Parshat Tazria-Metzora

Posted on April 23, 2017 by Luke Ford

This week we have two Torah portions (Lev. 12:1 to 15:33).

Listen here and here.

* One receives a sense of calm from studying Torah. The events of the day fade away and you step into the realm of eternity.

* Early childhood education.

* People pleasing is not a virtue. It always involves dishonesty and deceit. Do you need to tell people what they want to hear?

* Judging by the many complications of Torah laws, Jews must have been smart from the beginning. This is not a religion for the dim (on the other hand, mizrahi Jews have an average IQ of 92, Sephardim Jews of 97, while Ashkenazi Jews are about 108).

* No hidden knowledge in Torah. It’s all laid out. It’s the opposite of Scientology.

* Bicameralism in psychology.

* All ancient cultures had taboos against menstruating women (fearing that they were “the repository of demonic forces”). From a Jewish perspective, menstruation represents death (the death of an egg aka potential life) and Judaism constantly separates between life and death (Jewish priests are not allowed to visit a cemetery, can’t marry hookers aka converts to Judaism).

* I love how it is cool to care about trees, but uncool to care about whites and Western civilization (the product of white goyim). Re: Los Angeles Times: “The trees that make Southern California shady and green are dying. Fast.”

* Jacob Milgrom: “Anthropology has taught us that when a society wishes to express and preserve its basic values, it ensconces them in rituals.”

* Skin disease (tzaraath) represents death, so creepers have to be separated from the community lest they bum people out. Wiki: “The Torah identifies three manifestations of tzaraath: as an affliction of human skin, (Leviticus 13:2) of garments (Leviticus 13:47) and of houses (Leviticus 14:34).”

* Wiki: “Professor Jacob Milgrom, formerly of the University of California, Berkeley, noted that reddish substances, surrogates for blood, were among the ingredients of the purificatory rites for scale-diseased and corpse-contaminated persons, symbolizing the victory of the forces of life over death.”

* Nega’im do not render gentiles impure because they are already impure to begin with. The house and clothing of a goy is insusceptible to tzaraath as is a Torah scroll (so holy, it cannot receive impurity).

Wiki:

Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch demonstrated at length that tzaraath was not to be interpreted as a medical malady, but rather as a spiritual affliction. The verse itself indicates this, as it directs those who find themselves afflicted to seek out a Kohen (priest) and not a doctor, while the Torah specifically permits and even encourages those who are in need of medical care to seek treatment from physicians.[52]

The Torah’s emphasis is clearly on the tu’mah (טומאה, “ritual impurity “) that results from a diagnosis of tzaraath because the verses focus on the kohen’s declaration of “unclean” – וראהו הכהן וטמא אתו (“The kohen will see [the eruption] and [declare] him impure”).

The Talmud, and the majority of historic Jewish literature in general, regards tzaraath as a punishment for sin; it lists seven possible causes for tzaraath:[53]

an evil tongue (malicious gossip)
murder
a vain oath
illicit sexual intercourse
pride
theft
miserly behavior

* Judaism’s purity laws according to Wikipedia:

The Hebrew terms tumah and taharah refer to ritual “impurity and purity” under Jewish law.[1][2] The Hebrew noun tum’ah (טָמְאָה) “impurity” describes a state of ritual impurity. A person or object which contracts tumah is said to be tamei (Hebrew adjective, “ritually impure”), and thereby unsuited for certain holy activities and utilisations (kedusha in Hebrew) until undergoing predefined purification actions that usually include the elapse of a specified time-period.

The contrasting Hebrew noun taharah (טָהֳרָה) describes a state of ritual purity that qualifies the tahor (טָהוֹר; ritually pure person or object) to be used for kedusha. The most common method of achieving taharah is by the person or object being immersed in a mikveh (ritual bath). This concept is connected with ritual washing in Judaism, and both ritually impure and ritually pure states have parallels in ritual purification in other world religions.

The laws of tumah and taharah were generally followed by the Israelites, particularly during the First and Second Temple Period,[citation needed] and to a limited extent are a part of applicable halakha in modern times.

* Mishna “Zavim: (זבים “Seminal Emissions”); deals with the laws of a person who has ejaculated.” Spilt seed represents death.

Monty Python notes that every sperm is sacred:

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be found.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

* Mr. Darcy: “Who knew that when the Saxon Began to Hate it would be such hilarious good fun?”

* If a priest is deformed (aka limps), he can’t serve in the temple. Judaism values aesthetics. Perhaps fatties should not serve in our synagogues?

* Feces and urine are not impure.

* John Mearsheimer: “Creating a peaceful world is surely an attractive idea, but it is not a practical one.” This seems to be the opposite of Judaism’s vision, unless you place that vision in the Messianic Age.

* An Amazon review of Jacob Milgrom’s popular Leviticus commentary:

Few modern Bible scholars have revolutionized the study of one book to the extent Jacob Milgrom has revolutionized the study of Leviticus. Milgrom’s massive three volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible series, exceeding 2500 pages, is an exhaustive and sometimes exhausting study that addresses virtually every issue raised in Leviticus. (I have also reviewed for Amazon the Anchor Bible commentary on Leviticus by Milgrom and you might want to read those reviews.)

This more modest volume, issued by Fortress Press, can best be described as a condensation of Milgrom?s Anchor Bible commentary. Milgrom eliminates almost all his discussion of the dating of the text, arcane questions of etymology, syntax and grammar, and his thorough reviews of scholarly opinions, both modern and ancient, on various issues. Instead, Milgrom’s concentrates on explaining the basics of Leviticus when viewed within the context of the ancient world.

Milgrom argues that the authors of Leviticus, which he identifies as “P” (Priestly source, chiefly Lev. 1-16) and “H” (Holiness source, chiefly Lev. 17-27), while preserving many rituals and customs that Israel shared with its neighbors, infused them with a profound theology unique to Israel, a theology founded upon a radical monotheism that banished demons from the world and posited man?s choices as the chief source of good and evil.

Readers who don’t want to shell out more than $100 for the three volume Anchor Bible commentary and wade through thousands of pages of text will find in this more modest volume most of Milgrom’s principal insights.

Milgrom explains how P transformed the ancient concept of purity and impurity so that it became part of an overall system reflecting profound values of life and death, with holiness being linked to life and impurity to death. Milgrom argues that P limited the physical causes of impurity to a mere handful all of which are connected with death. In contrast, P taught that the chief source of impurity was man?s sin, the more serious the sin the more severe the impurity it created. Man?s sin generates impurity which pollutes the Tabernacle and, if not expurgated by sincere repentance and sacrifice, will drive God?s presence from the Tabernacle. Milgrom also demonstrates how the dietary laws in Leviticus are part of an overall ethos which seeks to limit human consumption of meat and to instill in Israel an abiding respect for life, both animal and human.

Milgrom also argues that H built upon the foundation laid by P, expanding the concept of holiness to encompass not just the Tabernacle/Temple but the entire land of Israel, which according to H absorbed the impurities caused by the people’s sins. H teaches that if the people continue in their sinful ways by disobeying God, the land will vomit the people out and people will not be permitted to return from exile until they have repented and the purity of the land has been restored by the passage of time. H, moreover, transforms P by teaching that holiness is not limited to the priesthood but is attainable by all of Israel. H commands that the priests to maintain their holiness and the people to attain holiness, but the means of maintaining and attaining holiness are the same – obedience to God’s commandments.

To be precise, it is not accurate to say that according to Milgrom, H teaches that the land of Israel is holy. In fact, Milgrom argues that neither P nor H label the land as holy. However, according to Milgrom, H teaches that the land is susceptible to pollution caused by the people’s sins. Thus the people and the land share a common bond – both are susceptible to impurity and the holiness of the land depends upon the conduct of those living on it. Thus, Milgrom says, H teaches on the one hand that both the land and the people are defiled by the people’s sins and, on the other hand, the people explicitly and the land implicitly are sanctified by the people’s obedience to God’s commands. For H, the holiness of the people is a goal, not yet attained, and therefore the land is not yet holy. However, holiness for both is the goal.

I struggled considering whether to give this volume the highest rating. Overall, Milgrom’s Anchor Bible commentary on Leviticus is better, but this volume does a tremendous job of serving the needs of readers who don’t have the time or the money to purchase and study the Anchor commentary. Moreover, this shorter commentary contains several homiletic reflections by Milgrom that do not appear in his more scholarly Anchor Bible commentary. If you want a relatively inexpensive and manageable commentary on Leviticus and don’t mind missing many of the more esoteric but equally enlightening insights in the Anchor Bible commentary which have been omitted due to the constraints of this series, this shorter commentary by Milgrom is for you. Myself, I prefer my Prometheus unbound!

* Jacob Milgrom writes: “Infectious diseases and especially those to which a sexual fault is attached always inspire fears of easy contagion and bizarre fantasies of transmission by non-venereal means in public places. The removal of door knobs and instillation of swinging doors on U.S. Navy ships and the disappearance of the metal drinking cups affixed to public water fountains in the United States in the first decade of the twentieth century were the early consequences of the “discovery of syphillis” — “instantly transmitted infection.” The warning to generations of middle-class children always to interpose paper between bare bottom and public toilet seat is another trace of the once rife horror stories about the germs of syphilis being passed to the innocent by the dirty.”

* When I had CFS, many people wondered if I was contagious. My peers treated me as contagious. Most people fear being around the sick. The more terrible and mysterious the disease, the more they fear.

* Jim Crow laws were a symbol of the fear of contagion.

* There aren’t many Christian or goyish commentaries on Leviticus, but there is now one Christian scholar — Roy Gane, who studied under Jacob Milgrom. Leviticus was more important to Seventh-Day Adventists than to most other Christians (see my dad’s life).

Spectrum, Jan. 13, 2016:

Desmond Ford’s New Book Recalls Conflict Over Sanctuary Doctrine, Dismissal from Adventist Employment

Former Adventist pastor, theologian and professor Dr. Desmond Ford has released a new book in which he documents the events that led to his dismissal from denominational employment in 1980. The events in Ford’s retrospective, entitled “Seventh-day Adventism, The Investigative Judgment and the Everlasting Gospel,” are more than 35 years old, but they continue to provide insights into the ways ecclesiastical authority has been determinative for both theology and employment with the Adventist denomination.

A convert from Anglicanism to Seventh-day Adventism, Ford has had a longstanding preoccupation with the assurance of Salvation. That preoccupation motivated the release of the book, and played a crucial part in its central conceit—Ford’s critique of the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent Judgment, often referred to simply as the Sanctuary Doctrine.

Ford saw the fear caused by the notion of a heavenly investigation into the deeds of every human being, preceding the close of probation and the Second Advent. The doctrine, Ford observed, caused many Adventists to question their standing with God, and to doubt whether they were fit to be saved. For Ford, this uncertainty was incompatible with the Gospel. For decades, Ford tried to point out the problem. Page 42 of the book describes the situation this way:

“Dr. Ford traces his concern with the sanctuary doctrine back to 1945. Since then, he has sought unsuccessfully in papers, articles and books to persuade church leaders to face up to what he regards as serious non sequiturs in the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9. From 1962 to 1966, the select General Conference Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel had given protracted attention to these problems without being able to reach a consensus with respect to them. The 1970s witnessed implementation of a policy that reserved decisions in theological matters primarily to administrators, which made it impossible to resolve a growing tension about the sanctuary through normal scholarly study and deliberation.”

The preceding paragraph reveals that, in addition to Ford’s objections to the Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment, he took issue with the imbalance of power between administrators and theologians, which set up bureaucrats (most of whom were not theologians by training) as the gatekeepers of Adventist doctrine, and thus of Adventist orthodoxy.

Ford had been a professor at Avondale College in Australia, but prior to the events discussed in this book, he transferred to Pacific Union College in the United States, where he served as a visiting lecturer.

In 1979, Ford’s impasse with the Adventist Church over the Sanctuary Doctrine came to a head. Ford framed the events of that October as a turning point for the church. From the book’s preface:

“October 27, 1979 was a pivotal date for Seventh-day Adventism. On that day Desmond Ford, responding to an invitation from the PUC (Pacific Union College) Forum, spoke to over 1000 people on “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity.” Dr. Eric Syme responded, expressing his substantial agreement with Ford’s presentation. Then followed a lengthy Q&A session.”

Ford considers the events of 1979 and 1980 to be of continuing importance for the Adventist Church for two reasons:

1. Ford’s objections to the Sanctuary Doctrine and his subsequent dismissal cut to the heart of Seventh-day Adventist teaching.

2. An incorrect understanding of God’s judgment, he said, can only lead to an incorrect understanding of the Gospel.

On one level, Ford’s critique of the Sanctuary Doctrine was pragmatic and pastoral—the teaching caused people to doubt their salvation. On another level, his critique was scholarly.

The book details his objections to official the Adventist understanding of the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgement by means of a transcript of Ford’s October 1979 presentation.

One key issue, Ford stated, had to do with the word “cleanse.”

Unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” On the basis of that word, our pioneers linked this prophecy with Leviticus 16, but the word isn’t there. You say, “Of course it’s there.” No, it’s not there. The KJV is a mistranslation. The word translated “cleanse” there is not found in Leviticus 16. It’s a different word altogether. That’s why almost all modern translations do not use “cleanse,” and therefore, from all other translations, you are crippled as a way of getting back to Leviticus 16” (pg. 12).

* In 1999, via email, a Seventh Day Adventist Bible scholar deconstructed me and my father:

You father “knows” too much for me to tell him anything. Including about you. It will never happen.

…Knowing too much, summarizing too fast, summing up too quickly, is a weakness he has. It’s a way that you and he are terrifically alike.

…By the way, you enjoy controversy and driving people nuts way too much. Both of you. What is the blessing in “Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Jesus knew at least as much about Judaism as you do….) Part of what makes you ill at ease in the self/world dichotomy is this approach toward the outside world as the enemy to be debunked.

Hiding behind “journalism” as the reason for this cynicism just won’t do. I ain’t convinced! There are lots of “journalists” who do have the same problem with their approach, but there are lots that don’t. It’s not endemic to journalism to have to drive people nuts, to be cynical, and to print what MAY be someone’s screwup and assume it’s true until proven otherwise. The theory of the law, “Innocent until proven guilty” would help in your approach to your journalism. But of course you became this sort of journalist as a result of an already existing cynicism, not the reverse. You have charm and intelligence and good looks, and I can see that it is dangerously easy for you to mislead people about yourself–even when you know you’re doing it. Careful, this can make for a hollow feeling and dis-ease.

…Now, what your father [two Ph.Ds in Christianity] was exposed to was “readings” in the British style. Not the original materials, but readings of not-very-good European writers, whose writings couldn’t even be taken seriously (since they’re relatively ignorant of the details) in American Biblical Studies. Out of this study of generally poor secondary sources your father got the impression he was something of an expert in theology. From this weak background, with most of his questions unanswered, he launched into doing what only someone who didn’t know what he didn’t know would do: he tried to write a commentary on Daniel. It was a terrible mishmash of preterism, historicism, and futurism without any understanding of how these systems complement and clash. There was no understanding of their history, of the sameness and difference involved in them.. And much of the book was unedited quotes from other sources strung together in ways that didn’t fit at all. It became apparent to me after only a few minutes that your father didn’t have the foggiest notion of the Book of Daniel, and shouldn’t even be teaching an academy class on the subject, much less writing a book about it. That a Seventh Day Adventist publishing house published this mess, virtually unedited, and with even the Hebrew title screwed up, showed the blind leading the blind.

You write very much in the style of your father. Like him, you tie together long quotes, with rather poor segues and transitions. This is so evident in your website that I marvel that I didn’t get it sooner. And you’ve gotten the same kind of accurate and strong criticism your father got for what passes for writing. And the same kind of “this guy really didn’t take the time to know what he was talking about before he became a legend in his own mind” criticism.

Posted in Torah | Comments Off on Parshat Tazria-Metzora

Eastern European Jews And The Case Of the Marginalized Elite

Posted on April 22, 2017 by Luke Ford

Paul Gottfried writes:

The story of Eastern European Jews who immigrated to America in the beginning of the twentieth century is a story of “self-marginalization.” The more dramatically Eastern European Jews progress socio-economically, the more strenuously they identify with “marginalized groups” and seek to undermine the white Christian majority population. And though he takes care to guard against charges of being Politically Incorrect, David R. Verbeeten’s The Politics of Non-Assimilation: Three Generations of Eastern European Jews in the United States in the Twentieth Century (De Kalb: NIU Press, 2017) is a goldmine of sociological evidence revealing this critically important phenomenon which so many scholars are happy to ignore.

The Dissident Right may find Verbeeten controversial as well. Though Kevin MacDonald argues his theory about Jewish group behavior ably, I believe it is unwarranted to generalize about the social behavior of all Jews simply because of the behavior of Eastern European Jews. [In Search of Anti-Semitism, by Paul Gottfried, Takimag, April 6, 2009] Other Jewish immigrants in other times and places have behaved very differently, including backing causes which today would be called reactionary or even “racist.”

Most Sephardic and German Jews who came to this country disappeared quickly into the gentile gene pool. As late as 1920, a plurality of American Jews, mainly those of German and Sephardic descent, voted for the Republican presidential candidate, Warren Harding. (Presumably the 38% who voted for the socialist Eugene Debs came from the newly enfranchised Eastern European Jews) [U.S. Presidential Elections: Jewish Voting Record, Jewish Virtual Library, Accessed April 20, 2017]. One of the earliest religious congregations to declare for Southern secession was the Temple in Charleston, Beth Elohim, the congregation of Confederate secretary of state Judah Benjamin. Thousands of Jews, of German or Sephardic origin, fought for the Confederacy [Jewish Confederates, by Hunter Wallace, Occidental Dissent, June 5, 2013].

Verbeeten gamely attempts to explain the change in American Jewish political attitudes but sometimes avoids the obvious. There is no demonstrable correlation, he tells us not very convincingly, between the fear of anti-Semitism and the compulsive affinity of Eastern European Jews for “left-wing activism.” Although Eastern European Jews went into the Democratic Party en masse, we’re told the party they chose may have “harbored” more anti-Semites than did the Republican Party. He also claims that “rather than antisemitism, the Jewish Left is far more decisively correlated with secularization.” The proof we are given is that Orthodox Jews, even of Eastern European provenance, remained “conservative.”

The author, a Cambridge PhD with whom I’ve corresponded for years, is far too intelligent to take such assertions seriously. It seems unlikely those Jews who eagerly assimilated feared and/or loathed the goyim whose company they were seeking. It’s equally unlikely Jewish leftist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, which constantly claim rampant anti-Semitism among white Christian heterosexuals, are free of any fear of antisemitism.

Besides, the attraction of Eastern European Jews to the Democratic Party was not the chief measure of their radicalism. There was a disproportionately large Jewish membership in the Communist Party. Verbeeten analyzes this inconvenient truth in his discussion of Eastern European radical Alexander Bittelman, one of the architects of the American Communist Party. He also notes the heavy Jewish vote cast in 1948 for the Soviet-appeaser Henry Wallace and the very noticeable Jewish presence in almost every culturally Leftist pressure group in the US for the last century. This radicalism tells us more about American Jewish political attitudes than the fact Jews voted for FDR.

Verbeeten’s insistence that Jewish radicalism and Jewish self-marginalization correlates not with fear of antisemitism but secularization raises an obvious question. Why were earlier Jewish immigrants to America far less likely than the Eastern European latecomers to become permanently radicalized once they stopped attending synagogue or performing Jewish rituals?

Lots of German and Sephardic Jews broke away from their ancestral ritual community, without going on to support Stalin’s Five Year Program or demanding transgendered rest rooms. Admittedly Orthodox Jews are more likely than other Jews to vote Republican now, perhaps because of the GOP’s fervent support for Israel. But Orthodox congregations have also had their fill of Jewish leftists (like Abe Foxman). And though Orthodox Rabbis have not very often marched for gay rights, it’s doubtful “secularization” is the chief reason Eastern European Jews remain on the political and social left.

More importantly, a leftist mindset is by no means peculiar to Eastern European Jews. This group has behaved like other ethnically cohesive minorities in America drawing friend/enemy distinctions. That such groups would support the Left is entirely predictable. Their members view themselves as a minority struggling against an Establishment from which they think (or would like to think) they’re being excluded. Pointing to the majority “enemy” that allegedly threatens one’s minority existence makes perfectly good sense from an in-group perspective. Having an enemy, even an imaginary one, at the gate prevents loss of collective solidarity—and benefits those whose job it is to exaggerate the danger of hostile outsiders.

The German Jewish patricians whom Verbeeten discusses as the managers of Jewish philanthropies were not particularly interested in maintaining Jewish solidarity. They admired the Protestant upper-class whom they tried to imitate. German Jewish philanthropists were far more indulgent than Eastern European Jews in dealing with the social elite who snubbed them, according to Verbeeten. The prejudice they encountered in seeking membership to private clubs and opulent WASP neighborhoods was viewed as a temporary inconvenience. It was not something they cared to denounce since they hoped to become the friends of those who were snubbing them. Such conduct was not unusual for a group seeking admittance into a higher social stratum.

However, once Eastern European Jews took over these philanthropies, and formed the American Jewish Congress in 1918, they attacked white Christian discrimination in any and every form. Of course, these vaunted Jewish warriors against discrimination were far from equally critical of those who attacked them from the Left. Indeed they’ve often bent backward to excuse the hateful antisemitism of blacks and other designated victim groups. Such hypocrisy is deemed an acceptable cost to maintain the Jewish alliance with the socially marginal.

What is equally remarkable about this Jewish “self-marginalization” that Verbeeten discusses is its intergenerational character. It has not faded over time but resulted in jumping from one Leftist commitment to the next, from Alexander Bittelman’s Stalinism through support for the Civil Rights revolution in all its phases down to feminism, gay marriage and crusades for illegal immigrants.

We are clearly dealing with a group that embraces all kinds of Leftist causes, most of which have a destabilizing effect on what remains of a traditional Christian society.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on Eastern European Jews And The Case Of the Marginalized Elite

Very Racist, Very Anti-Semitic Article In Los Angeles Times Pretending To Mourn Loss Of Tree Privilege

Posted on April 20, 2017 by Luke Ford

Just substitute “Jews” for everything bad in this article and you can see how this essay is an invite for a Holocaust. It is stoking the flames of hate.

This is not who we are. It’s the current year. My wife’s son is very upset.

Substitute “whites” or “goyim” or “WASPs” for leafy trees and you’ll be clued in to the white supremacy inherent in the system.

How long will we stand by while foreign eucalypti devastate our native habitat and suck up our water?

I’m from Australia but I’m sick of eucalypti running everything in this town.

Why can’t there be a patch of this earth that is free from invasive species? Why can’t Southern California native plants have their own safe space?

The WASPs that made America great are dying. Fast.

The whites that shade, cool, and subsidize invasive species from around the world are dying. Fast.

We are witnessing a transition to a post-oasis landscape in Southern California as the natives are displaced by the growing brown tide.

Catastrophic loss of our goyim (white Christians of European ancestry) canopy would have consequences for human health and well-being, property values, air-conditioning savings, carbon storage, the removal of pollutants from the air we breathe, and wildlife habitat.

Jerrold Tu, pathologist for Los Angeles County, likened the surge in white mortality to “watching a train wreck in slow motion.”

Funny how it is cool to care about trees, but uncool to care about whites and Western civilization (the product of white goyim of Christian origins).

From The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben:

Los Angeles Times:

The trees that make Southern California shady and green are dying. Fast.

The trees that shade, cool and feed people from Ventura County to the Mexican border are dying so fast that within a few years it’s possible the region will look, feel, sound and smell much less pleasant than it does now.

“We’re witnessing a transition to a post-oasis landscape in Southern California,” says Greg McPherson, a supervisory research forester with the U.S. Forest Service who has been studying what he and others call an unprecedented die-off of the trees greening Southern California’s parks, campuses and yards.

Botanists in recent years have documented insect and disease infestations as they’ve hop-scotched about the region, devastating Griffith Park’s sycamores and destroying over 100,000 willows in San Diego County’s Tijuana River Valley Regional Park, for example.

“It’s heartbreaking to see trees dying in such dramatic numbers in famously lush cities like Pasadena, Alhambra and Arcadia.”
— Jerrold Turney, plant pathologist for Los Angeles County.

…And that insect is just one of the imminent threats.

“Many of the trees we grow evolved in temperate climates and can’t tolerate the stress of drought, water restrictions, higher salinity levels in recycled water, wind and new pests that arrive almost daily via global trade and tourism, local transportation systems, nurseries and the movement of infected firewood,” he said.

“There will be no miraculous recovery of these urban ecosystems after the beetles are done with them.”

— Mark Hoddle, director of UC Riverside’s Center for Invasive Species.

But Southern Californians would face many other costs.

“Catastrophic loss of our canopy,” McPherson said, “would have consequences for human health and well-being, property values, air-conditioning savings, carbon storage, the removal of pollutants from the air we breathe, and wildlife habitat.”

Jerrold Turney, plant pathologist for Los Angeles County, likened the surge in urban tree mortality to “watching a train wreck in slow motion.”

“It’s heartbreaking,” he said, “to see trees dying in such dramatic numbers in famously lush cities like Pasadena, Alhambra and Arcadia: sycamores, all the maples, olives, liquidambers, flower plums, myrtles, oleanders and oaks.”

Mark Hoddle, director of UC Riverside’s Center for Invasive Species, said that the tree loss is “starting to cascade across the urban landscape.”

“Without shade trees, water temperatures will rise and algae will bloom in riparian areas, for instance,” Hoddle said. “As a result, fish, frog and native insect populations will diminish, along with the pleasure of hiking, because there’ll be nothing to look at but dead boughs of trees.”

“And,” he added, “there will be no miraculous recovery of these urban ecosystems after the beetles are done with them.”

Among the hardest-hit native species of urban trees are California sycamores, typically found along streams and commonly used as shade and street trees in places such as Griffith Park and along downtown’s Wilshire Boulevard.

“Here’s the sad news about sycamores,” said Akif Eskalen, a plant pathologist at the University of California, Riverside. “If we cannot control the shot hole borer, it will kill all the sycamores in California. And when they’re done with sycamores, they’ll move to other trees.”

By 2012, pathologists knew that the shot hole borer was transmitting a fatal fungal disease to 19 species of trees in Southern California, he said. Since then, scientists have identified 30 additional host species.

“If we cannot control the shot hole borer, it will kill all the sycamores in California.”

— Akif Eskalen, plant pathologist at the University of California, Riverside.

Posted in California, Evolution | Comments Off on Very Racist, Very Anti-Semitic Article In Los Angeles Times Pretending To Mourn Loss Of Tree Privilege

Asian Success

Posted on April 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* It’s true Asians do better at math and science and drone-occupations.

But blacks succeed a lot more in other areas, indeed those areas deemed cool. Sports, music, sex, booty-call, yapping, comedy, and etc.

So, in some ways, Asians are successes, in some ways failures.

Also, huge difference between Asian female and Asian male. I think it’s more accurate to divide Asian-America into American-Female-America and Asian-Male-America. The former is much more successful sexually. Because men of all races seek out Asian women, Asian women have gold value. Because no women want Asian men, they have lead value. But homo Asian men may be more successful. Women seek big dongs but homos just seek some bung to pork. So, even an Asian homo with smaller dong has a bung to pork. So, George Takei is a sexual success since all he has to do is play biatch. No wonder Takei is the face of Asian American malehood. Only has value as homos with bungs.

* Imagine if you were trying to buy real estate between 2002 and 2008, and some racist/bigoted lender prevented you from getting a loan. Wouldn’t you be relieved/grateful once that real estate bubble burst?

* Asian Americans suffer from significant discrimination in America today. I’ve argued ad nauseum before that black, white, and Hispanic Americans discriminate against Asian Americans in ways that we wouldn’t countenance if it were any other ethnic group in this country.

It’s bad enough that it’s considered perfectly okay by black, white, and Hispanic Americans to mock and denigrate Asians on a regular basis in this country, but then you also have actual institutionalized racism in this country that discriminates against Asian Americans in the form of college admissions, etc. And on top of that, given the East Asian tendency to skew towards STEM and away from business and politics, Asian Americans are mostly ignored in our national discourse. This triple whammy really hits Asian Americans hard in this country.

* Washington Post reporter Jeff Guo wrote an epic-length Tweet storm with every Angry Asian cliche imaginable: the Model Minority Myth is racist, Asians are discriminated against in the U.S., they weren’t even allowed in for awhile, the food tastes awful, and the portions are so small.

* That is an amazing thread. He says that Asians don’t actually earn more than whites when you control for education. So we’re controlling for education now when comparing racial achievement? When talking about blacks and Hispanics, relatively low education is blamed on racism. And then he says that the reason that Asians are so obsessed with education is that they need it to overcome racism. So it’s racism, racism, racism, no matter what the outcome.

* I guess part of the resentment is that Asians out hustle everyone in a zero sum game which is kinda bad overall. Like Asians only have an average IQ of 105 so it seems they’re sort of bringing their rat race culture over here which is bad. I think most white people would prefer the Finland model of education to the South Korea model of education. Didn’t the cram school thing get so out of control over there that they had to shut it down?

* No one said Asian IQ is on par with Jewish IQ.

Jewish IQ has been measured at 110 to 115.

East Asian IQ is 99 or 100, though maybe 105 in elite centers of the nation.

Hindu IQ ranges like a mofo. It goes from very high to tarded. India is genetically very diverse.

There are surely various ways of discrimination at upper reaches of society. Also, Jews can get away with it more. It’s okay to call out on ‘racist’ Wasps, but it’s still troublesome to talk of Jewish over-representation.

But that kind of discrimination will be found anywhere and in all societies.

My belief is that a nation should not allow minorities to rise above middle position in management except in rare cases where the person is truly talented.

It’s gonna be crazy stupid for Canada to allow Hindus and Chinese to take over elite positions in society. There goes Canada.

* Everything neatly fits into place if you marry someone of your own subcaste, because their likes, dislikes and upbringing is likely to be very similar to your own. They will likely have similar political views, similar ideas on familial responsibilities, money management and so on. The merchant castes disdain formal education and want their kids to start small businesses ASAP, the academic castes prize academia, elite institutions and art, the martial castes value military and police service. Each subcaste has its own traditions, its own favored temples, its own variations in marriage, birth and death rituals, in some cases its own dialect.

Intermarriage with other communities would make your life progressively harder the more different the other community is from yours. Of course, as India modernizes many of these old identities are dying out.

My personal ranking for preferred spouses would be as follows
Same subcaste, same area> Same caste, same area> same caste, different area> castes close to mine in habits and behavior > other hindu castes > Non-hindu Indians but from indian religions, like Sikhs and Jains > Christian Indians > Buddhist East/Southeast Asians > Whites and non Buddhist Asians > Hispanics > Blacks and Muslims.

* Marrying outside the caste is not just about outward appearance – I have a strong hunch that each Indian caste has subtle genetic differences in brain architecture which, in combination with nurture differences, leads to essentially different breeds of humans. Nietzsche said something similar.

Almost all the dreamy, intellectual people I’ve met during my time at various elite Indian institutions have been Brahmins. The kind who would read Wikipedia for hours on end, with multiple tabs open at the same time. The kids from the merchant castes were usually more successful, because their intelligence, which was as good as that of the Brahmins’, was focused, utilitarian and pragmatic. The warrior caste people were usually the cool kids, the ones with naturally good physiques and good social skills.

Every caste views its own archetype as the best – a Brahmin would not be impressed by someone’s BMW, a merchant caste would not care much about a research paper published in Nature, a warrior caste person would consider anyone who wasn’t a cop or soldier to be unworthy.

* East asian Americans complain about only being 20% not 40% of the Ivy League. But do any of them write in English at the 99.99 percentile? At 20% of the Ivy League and more at Stanford, you’d expect a lot more great writers in many fields, but I can’t think of any. The highly competitive world of screenwriting, blog networks, and books seems to be less than 1% East Asian.

It isn’t racism since there are plenty of blacks and south asians doing these things.

* Jeff Guo has a strong academic background, as has been noted. But there must be an interesting explanation as to why his ideological commitments so thoroughly overwhelm his common sense.

Here is an account of how he had to retract a large chunk from a WaPo story after finding out he had been duped by a source who told him a fake story he wanted to hear (where have we seen that before?):

Link

The unredacted article is still a fascinating exhibit — he spends nearly 3000 words trying to figure out why gay black men contract HIV:

Link

* Whit Stillman and few others are real ‘auteurs’ in the true sense of the world.

I think globalism is making things less interesting. Without roots and some kind of cultural foundation, everyone sounds the same.

The couple in LOVE STORY is moving away from roots, but they still have roots in something real. Italian life or Wasp life(when it had unique character).

But it seems like we are living in the age of the children of the children of LOVE STORY. And these globots are without character.

It’s no wonder we have green hair people, tattoos, piercings, and other idiocies. Or pussy hats. Without roots, people seek some kind of identity by creating new fashions.

But the old identities were so much better.

Wong Kar Wai has a great eye but his movies are vapid because his characters are globots. They aint chinese, they aint european, they aint nothing. Just fashionistas.

* But as the Foreign Policy article said, there is no successful black nation anywhere.

Also, black Americans are better off than Africans… which is why Africans wanna come to US, but blacks don’t wanna go back to Africa.

Also, Meso-Americans were conquered and enslaved and enserfed. But their problems are different from blacks.

A simple mind trick. If US had enslaved Asians or Hindus, would we have same problem? A different problem, to be sure, but the kind of problem that we have with blacks? No way.

Look at Sweden. Many blacks arrive there as free people and are showered with goodies. They cause problems.

Look at Somalis in US. A big mess.

* In the US, only four people matter.

1. Whites. While it’s true that whites are most bashed, they are also most desired. Everyone, including your family, wants to come to white nation. Everyone wants to live near whites. Everyone trusts whites more than other races. Everyone would be happier if daughter married white than black or brown.

2. Jews. Jews have lots of power. And their wit, humor, creativity have won them fans. Seinfeld. They have Holocaust thing. A holy people.

3. Blacks. In some ways, many people fear and even hate blacks. But they love blacks on tv, sports, music, and etc. So, blacks have cool factor. And they got slavery narrative. Now, Asians have tragic narrative too, but watching asians suffer isn’t as dramatic cuz they aren’t good divas of suffering.

4. Homos. This is more recent, but the homo rise is surely the fast and most ridiculous in America. But Homos are holy.

As for the rest, they don’t matter. It’s just the way it is. It aint just Asians. Ask Muslims… who only got some attention FINALLY as pawns against Trump. Who cares about Palestinians? Ok, some in BDS do, but most Americans don’t care. And most American attitude toward Mexican is ‘pick tomaters’. And Hindus are made fun of cuz of their accent, but Hindus laugh along. Hindus do get humor and mockery. In high school in early 80s, a Pakistani twins were mocked by white guys for being Muslims. Whites couldn’t tell different between Pakis and Iranians who were hated then. But the Pakis had a sense of humor about it and laughed along. And they became super patriotic nuts who joined US military and etc.

In the end, it’s not so much the suffering or victimhood but the dramatics, charismatics, and showmanship of victimhood that matters. It’s like when chicken george cried when his chicken got killed. Dang, it was so sad watching Ben Vereen crying with saliva drooling out of his mouth. That got to me as a kid. And Jews created a holy cult of Anne Frank as new virgin mary.
And homos are so flamboyant in their ‘victimhood’.

Expression counts. It’s like Guernica the painting. The actual bombing was minor compared to others. Not many were killed, but Picasso drew a powerful painting of it, so the town became mythologized.

* They will never concede that the country was built by whites.

They do all sorts of mental contortions to create a multicultural past that didn’t exist. We see in movies, education and Google doodles that many people are working hard to make American history simply disappear – replaced with a new, improved and inclusive history that was hidden from us by white supremacists all these years!

* There are probably some better examples out there, but the lack of really any top tier Asian Americans in creative writing or entertainment fields despite their numbers, education, and ambition indicates to me that they tend to lack a je ne sais pas set of positive personal traits you see in similarly high IQ whites and blacks. So Ivy League schools quite reasonably want to see higher SAT scores from them to make up for it.

* Hi Yan,
You fellows are obviously bright as a button and switched on, but we in the West don’t need a billion of you. Stay home. Thanks.

* Asian success undermines the media’s anti-white narrative which is necessary to keep the anti-white coalition pointing at the right target.

That’s why the media like Asians to be invisible.

* Verbally aggressive people in a civilized society generally think they can get away with verbal bullying so physical size only kicks in in environments where normal rules don’t apply.

* When Murray and Herrnstein were working on The Bell Curve, they were a little worried that their centrality-and-immutability-of-intelligence point would actually strengthen the welfare state, because it left less room for personal responsibility. But for some reason, progressives turned out to be much more comfortable with “NAMs are capable of better decision-making but just don’t follow through” than “NAMs are stuck with an ineradicable handicap.”

* I remember well the shock I encountered on first going to east Asia. I was young and foolishly looking for a society that wasn’t based on competition. Buddhism seemed to appeal.
There are no people on earth more competitive! They live and breath competition. That is all life is to them, it seemed. (I’m exaggerating a bit–it wasn’t all that bad, and most I encountered were lots of fun. The ladies could be fun too of course, but there was a feeling of ruthlessness I also got from them, as in (like everywhere) only the baddest muthaf***** interested them.)

* It’s funny how Sullivan explains Asian vs. blacks outcomes through culture, when everyone likely remembers that Sullivan believes in HBD and used to promote open discussion on the topic

Posted in Asians, Blacks, India | Comments Off on Asian Success

What if the Trump-Putin Connection Turns Out to be Kushner’s Chabad?

Posted on April 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Chabad were always czarist supporters. In fact the “Alter Rebbe” -literally the old rabbi, Shneur Zalman of Liadi who was the founder of Chabad strongly supported the Czar against Napoleon. This despite having been imprisoned by the Czarist government not long before the French invasion. There are even Chabad legends that the Alter Rebbe had a spy in Napolean’s camp and would pass on his reports to the Czarist authorities. Chabad was also very skeptical of Communism and supported the Czarist and later the White government against the Bolsheviki. The 6th Rabbi of Chabad (Rabbi Y.Y. Shneerson) was imprisoned by the Bolsheviks and sentenced to death for counter revolutionary activities. His sentence was reduced after a international campaign.

* Chabad-Lubavitch is one of the most remarkable examples of the tendency of some Ultra-Orthodox Jewish organizations to turn from anti-Zionist to de facto pro-Zionist (sometimes fanatically so) without ever actually officially amending their ideology.

* My family attended a chabad-run synagogue for a year or two. They definitely were a very welcoming group. It was a much nicer experience than the reform and conservative ones I had been to. To be honest, all the stereotypical American Jewish traits were on full display at those places, especially extremely conspicuous donations to the synagogue. In contrast, Chabad felt like a much more genuine community.

* The Chabad Rabbis were mainly interested in having a joyous worship service, whereas the Reform and Conservative Rabbis were obsessed with the Holocaust and defending Israel.

* I have heard that the Chabad people run boarding houses for Jewish backpackers/hippies in many places around the world, and that these places are known for their good food and inexpensive lodgings.

* I’m no expert on the alignment-of-forces of judaists here, but it halfway looks like Chabad maintains its office here to harvest dollars from religious kids who come for the 1-2 year study-in-Israel schtick.

Let’s be clear about something: the Chabad is NOT Old Line Modern Orthodox, like Lookstein who did Ivanka’s conversion.

The religious establishment here made an exploratory press release about not recognizing Ivanka because her papers came from Lookstein; but Netanyahu read them the riot act; they folded RIGHT QUICK.

NEtanyahu, like all his predecessors, has always been able to call the religious parties bluff (to withdraw their support during a Knesset vote-of-confidence) by threatening to turn off the tap of State funding. NEtanyahu knows that because they’re’s so MANY rabbis competing for votes, he can successfully divide-&-conquer, merely by putting an individual one into “redpill dread” that his camp followers would jump to another rabbi’s campfires relatively quickly, once the first rabbi can no longer pay salaries, supply apartments,underwrite matchmakings, etc etc etc.

* I disagree with the poster who said that the Chabad Worldwide Empire is completely independent of 770 Empire Parkway, It’s like the Pope. He can take a bishop down if the bishop causes too much bad press. But most of the time, he choses his battles very carefully.

Chabad has like 2-3 houses in Philippines, who (on paper) shouldn’t be so accepting of these retired 70 year old Israeli and American Jewish guys who are shacked up & making babies with 21-year-old Filipina Catholics. But these guys are the the only target audience the local rebbe has in his “territory”. The rebbe does what he has to do. “Go along to get along” is how the rebbe is gonna get promoted up the hierarchy.

In Thailand, it’s less of a “red loine”. The Thai chicks are Bhuddists, who (from the outside world’s point of view) are not pagans. Christianity is straight up pagan.

But, ya know…. King Solomon himself was willing to tolerate pagan temples when they came attached to shiksa hotties, so I guess chabad rebbo’nim can ALSO learn to hold their nose and wait for a promotion back to the Big Leagues.

* Trump is an American phenomenon. Even the change of the name from Drumpf to Trump is very American. Only in America, for good and ill.

Alt Right is pissed with the recent ‘betrayal’, but then Trump would be nothing without betrayal. He’s been about Deals, not Ideals. He’s played all sides and then some. He’s been all over the map his entire life. He has said everything, meant everything, meant nothing.

He’s a phony but he can sometimes get excited enough to believe in whatever he is excited about… until the thrill runs out, and then he’s onto other stuff. Just look at his history with women.
The ONLY way he could in 2016 was by connecting with the Deplorables, and their votes were indeed gold to him. But in office, they can’t do him any good anymore. The power is with Congress, Deep State, Wall Street, Pentagon, and etc, and they have no use for his nationalism-than-globalism.

Also, Trump is a promoter, a showman, a circus master. He gets bored easily when he has to do nitty gritty stuff. He needs splash, pizzazz, once in a while, so why not lob some bombs at Syria? Fireworks. A bit of Kilgore in him that will blow up a village to go surfing. He has to sow his wild oates, which he has in endless supply.

Howard Roarks, the men of unshakable conviction, exist in fantasy. Even if they did exist in reality, they win only in fantasy. In real life, they never win. Or, their victory comes with huge price. During the Soviet Era, the Soviet government was filled with men of power and privilege. They had the connections, dachas, and caviar. Who knows or cares about any of them now? They are all forgotten. Who, from the Soviet era, looms as a giant? Solzhenitsyn, who stuck to his truth. But what price did he have to pay. Gulag, persecution, exile. In the end, he won, but most people are not willing to pay that kind of price, not least because for every Solzhenitsyn who finally triumphed, 1000 others died in silence and in vain.

NO ONE wants to pay that kind of price. Only in the Ayn-Randian universe does a man of iron principle like Roark defy, triumph, and realize his dream easy succession. The real world belongs to Gail Wynands, Tooeys, and Keatings. Those are the three basic types in the world of wealth and power.

Some people compared Trump to Howard Roark, but he was more like Wynand. When push comes to shove, Trump folds and goes along, just like Wynand who realizes he hasn’t the will go all the way. All said and done, Wynand is all about wealth and connections. Without those, he is nothing. In contrast, Roark has the power of vision that his solid gold in his mind regardless of his condition in life. Trump is all about wealth, connections, and making deals. If he can’t do that, he has nowhere to go. And besides, democratic politics is about compromise with the Power. It’s not about dictatorial will, no matter noble it may be.
Depressingly however, political compromise in the US means shilling out for the globalists. It’s one thing to compromise for the good of the people but quite another when the compromise mainly serves the GLOB elites. When FDR came up with New Deal, he made compromises with labor, not with the capitalist elites. But labor isn’t powerful enough to exert the kind of pressure necessary to tear Trump away from the GLOB.
As for military guys, some of them just want ANY excuse to play ball. They see it as a sports. Any reason to play the game and fight the ‘enemy’. Always a need for one.
Or maybe, Trump is thinking of the WWII option. It’s been said that WWII, more than the New Deal, ended the Great Depression. FDR’s economic theory came down to creating the military-industrial complex. As the US mainland is free from attack, what does it matter if the US war machine goes into high gear and creates jobs and makes bombs to destroy other nations? Under FDR, guns were butter.

Trump is a phenom, and he reveled in the campaign. That was his element. Entertainer, showman, comedian, provocateur, clown, big personality, salesman, demagogue, and etc. He’s been promoting fights and running a TV Show. But when it comes to running something like government, he’s at a loss. Trump is used to running his own businesses. Also, anything in business can be solved with money and settlements. Profits are the only thing that matters in business. In government, there are Other Interests, and some of these are tribal, ideological, and personal, and Trump cannot solve this problem by greasing hands.
Also, Deep State are different from politicians. Trump once said politicians came to him for handouts, and that’s all that most politicians or prostitucians are interested in. For them DC is Hollywood for ‘ugly people’. It’s their ticket to the Good Life and Respectability. But Deep State operatives, globo-tribalists, and entrenched ideologues are different. Some of them care about the power, not the money. Some of them are ideologues and grand visions. And others got more money than Trump and can’t be bought.
So, Trump must be flustered dealing with these types. They are unlike any other people he’d worked with before. They have their own agendas and try to bend Trump to their will. Money cannot solve his problems with them. And on most things, they are more informed than Trump even if they twist the facts to push the agenda, as with Syria.

This Trump phenom is symptomatic of America as a spectacular but silly country. The US reinvents everything into a fantasy, a circus, a new religion. Mormonism is almost proto-Hollywood in its cheesy and Pirates-of-Penzance-like reinvention of the Bible. Mormonism’s combination of opportunism & materialism AND puritanism & moralism is part of the kitschy delusion. Hollywood reinvented Christianity with ET with an outerspace messiah who befriends lonely children, dies, is resurrected, and returns to heaven. All the western mythology(and then some) was reinvented as STAR WARS. And the themes of revolution and radicalism of the 20th century was reinvented into a Calvin Klein fantasy of MATRIX.
The Founding Fathers were lately reinvented as a bunch of rappers.
So, Trump’s nationalism is another fantasy, a show, a musical. It’s not the real thing but a reinvention worthy for Las Vegas extravaganza. Trump has real power, but he cannot be taken seriously or soberly. He has to be approached as a Cecil B. DeMille production. He’s the santa or the fake santa of nationalism, but then, is there such a thing as a real santa? Hoping for a true nationalist in Trump is like wishing that a store santa is the real thing. Given the system that allowed his rise, real nationalism is hard to come by.

Trump pulled off a fun opening act as the would-be-Moses of the Deplorables, but the whole idea now seems rather silly. Trump as the deliverer? The man most famous for saying ‘you’re fired’ is going to create an America where everyone is hired. LOL.
But even if there is some sincerity in Trump as leader of long-forgotten Deplorables, the question is how far is he willing to go even if he succeeds on the economic front? After all, there were two Moses in the movie. There was Moses I, the Egyptian who served the empire. And Moses II, the one who regained his identity and led his people to the Promised Land.

Trump’s vision doesn’t go beyond Moses I. In other words, he remains the servant of the Empire, the Glob. And his nationalism is really a means to serve the GLOB even better.
Moses I defies the System and pushes ‘reforms’ that lead to better treatment for slaves, better food, and more human conditions. He sees it as a kind of triumph of justice, and it is. He has improved the lot of the Jewish slaves, but the fact is they remain slaves, and he is still serving the Pharaoh. If anything, one could say he has empowered the empire even more by making the slaves more productive, more hardworking, and improved in morale. So, paradoxically, his justice for the slaves has made the tyranny over them even more powerful. After all, an empire needs hard workers. (Communism failed in part because work ethic crumbled.)

Thus the moral victory of Moses I was delusional. He did bring some measure of justice to the slaves, but turning them into better and more willing workers, he has also empowered the Egyptian Empire that will conquer and enslave more peoples. The slaves were part of something bigger. They were just cogs in the system.

For Moses to truly free the slaves, he must become Moses II, the man who awakens to his true identity and embarks on the exodus to lead his people from bondage. As long as the empire exists, Jews will just be slaves and servants to it no matter how much their lot is improved with better working conditions and better food. (Likewise, Hitler fattened Germany up in the 30s to embark on empire. Had he improved the lives of Germans for the sake of German nation itself, he would have been a decent leader. But his mind was infected with dream of empire, and that meant the Germans, once made strong and healthy again, would be used as cannon fodder to expand the empire. But if Hitler pursued his own mad dreams, Trump is beholden to the Imperial Vision of the Anglo-Zionists who are intoxicate with power and hegemony like college coaches with winning the Rose Bowl.) Trump isn’t up to playing Moses II, and he knows it, and we know it. And even if he wanted to, it’s not possible under the current system.

So, we really need to think about the ultimate meaning and worth of Trumpian nationalism. If it’s not true nationalism, what is it? Is it just a means to improve the morale, productivity, and patriotism of Americans so that they can be harnessed to serve the Empire better? After all, there has been an erosion of patriotism under Bush and Obama. Bush’s wars even made Conservatives feel sorry they supported him. Obama’s homo-worshiping supporters do not make red blooded patriots who will not only chant USA USA USA but fight and die for the empire. Most people in the US military didn’t want to die for Obama.

Without the gungho support of Red State America, the empire seems ever wobbly, all head and no body, as the body feels disconnected to the head that is all about homos and trannies in the military.

So, Trump is useful for recharging patriotism and national pride among white Americans. But is it about national independence from globalism/empire(like how the US was founded in the first place) OR is it about national servitude to the empire? “Trump fattened you real good and returned you back to health. USA USA USA. Now, go out and win one for the globber.”

Trump defies the globalist Pharaoh only to serve him better. He brings back American pride and optimism… but he doesn’t break the chains that holds the US in bondage to the GLOB. US may be the lone superpower, but there is a power bigger than the US. The GLOB is a made up of networks from US to Canada to EU to Australia to Japan to China to Latin America, and etc. It is the world of super-globalist-elites, the superpower over the superpower. The GLOB plays the entire world. It’s like one horse among those pulling a carriage maybe the biggest and strongest. The super-power horse. So, it is the biggest power? No, there is a power above it: the combined energies of all the horses harnessed by the rider who hold the reins. America is the biggest and strongest horse of the GLOB but one of many horses harnessed together to stampede around the world.

Trump is the man to demand better treatment for the big horse. Better food and new horse-shoes. But he’s not the one to cut the horse loose and ride it to freedom like in ELECTRIC HORSEMAN. In the end, it must remain a WAR HORSE.

BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, which came out one yr after TEN COMMANDMENTS, tell more or less the same moral tale. British soldiers are held captive, and the commander Nicholson(Guinness) is an honorable and courageous man. He has a deep sense of responsibility for all his men, and he expects humane treatment for all of them.
Japanese want to use them for slave labor to build a bridge. And the Saito promises good treatment for Nicholson and officers IF they collaborate with Japanese in working prisoners like slaves. Nicholson refuses and pays a heavy price, and his men appreciate his defiance and sabotage the work until Saito relents and promises humane treatment to all the men. So, like Moses I, Nicholson triumphs and earns a measure of justice for his men.

The irony is that, with improve productivity and morale, the men are serving the Japanese Empire, the evil enemy, even better than they might have otherwise. But Nicholson so savors his moral victory over Saito and the improved lot of his men that he becomes blind to the larger context of what’s happening. No matter what his men do — work as slaves treated inhumanly or prison-laborers treated well — , they are serving the Japanese war machine to expand, kill more innocents, and kill more British soldiers. (But then, Nicholson, despite his concern for his men, is first and foremost, a man of hierarchy and blinded by class distinctions and all their vanities, which makes one wonder if he was motivated more by personal pride or morality.)

In the end, Nicholson does come to his senses and blows up the bridge that was built by his men with great effort. However magnificent it is, it was built to serve the Japanese Empire.
Blowing up the bridge is the only way he can free himself and his men from the Japanese empire.
And in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, Moses is truly the deliverer of his people ONLY WHEN the split-sea-bridge is closed between his people and the Egyptians.
You can’t be part of an empire and still be free. The chains must be broken. Bridge must blow, the sea must close.

In the case of the US, breaking the chains of empire is tricky. When Vietnam and Algeria threw out the French(and when Indians kicked out the Brits), it was nations yearning to be free and cutting the chains of imperialism. Those under imperial power can do this by sending the imperialists home.
But US is the main imperial power in the world. Why would the US empire want to cut off the chains when it is the master over vassal states? America owns the chains.

The reasons are threefold. (1) Empire is morally dubious, for both master power and servant nations. (2) Empire is costly and often bloody, and sometimes risks something like WWI (3) The current empire is less about American domination than the Glob domination over the US. The GLOB is a worldwide network. US is its main asset but the US is only of the its assets. So, the American Empire is really part of a bigger empire. Soros and his ilk play the whole world. Trans-national corporations have no loyalty to any nation. It’s all about those at the top, and the elites of the world now attend same schools — Harvard and Yale — and plot the helot-ization of all peoples. GLOB has zero interest at heart when it comes to most Americans. If anything, the GLOB sees all nationals as replaceables.

Anyway, for there be true freedom, we need someone to blow up the bridge or close the sea.

There can no half-measures, like the guy finds out in PRINCE OF THE CITY. The poison has to be purged completely, and globalism is this vile evil force in the world. It is not good ole internationalism, a good thing that’s about various nations trading and respecting one another’s sovereign autonomy. Globalism is about the erasure of all borders, all identities, all sovereignties. It is about mass amnesia, homomania as world religion, endless Wars for Israel, Pentagon’s insatiable hunt for new crises, demographic imperialism, and degradation of all native rooted identities and cultures(with the exception of Israel). Globalism is evil and must go. Trump is not the one to blow up the bridge. He will play showbiz version of Moses I but not Moses II who came to realize that the only way Jews can be free is to make a clean break with the Egyptians.

Trump is fun and made a big splash and ruffled feathers, but I think the most he can offer is the hope of Deplorables being turned into good workers again so as to become better minions of the Empire. One thing for sure, Trump is not a serious man, nor should he be approached as such. He has to be seen for what he is. The hustler who plays everyone. To be upset with Trump is to be upset that one’s playboy father is cheating on the mother.

The true nationalist? He will come up with a way to blow up the bridge.

Posted in Chabad | Comments Off on What if the Trump-Putin Connection Turns Out to be Kushner’s Chabad?