Professor Allan Nadler Defends Leon Wieseltier

Posted on October 31, 2017 by Luke Ford

Professor Allan Nadler posts on FB: “Jeffrey M. Ellis What in the world are you talking about? How can they have been substantiated if all remain anonnymous. LAW? What law ?? Please name a “law” that Leon has violated! Or even a municipal bylaw. Or anything rising to the criminality of an expired meter. Mara, good for you ! I’ve known Leon for more than 40 years, and there were two decades plus when we were very close; see it all, for better and worse. He has a lot more men than women to apologize to. And, one thing is certain, he is not a sexual predator. He likes women perhaps more than is ansoultuely required, is all……”

Of course Allan Nadler is going to defend his very good friend Leon Wieseltier. They had so much in common. They were so close. Speaking morally, they were joined at the hip. Speaking intellectually, they were of one flesh. I think Leon broke Allan’s heart.

In voices dripping with venom and jealousy, they could compare notes on who they got to fuck.

Allan should share about the things he did with Leon, the people he did with Leon, and the supplements they took.

Jeffrey M. Ellis replies to Allan Nadler: “Allan Nadler — You are ill informed if you believe that the charges against Wieseltier have been made anonymously. Read Michelle Cottle’s first person account of her experiences, which also quotes named women who were sexually harassed by Wieseltier.

Wieseltier himself has acknowledged and apologized for his behavior.

As for the rule of law, there are laws regarding sexual harassment, both criminal and civil. But that’s beside the point. It’s not against the law to make anti-semitic comments or keep a copy of Protocols of the Elders of Zion on your desk. Would you overlook such behavior if the person doing so were otherwise as great guy?”

Posted in Leon Wieseltier | Comments Off on Professor Allan Nadler Defends Leon Wieseltier

‘My Story with Leon Wieseltier’

Posted on October 31, 2017 by Luke Ford

The only reason that men like Leon Wieseltier and Harvey Weinstein show an interest in pretty young women with pretensions is that they want to fuck them. It’s not because they care what these women think. No man cares what a woman thinks on any intellectual matter. Why not? Well, for example, see this essay by Karen Lehrman Bloch:

We talked a lot. About everything. He loved to talk. He found intelligence sexy before it was cool to find intelligence sexy. He also encouraged me a great deal. With Leon’s guidance, I wrote three major essays on feminism for The New Republic, one a major cover story that led to a book contract. As an editor and a writer, he brought a fierce, distinctive intelligence to his work and never shied from an intellectual fight.

Were our conversations tinged with sexual innuendo? Sometimes. But for me they fell into the realm of flirtation. Other men in the office flirted, too. Only once did something “happen.” He asked me if I wanted to watch a movie in his apartment. I said yes. He tried to kiss me; I said no. He stopped immediately. That moment never came up again, and never affected our relationship.

We talked a lot about Judaism. I told him that right before my Bat Mitzvah, my family had moved to a big, sterile synagogue, which I hated. I hated it so much that I literally didn’t set foot in a synagogue again for a decade. When he heard this story, he said, “We’re going to synagogue this Shabbat.” And we did. At one point during the services, I cried. Tears of sadness, joy, reconnection. Leon said nothing, just offered quiet support by sitting next to me. He let me reconnect privately and never took credit for it.

Because of an email chain that I was not a part of, Wieseltier has now been Weinsteined. Shamed and disgraced. As far as I can tell, the worst he is being accused of is trying to plant an unwanted kiss and boorish behavior; perhaps there is more that we don’t know.

I respect—in fact, insist on—a woman’s right to speak up. If someone finds something offensive, it’s not for me to judge. But speaking out works both ways. I also have a story to tell, and part of that story is that I did experience harassment in the offices of TNR, but it didn’t come from Leon, and it wasn’t sexual.

It was verbal bullying. One editor in particular would look for reasons to scream at me and at the other young women. His bullying was well known. We put up with it, but it wasn’t pleasant.

With Leon, there was a lot of laughter. No matter what was going on in the world, we laughed. And he listened. He listened to my ideas, to my thoughts about men, women, sex, anything and everything. There was no quid pro quo; there was no manipulation. Wieseltier was nothing like Weinstein.

A former girlfriend of mine was deeply offended that a social justice mentor took her to dinner so he could try fuck her. She thought he was only interested in her ideas.

Ladies, no man is interested in your ideas.

Posted in Abuse, Leon Wieseltier | Comments Off on ‘My Story with Leon Wieseltier’

Do We Need More Trannies In The Military?

Posted on October 31, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments: * Trannies are severely mentally ill. They are more detached from reality than schizophrenics. The very last place they should be is in the military, in close proximity to very dangerous weapons.

* I’m sure Hefner’s children dearly loved him. That’s why they sent him off with a tranny porn issue.

* It’s really amazing how all those Nice White Ladies love Gays and Gay Marriage (TM) so much while having ZERO knowledge of (or even curiosity about) the actual behavior of homosexuals. They really believe in the fairy tale that “love is love” and that gay relationships work always exactly the same way as hetero relationships and that gays are just, you know, men who like musicals and interior decoration. How dumb can you get.

* We are told, ideologically anyway, that the US is all about equality, but the icono-politics of homos and trannies — the rainbow colors, the mass festivals, sainthood and celebrity — suggest that LGBTQ community is holier and precious.

Homos have been given tremendous iconic power in the US, and in an age where so much of culture is defined by images and sensory stimuli, the power of ‘iconology’ has a way of overriding the meaning of ideology. Sure, the homomania agenda has been sold as ‘equality’, and at one time, there was some truth to that in the sense that homos wanted equal freedom to do their thing.
But we are now way past that. It’s no longer enough to let homos be free to be homo. We must praise, celebrate, and hail the homo.
The reason why Milo got so much mileage was he was a Jewish-Homo ‘conservative’ with thing for Negroes. In a nation where the three groups with most iconic power are Jews, homos, and Negroes, Milo was the intersection of all three. As Jew, he could invoke Shoah and support for Israel, a blood cousin of Anne Frank. As homo, he could promote himself as Mr. Cool and Creativity, flaming flamboyance. With Bungle Fever, he could defend himself from charges of ‘racism’. (Oddly enough, favoring blacks as superior homo-mates is not ‘racist’ even though it’s predicated on racial differences. But then, favoring Jews over Palestinians is also regarded as okay than ‘racist’ when, clearly, one people are being hailed and favored over another. So, ‘racism’ has come to mean “not recognizing blacks as the superior race”, and ‘antisemitism’ has come to mean “not obeying Jews as the master race.”) Due to the power of ‘iconology’, Conservatives were at a moral disadvantage since the Lib Democratic Party was seen as the favored home of the Holy Three; Jews, Homos, and Negroes. So, when Milo claimed to be a ‘conservative’, so many in Con Inc. bent over backwards to welcome him and worship him like the golden calf.

Ideologically, people say and claim to stand for certain values and principles. But ‘iconologically’, they act at odds with their stated ideology, often without noticing this discrepancy because iconic power has a spellbinding and hypnotic effect on them.
I mean, how can Americans who claim to be for equality of all peoples be so fanatically pro-Zionist while so insensitive to Palestinian issues? It’s because all those images of Israeli flags juxtaposed with American flags, all those chants about “Israel is America’s closest friend”, all the symbols and hymns about Shoah, and etc have the majority of Americans doped on Philosemitism.

In a way, the recent NFL controversy is a war of icons. Patriotism as represented by Red, White, and Blue and the National Anthem and Negromania as represented by black athletes who resist symbols of ‘white supremacism’ that has gone from Confederate flag to the American flag itself.
The thing about blacks is they think everything exists to serve them. Their favorite phrase is ‘have me’. “I wanna have me(this), have me(that).” They had Obama for 8 yrs, and it’s like what Michelle Obama said in 2008, that she was proud for the first time. Blacks are not looking for equality. Like Jews and homos, they seek supremacy and special privilege. And the thing about ‘iconology’ is that icons can never be egalitarian. Icons favor certain images and sounds over others. This is why one set of icons must call for destruction of other sets of icons, like Robert E. Lee monuments. (It’s no wonder Ancient Hebrews came to loathe idols. It always turns everything into a violent sports of iconography vs iconoclasm.) Ideology can be exclusive too, but ideas are more comprehensive than idols, which represent something more specific. So, while ‘democracy’ is an ideology, the image of the Founding Fathers strikes many people as ‘dead white supremacist males’, and as such, those icons must be destroyed. In a way, what we are witnessing today is less a war of ideology than ‘iconology’, with diverse forces vying for Sacred Iconic Status. And this is why the fall of Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein was so worrisome to people like Woody Allen. They really tarnish the iconic image of the Jew as the Eternal Sacrificial Sheep. They come across like Jordan Belfort the wolf.

Posted in Trans | Comments Off on Do We Need More Trannies In The Military?

Shorter Tablet: Jews Are The Establishment And Therefore Have The Most To Lose From Anti-Establishment Politics

Posted on October 31, 2017 by Luke Ford

David Mikics writes for Tablet:

Along with the Soviet Union’s accusation that Zionism is racism, the left has inherited the Communist Party’s “politics of position,” as David Hirsh calls it in his new book Contemporary Left Antisemitism. What you are determines whether or not what you say will count. (How many campus arguments have been clinched with the accusation of “white privilege”?) If you are a Zionist, your words are worthless; you can’t possibly have an argument worth listening to.

In left-wing circles these days, Hirsh comments, “the notion of ‘progressiveness’ attache[s] itself to peoples and nations rather than to political movements or to ideas,” and Jews have found themselves on the wrong side of this crude black-and-white binary. Jews are oppressors, not victims. A common tactic of the British anti-Zionist left is to treat any raising of the issue of anti-Semitism as a dirty trick, something that Jews have invented to claim special privileges for themselves.

But why should anyone care? Jews no longer face pogroms, and Israel has plenty of room for improvement. Jews in America and the United Kingdom are mostly well-educated and financially secure. The Jews of France might have more reason to feel endangered, but if they want to leave for Israel, most have the means to buy a plane ticket. And in Israel, at least for the moment, Jews are rarely subject to terrorist violence. Shouldn’t we focus on other kinds of racism that affect more genuinely downtrodden groups?

Well, there is the statistical fact that Jews are targeted by killers and casual bigots alike more often than more fashionable religious victim groups in Western societies. But even putting that reality aside, giving special-victim status only to certain groups while excluding others is bad politics and bad morality. Like Donald Trump’s sham populism, anti-Semitism destroys our political climate, by providing a portal through which widespread distortions of social reality and links to repulsive, anti-American and irrational political ideas may enter.

Surprisingly, contemporary anti-Semitism is mostly an echo of Soviet propaganda. Zionism=racism, the UN resolution passed in 1975 and repealed in 1991 after the Soviet Union collapsed, was a Communist idea that is now resurgent on college campuses and in left-wing political circles. Communism invented the use of anti-Zionism as a cover for anti-Semitism, as well as the notion that Israel is an agent of Western imperialism. The anti-Zionist left were pioneers of fake news, another Leninist innovation, even before Glenn Beck or Breitbart on the right. Often, the point of such fake news is that Israel, or the Jews, are uniquely malevolent, powerful, and cruel; they—we—delight in killing Palestinian children, or at least covering up for those who do. We push America into wars—an interesting thesis, Valerie Plame Wilson seems to think—and we destroy the careers of anyone who “criticizes” Israel.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel | Comments Off on Shorter Tablet: Jews Are The Establishment And Therefore Have The Most To Lose From Anti-Establishment Politics

Foreign Affairs: The European Roots of the Alt-Right – How Far-Right Ideas Are Going International

Posted on October 31, 2017 by Luke Ford

George Hawley writes:

Some figures once associated with the ENR have attacked it for a similar reason, but from the right rather than the left. These critics, most prominent among them the journalist Guillaume Faye, believe that the ENR’s high-minded, universalistic rhetoric about difference is a sham. Faye rejects the idea that the movement should fight, as de Benoist put it, for “the cause of peoples,” urging it to instead be honest that it really cares only about the fate of Europe—especially as it relates to Muslim immigration, which Faye sees as a mortal threat. In Faye’s view, dancing around this uncomfortable truth with talk of an abstract right to difference serves only to water down the ENR’s message and weaken its impact.

Faye has also rejected de Benoist’s preference for abstract metapolitics designed to persuade elites and change the culture. He has argued that because of Europe’s demographic trajectory, which points toward a steadily declining white share of the population throughout the twenty-first century, Europeans do not have time to wait for the cultural landscape to change; instead, practical politics must begin today. Faye’s manifesto Why We Fight calls for a “fight with a sense of urgency, to stop the invasion and reverse Europe’s biocultural destruction.” The book is now a mainstay on the alt-right in the United States and is promoted by alt-right groups such as Identity Evropa.

From its birth until the recent past, the ENR received little attention from the American right, despite making waves in France and other European countries. The lack of interest on the mainstream right is easy to understand. The ENR rejects nearly every element of U.S. conservatism, including capitalism, Christianity, and support for the United States’ international hegemony. It is thus unsurprising that the movement long received only cursory attention from mainstream U.S. conservative outlets such as National Review…

These European ideas are finding a receptive audience in the United States for many reasons. One is the declining legitimacy of mainstream U.S. conservatism, which has prompted a search for right-wing alternatives to what is increasingly perceived as a calcified and anachronistic ideology. Ideas taken from the ENR are also useful for those who wish to provide an intellectual gloss to crude racist attitudes…

The European far right’s influence on its U.S. counterparts now extends beyond works of political theory. The use of the term “identitarian” to describe American white nationalists—a rhetorical device that is increasingly common among alt-right ideologues and serves to soften the movement’s image—is similarly adopted from Europe.

The alt-right is also borrowing activism tactics honed by the European far right. Having apparently learned a lesson from the Charlottesville rally—which was a major propaganda defeat for the alt-right—the movement is increasingly turning to so-called flash mobs. Rather than announcing their activities months in advance and giving their opponents time to organize, alt-right supporters rapidly assemble, declare their message, and disperse before counterprotesters can mobilize—a method that the European identitarian movement has used for years. The European far right has in turn adopted tactics pioneered in the United States, such as online trolling.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Foreign Affairs: The European Roots of the Alt-Right – How Far-Right Ideas Are Going International