage, and are intent on killing him, it is permitted to drop a bomb on the terrorists even if you know that the innocent person will be killed at the same time. R. Elyashiv sees the action of killing the terrorists as a מעשה הצלה for future innocents. This pesak was given to R. Yaakov Wiener, and as R. Wiener notes, and contrary to R. Bleich’s opinion, this means that one can also shoot down a hijacked airplane in a 9-11-type scenario, since by doing so you save those currently on the ground from the intended assault. See R. Wiener, “She’elot u-Teshuvot be-Hilkhot Pikuah Nefesh,” Yeshurun 13 (2003), p. 552.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Terror | Comments Off