Defending Marc Gafni

Posted on November 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Kerstin Zohar Tuschik writes on FB: This is my last post for the time on this thread. I will offer several final responses.

I do not think that the smear campaign is only a function of Marc’s gifts. That is one factor. Reality is always multi-factorial. We have – with an incredible group of thinkers, scholars and teachers – engaged in a year-long process of information gathering and research at the Center. One of the things we looked at is why there is always a “group of victims.”

Sometimes it is because there is genuine predation and horrific abuse happening. After all, where there is smoke there is fire.

At other times however that is not the case. To cite one paper written at the Center, “Where there is smoke there may be fire or there may be a smoke bomb or where there is smoke there might be an ember that is fanned into a fire by a combination of malice, hidden agendas and woundology,” or a series of other dynamics.

We are well aware at the Center of who the people are, of their multi-year and at times multi-decade connection to each other that has never been exposed. We are well aware of how the layers have been added on to this anti-Gafni meme over a period of thirty years.

Memes like this are created when facts are ignored, complexity is ignored, hidden agendas abound. This is characteristic of the post-truth and post-fact era which allowed Trump to win the US election. It is also true that when perpetrators disguise themselves as victims and rescuers (as in Karpman’s triangle in psychology) what is actually driving the story is harder to see … until it is finally pointed out.

Obviously there is a group of people that are in close touch with each other, that support and mutually reinforce each other in creating what elementary cognitive psychology has long called “false pattern recognition.”

We are well aware that people from different stages of Marc’s life are connected to each other and have engaged, along with some new figures in a highly orchestrated and organized smear campaign.

That there is no seeking of restorative justice, that the language is always about intense demonization, that facts are regularly distorted, misstated or lied about, says a lot about the possible motivations at play. There are obviously not one but seven or eight major factors playing out in this smear campaign.

At the appropriate time and place I will add my voice to many who will – if it turns out to be necessary – analyze what happened and why in the public space.

For now, I will simply post a link to the facts section on Marc’s website which has a lot of really important information: http://www.marcgafni.com/resp/

Marc has for many years owned any mistake he made, and always been willing to meet and create resolution for anyone who felt hurt. Taking a mistake, then turning it into a story filled with outright lies and distortion and then making that your victim identity for decades, supported and egged on by many of the people who have attacked Marc for years, many of them key actors in the false complaints, the smear campaign and more, is to say the least not okay.

At what point does the alleged victim – telling a false story about what happened – become the abuser? Again this is precisely the dynamic described in Karpman’s victim triangle.

Marc has spent part of the last year preparing a full response with what is – if I may be blunt – devastating insight and substantive information in response to every one of the either false or highly distorted stories including some of them referenced in this thread. If he is further attacked he will respond fully. He is committed to – if necessary – breaking the silence and at the urging of many of us at the Center, sharing all of the context and all of the objective information – some of it new – that has come to us at the Center from many parties over this past year. The level of fraud that has been committed by some of the key parties, in so many different ways is astounding.

Yes, I work for the Center and that also means for and with Marc. Does that mean that what I say is somehow less trustable? I don’t think so. I honestly would say: to the contrary.

With all the material online about Marc, it is impossible for anyone to get close to him without having to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. That definitely happened to me, when I started to get involved with the Center in 2011.

I have been working with Marc Gafni on an almost daily basis for years now. And I must say that nothing I have experienced even vaguely resembles the picture of Marc that has been painted in this smear campaign or the earlier campaigns that are recycled here.

And the picture that all of us working with Marc are somehow mindless sheep that are brainwashed by him is just ridiculous. Nowhere else in the world so far have I encountered a more mindful, intelligent and loving tribe than at the Center for Integral Wisdom. Even in the midst of this attack, our only concern has been how we can respond to this with integrity, truth, and love.

There are dozens of people, all of high integrity and high discernment, working actively with Marc and the Center. I interact with them constantly. The atmosphere is clean, open and premises on radical autonomy and Unique Self integrity.

The quality of discourse in this thread however is so ridiculous that it is embarrassing and disgusting. If I ever have felt victimized by anything in relation to Marc, then it is by threads like this that are hurting my innermost sense of integrity, truth, and justice. This is why I am leaving this thread now that doesn’t even deserve to be called a conversation. Goodbye.

FORWARD: Marc Gafni Tells His Story — and Experts Respond:

Over the last year, I have been attacked in the press and on Internet blogs, falsely accused of everything from sexual harassment to plagiarism. My character and work have been demeaned. These attacks have unfolded as a series of articles reaching back to the end of 2015. I believe that these articles are the result of a highly orchestrated smear campaign.

I want to directly address a particular false story by Sara Kabakov that is being used in an attempt not only to destroy my reputation, but now has become the basis for a wider organized campaign to destroy the reputations of peers and colleagues.

The series of articles and blogs I’m referring to, particularly ones published in Jewish press, cite the alleged “molestation of Sara Kabakov, starting at age 13, by her former Rabbi and spiritual guru, Marc Gafni.” They present this claim as if it were an established and self-evident truth. It is not.

Speaking the truth about this story is not just crucial for me personally, it is also important for the evolution of public culture in the Internet age. Fact checking and fair process are at the core of democratic society. How we manage conflict tells us much about who we actually are as human beings and as a society.

Our culture must protect against all abuses of human rights and dignity. That includes racial and class-based abuse, sexual harassment and all forms of physical and emotional abuse. At the same time, we must be alert to all forms of defamation and cyberbullying in any form. Cyberbullying and false complaints create trauma, sometimes leading to suicide and always deface human dignity.

This response, which contains detailed refutations of the false and distorted claims being circulated about my actions and character, is the first in a series of articles I will be providing various media outlets who have published erroneous stories about me.

These issues have been extensively and directly addressed on the Facts page of my personal website. However, it now feels necessary to go one step farther.

What follows is my direct response to the assertions made by Sara Kabakov in her opinion piece published by the Forward on January 13, 2016. I am writing about this relationship for two important reasons. First, her story significantly distorts key details about our relationship. And secondly, as I mentioned above, her claims are being actively and intentionally used in some of the most malicious elements of the smear campaign against me.

Sara’s Forward article describes a highly distorted and often outright false narrative about our relationship from 36 years ago. In this article, Sara introduces herself as “the woman Gafni molested when she was 13 years old,”

At the time I met Sara, I was a 19-year-old boy. I was not a rabbinical student, as Sara stated in her essay. I was a college freshman, and not a rabbi, or the man who writes this response today. I have also never been a spiritual guru as Sara has labeled me. I was a teenager in a relationship with a younger teenager. Moreover, I was not then, nor am I now, a “child rapist,” “statutory rapist,” or a “pedophile,” as many have claimed through various media sources. These claims result from the ongoing recycling of falsehoods about this relationship 36 years ago.

I met Sara toward the beginning of her freshman year of high school. I was one year out of high school. Our relationship began some time later, in the early winter of 1980. Sara now says that she was 13 during the time of our relationship, but, according to what she told me then, she was 14 during the time of our relationship. Her 14th birthday was November 30. Our relationship began in December.

The first sentence of her article significantly disguises the fact that ours was a relationship between two teenagers. The portrait of me as a sexual predator is made much more credible when in her Forward article she is twice described as a 13-year old before mentioning my actual age at the time of our relationship.

Relatedly, Sara claims that when we met, “he offered to tutor me in Talmud,” a subtle distortion that sets up a formal authority relationship, which also strengthens the abuse narrative. Such a relationship never existed. It is true that we discussed the Talmud — I was an Orthodox yeshiva student, and discussing Talmud was what we did. But I was never her tutor in any sense.

Of critical importance is the fact that, 36 years ago, I hadn’t any awareness that her being a minor was an issue. We were 14 and 19 — teenagers, who had no knowledge of such things in New York, when, culturally, such topics were far less discussed than they are today. Indeed, either these words or this topic ever came up between us — not even once during the few months of our relationship. It was just not in our cultural awareness.

As a committed Orthodox boy, I was conflicted about my feelings versus following what I thought at the time was God’s law. I had strong feelings for Sara. And, at that time, she claimed to have the same feelings for me. What once was a mutual expression of teenage love has somehow, over the course of many decades, become, for Sara, a story of abuse. This is the heart of the matter.

In describing the start of our friendship, Sara states: “He proceeded to tell me how ‘special’ I was, and that he really liked me.” This is true. I was falling for her and we shared our feelings with each other directly. She then says that I suggested we “keep our friendship a secret,” and that I was “grooming [her] into being silent and fearful.” Nothing could be further from the truth of my recollection. Our friendship was not a secret, and I never suggested it be kept as such.

It’s true that, as Sara states, I stayed at her house on Shabbat, with her parents’ permission and their full knowledge. I also stayed over many times during the week, which she does not mention. Their house was like a second home for me, and I had a good relationship with her parents. Again, there was nothing secret about the fact that we were close friends or that we spent a lot of time together. We never shared that we were dating — but not because I asked Sara to keep a secret. We naturally did not share it with parents, as is the case in many teenage relationships.

So, as others have asked, was this relationship one of teenage love or abuse? I recognize that even for open-minded readers — that is, anyone who hasn’t already assumed that the story told by Sara, or the organizers of the larger smear campaign is true — this question is impossible to answer definitely. There are two opposing narratives, and there is no easy way to directly establish the veracity of either. This is why, a decade ago, the last time Sara’s claims were used to mischaracterize me, I did the only thing I could do to demonstrate that the story I am telling here is not a lie.

I took a polygraph — the results of which are available online — to affirm my claims. It was completed by Gordon H. Barland, PhD, the former director of polygraph research for the Department of Defense. I answered five questions about aspects of my relationship with Sara and the nature of our physical contact, which was nothing greater than teenage necking. The polygraph contained two questions about our mutually positive experience at the time, and three questions regarding the nature of our physical contact. No deception was indicated for my answers to all five questions. In fact, Dr. Barland assessed the probability of deception at less than .01. He concluded that I had answered each question truthfully.

Orthodox law and practice prohibits all physical contact before marriage, including even holding hands. In her article, Sara correctly says that each time we had physical contact, I would express deep remorse through an act of Teshuvah (repentance), because I knew that such contact was in violation of Jewish Orthodox law. This is true. I spoke to the man who had been my rabbi in high school the year before, and he affirmed the “absolute biblical prohibition, according to Maimonides, of any physical contact between unmarried people.” At 19, I did not know how to resolve the contradiction between our very limited contact and what I was being taught was immutable divine law.

Despite distorted details as to why Sara and I broke up according to Sara’s account, I broke up with Sara because I was committed to Orthodox law and practice which prohibited any physical contact, even holding hands, before marriage. I was internally tortured to be out of integrity with Orthodox law. As a 19-year-old Orthodox Jew, I understood this law as a direct divine obligation, one which I had transgressed. Decades later I realize that my shame at not having been able to fulfill the law must have been devastating to Sara as well. I deeply regret this.

We broke up and Sara later wrote me a beautiful love letter, which arrived about six months after the breakup. It looked tattered and was covered in postmarks and other stamps, like it took several attempts before it was finally delivered. Sara’s letter said that we were each other’s one true love, spoke of the depth of our love, that we were intended for each other, and that it would be tragic for us not to spend our lives together. I cried for what felt like two hours after reading it. I was devastated, and I can still remember my sadness.

I called her immediately. The call was answered but she would not come to the phone. In that moment, I wondered if she thought I had ignored her letter, which very well may have arrived months after she wrote it.

In other publications, Sara has denied sending this letter. In the polygraph mentioned earlier, two questions directly concerned the letter and its contents. “After your relationship with Sara was over, did she write you that you were her one true love?” and “After your relationship with Sara was over, did she write that you were meant to be together forever?” I answered both questions as “yes,” and no deception was indicated. Again, Dr. Barland concluded that I had answered truthfully.

We are left with two very different stories about our relationship, and I am left with a very difficult question: When and how did her story shift from teenage romance to one of abuse? It pains me greatly to even write this essay, but the current smear campaign has so heavily relied on her allegations that I am left with little choice but to reflect on this at a deeper level.

In retrospect, I deeply regret my involvement with Sara. I take full responsibility for my role in this youthful mistake. I apologize with all my heart for any pain I may have caused her in our youthful relationship.

As always, I stand against any form of sexual harassment or abuse. Sexual abuse, like all abuses of power, is a pervasive problem. I stand against all practices and behaviors that seek to shame victims who chose to speak out. In speaking out, I have no intention to shame Sara. My intent here has been to respond to allegations made against me — as is my right as a human being. Twenty years of this tale has had profoundly damaging and traumatic effects on my life, on my children’s lives, and on the lives of my partners and friends. Sara cannot hide from this truth nor her own profound responsibility in perpetrating gross and horrifically damaging falsehoods, by claiming that she is being subjected to victim shaming.

Wrongful accusations, leveled by an individual or by a group, in a trial-by-Internet atmosphere are regressive. I propose another vision. I will conclude with my dream, which I hope is not an impossible dream: What if the result of this campaign was the seeking of a higher clarification? What if, over time, all the parties, with all their narratives, could sit together, compare facts, talk, and seek genuine truth and reconciliation?

Posted in Marc Gafni | Comments Off on Defending Marc Gafni

Twitter’s Alt-Right Purge

Posted on November 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

David Frum writes: Politics remains welcome at Twitter, as its most famous user, the president-elect, can attest. What Twitter is saying is that some and only some speech will be policed, by standards that can only be guessed at in advance.

That’s socially undesirable for a lot of reasons, but consider just this one: It’s precisely the perception of arbitrary and one-sided speech policing that drives so many young men toward radical, illiberal politics. On campus especially, but also in the corporate world—and now on social media—they perceive that wild and wacky things can be said by some people, but not by others. By useful comparison: On the very same day that Twitter suspended the accounts of some alt-right users, DePaul University forbade a scheduled appearance by the broadcaster and writer Ben Shapiro. Shapiro is not an alt-rightist; in fact, the Anti-Defamation League reported last month that Shapiro is Twitter’s single most frequently targeted victim of anti-Semitic abuse by alt-rightists. But Shapiro is a scathing polemicist and provocateur—an alumnus of the same Bannon-Breitbart empire that incubated Milo Yiannopoulos—and DePaul expressed worry that his appearance on campus might provoke violence.

The culture of offense-taking, platform-denying, and heckler-vetoing—now spreading ever outward from the campuses—lets loudmouths and thugs present themselves as heroes of free thought. They do not deserve this opportunity.

It’s a crazy fact of American life that as of today, a neo-Nazi has more right to build an arsenal of weapons and drill a militia than to speak on Twitter. Maybe we should try it the other way around.

There’s not much American constituency for Richard Spencer’s vision of a United States subdivided into segregated countries for each racial group, or for debates about whether Jews and Italians should count as “white,” or for fantasies about overturning democracy and returning to rule by kings and lords. But there is a real constituency for debates about immigration, about crime and policing, and other racially charged issues.

Over the past two decades, Americans have constructed systems of intellectual silencing that stifle the range of debate among responsible and public-spirited people. They’ve resigned hugely important topics to the domain of cranks and haters. If the only people who’ll talk about the risks and costs of a more diverse society are fascists, then the fascists will gain an audience. So long as they refrain from incitement and harassment, the right way to deal with social media’s neo-Nazis is not by taking away their platforms, but by taking away their audiences, by welcoming a more open and more intelligent discussion of what Americans yearn most to hear about.

Posted in Alt Right, Censorship, Twitter | Comments Off on Twitter’s Alt-Right Purge

The Goodwhites Are Wearing Safety Pins

Posted on November 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments: Hey, don’t know about your parts, but where I live Goodwhite women are freaking out, even to the point of setting up meetings to grieve and push for women political candidates.

One interesting aspect of their kvetching is that they are wearing safety pins to show support. A quick look on the internet showed that this is happening nationwide.

When you think about it, this is genius. Goodwhites have finally figured out a way to physically distinguish themselves from us Badwhites so that minorities and other Goodwhites know who’s who.

Of course, I might warn them: Beware of what you wish for.

While I quite doubt that it will happen, it’s possible that this election is causing people to draw lines, to choose their side. Personally, I say say bring it on. But, again, I doubt it will go that far.

* It would be a real inconvenience to the Secret Service, although I like the idea of Soros’ minions freezing their butts off in January and annoying the DC locals, who voted for Hillary. Nonetheless, if the left tries to turn the inauguration into one big riot, I’d be furious. However, I think they’re going to try it. If Trump has an ounce of sense, he’ll invite plenty of active-duty military personal and National Guard units from various states to attend the ceremony. I’m afraid he’s going to need them.

I also worry that Soros and his gang are going to try to Walkerize US cities all the way on up to the inauguration, and even try to block Trump from occupying the White House. If it comes to that, the US army may have to ignore Obama’s last few weeks of tenure and intervene to make sure Trump arrives in office okay. I have not forgotten what happened to Scott Walker in Wisconsin. If leftists try the same antics on a national scale, they’re really going to make themselves some serious enemies. Soros and his minions need to be in jail on treason and Rico charges.

They can’t impeach Trump at this point, not with the Senate in Republican hands, but if the Senate flips in 2018, they’ll try to go after him.

* Steve, I wish you’d point out that the MSM is ignoring a very public assassination threat against Trump by the CEO of a small but successful tech company on the west coast. Earlier today when I checked on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, WaPo and NYT headline pages, they had nothing at all about it. They did, however, have stories about racist remarks against Michelle and an article about a cop flying a rebel flag…and I admit, those are a lot more important.

The NBC national news main page still seems to have nothing on it at this point, but they may have the story buried somewhere…maybe next to the recipes section. The guy is now saying it was a joke, but when did that excuse ever stop racist songs at frat parties from becoming gigantic news stories? We’re talking about assassination comments after a very contentious campaign.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Goodwhites Are Wearing Safety Pins

Trump’s Appointees

Posted on November 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* While there are some very good Trump appointees (Bannon, Kobach, Stephen Miller), these will most likely be outweighed by Kushner’s influence through DJT’s paternal affection for his daughter.

* I’m not talking about some civil war fantasy. I simply mean European Americans doing what Jews (and Mormons) have always done. Set up European American business groups, charities, schools/cultural centers, lobbies, think tanks, etc. Look out for your own. Promote your people’s interests.

When a politician, member of the media, academic or business person from another race/ethnicity/religion says something disparaging against European Americans, you fight back and you fight back hard. You also don’t forget. I want that guy (or business or organization) to still be having problems a decade or two later because of that comment.

Give European Americans who want to preserve their people and culture some place to go, some place that will protect them. If a guy gets fired for standing up for European Americans, get him a job. (For example, Jason Richwine would have immediately found a job in a think tank in my world.) You also let those European Americans who don’t want to preserve their people and culture know that they aren’t welcome. No violence, just exclusion.

A peaceful European nation within a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious country. How that country-in-name-only goes won’t be that important. We’ll have our nation that insulates us.

One needs only look at the demographics of the children being born today to understand that the United States is finished as a middle-class, civic-minded country. Trump or no Trump, European Americans – my children – need to do what races throughout history have done: Look out for their own and push for as much self-determination as possible under the circumstances.

Time to build a new European American nation.

* So, as white ethnics became more Anglo-ized, they were more vulnerable to fads and fashions since they lost their roots. So, Anglo-ization hastened Liberalism.

Look at Ortho Jews who cling to culture. More likely to be conservative.
But waspized Jews became more Liberal.

In a way, the pressure to Anglo-ize is still present. It’s just that wasp power, in fusion with Jewish power, is less about Anglo-ness than about PC-ness, MLK-ness, and homo-ness that are the new religion of America.

America today applies just as much assimilationist pressures as in the past. It’s just that today’s Anglos are more eager for newcomers to worship Harvey Milk than George Washington.
These PC Anglos do NOT want newcomers to cling to their original culture as such conservatism goes against PC.

PC multi-cultism has NO TOLERANCE for newcomers who say “I reject ‘gay marriage’ as an affront to my cultural values.”

Multi-cultism only tolerates and celebrates superficial stuff like food and costumes. It has no interest in the actual moral and intellectual underpinnings of other cultures.

Anglo has gone homo and pressures all groups to ass-imilate to homo-worship.

* Why is there a concerted effort to delete from the history books all traces of America’s origins and who stands to benefit from it? It’s not rational. You can pick any great non-white leader in history, Gandhi certainly, probably even MLK, and find evidence for racism in their beliefs. In the case of MLK, if not racism, misogyny or worse (rape).

All great people who accomplish something did something sinful or horrible. That’s no reason to commit suicide.

Who stands to benefit when the last vestiges of the USA belonging to the grand Christian European heritage are wiped out? I mean the fight is on and they are winning because when I typed that last statement I guiltily asked myself, “wait, does it make me a racist or white supremacist or something for typing that sentence?” I find that I have to remind myself quite often about the existence of Japan and China and other nations that are organized around the interests of a common people in order to continue to exist: My self doubt is then assuaged. Of course a commonality among people is a basic requirement for an organized nation state even to be justified, let alone succeed. This is obvious, right?

Off topic but did anyone watch SNL’s opening Requiem for Hillary the past Saturday? The SNL cast clearly took Tuesday’s results hard. In a skit with a surprise appearance from Chris Rock the cast joked about how much they’ve been in a bubble and the people on the coasts know nothing about how people in the interior feel about politics. But this was long obvious to all of us. I guess there never was much hope in these east coast types ever having anticipated the fissures in American society that would be introduced by extremely rapidly changing demographics. They still thought that America would look past this huge divide to elect Hillary out of solidarity with Destiny, or the Right Side Of History, or something.

Does the cast of SNL and others like them still not get that this over-arching desire to have the first black president, the first female president (even to the possible detriment of other societal issues caused by the affirmative action candidate. Hillary would’ve done permanent damage to the middle class’s ability to stand up to the globalist oligarchs, for instance) is a fairly quaint feature of our culture? Since we are in the throes of dismantling all remaining vestiges of the privilege granted to this distinct European-American people by our forefathers and effectively advertising to the world “We are an equal opportunity immigration destination”, we will ironically not much longer be able to grant “privilege” to any of our nation’s prerogatives, whether they be progressive or conservative in nature, let alone those that are unique, quaint and basically unnecessary to our nation’s survival like having a female president.

* Yeah, one of the most interesting things to track in the aftermath of this election will be the fate of the media. It has become well and truly unhinged. Breitbart will certainly rise in importance. But it clearly needs to clean up its act so that it can be seen as a broad, reasonably balanced source of news, rather than as a purely partisan outlet. There’s of course a place for such outlets, but there is much such a publication can’t do that needs to be done. Fox News is perhaps a good model for a broader Breitbart, with, of course, necessary changes to reflect a Trumpian take on politics.

Some of today’s prominent media outlets must be awfully concerned as to their place in the new Trumpian world. The NY Times must wonder what its access and influence might be in a nation controlled at all political levels by Republicans, and by Trump at the top. And it can’t stop itself from engaging in the most egregiously partisan behavior — it’s too deeply in the grip of its own dogmatic beliefs.

Even a publication like People must wonder where it’s going to go for the stupid things it does. No First Family would be better suited to be fodder for its high society porn, given the beauty and appeal of so many of the Trump family. But they went all-in on a vicious attack on Trump, with the frumpy reporter from People declaring that many years ago he forced his tongue down her throat — while not of course in any way pursuing it at the time — and the magazine declaring its full support of her. I’m sure when they published this attack, they all held it unthinkable he might ever win. I wonder how much regret they have now?

* The irony of Beinart’s tweet couldn’t be more obvious.

Beinart wants to signal to the world that Jews are emphatically not on the side of other whites. But, then, how is it in any way surprising if those whites see Jews as a group to be a force arrayed against their interests, and deeply resent them?

If one wants to communicate that Jews shouldn’t be treated as opponents of other whites, that such a belief is a “canard”, the last thing one would want to do would be to suggest that Jews are united as a group against the interests of other whites.

But here we have Beinart doing just that.

* How about denying WH press credentials to NYT, NPR, Wapo, NBC, MSNBC, etc? Their questions will be nothing other than have you stopped sodomizing four year olds today. Let them use the pool report.

DJT is too much of a gentleman to do this, but I can dream.

* If Trump has any sense, he’ll loan the MLK bust permanently to the Museum of African American History and Culture where tourists can look at it, and put Churchill back in his office. That way he doesn’t have to see MLK’s ugly mug, yet all the tourists will be thinking Trump’s honored blacks (because they got to see the MLK bust with their own eyes! SJW squeal!). That would solve the problem. Any future president who has funny ideas about putting MLK back in the White House will have to deal with the shrieks of outrage from SJWers about it being stolen from its proper place in a museum honoring blacks. In the long term, it can be quietly donated to the museum and forgotten about.

* Satire is a more common art form in societies such as Monarchies and Dictatorships where more direct confrontation is ruthlessly crushed. Perhaps we are now at that stage regarding the media, Universities, and corporate employers where they have become so powerful that constructive criticism no longer matters. This is one reason Milo is so devastating. It immediately gets past the normal filters and goes straight into the blood stream. It seems to work better on liberals too for some reason.

* Actually, if you have followed this blog with anything but an ethno-centric obsession, you would know that the only reason why Sailer has a #antigentilism hashtag is because Sabrina Rubin Erdeley is obviously Jewish and when she wrote her article about “Jackie” she also very obviously slurred UVA, and moreover described the putatively predominant blue eyed blond flavor of the campus. In similar ways he quoted a poem “University” by “Karl Shapiro” which also showed a distinct animus towards UVA, and couched it in terms of hostility to blacks, Jews, and Deliverance-level incest, and he has also observed other Jewish creative people demonstrating not only a weird hostility to non-Jews (e.g., the guy who made “Mad Men”) but also an equally weird sense of persecution among Jewish Americans (Peter Beinart’s tweet quoted elsewhere).

Is there something — here? — WRT to Jews having this odd obsession with non-Jews? “Anti-gentilism” may not be the best choice of words but it’s the only thing we have at the moment.

So #antigentilism

along with #HavenMonahan are default hashtags having to do with #UVA, which is why they were listed in the article.

* * The Democrats and left are screaming about Bannon, which makes me think Trump and Bannon set up the early announcement of his selection – to a position not requiring any Senate confirmation that Trump controls completely, and which no President would ever accept such interference in making – as a naked power display to show everyone how little power the “race card” crowd and the mainstream media has anymore. The Times kept Bannon on its website front page for two days before they got the message.

The Republican Establishment is trying to lay down markers and see where they stand in this new world, leaking word of “turmoil” in the transition process to the press, and McCain trying to grab the reins on Russia and Putin.

Everyone is now trying to figure out where they stand in orbit around Planet Trump.

* Steve Bannon is not one of us, although the media insists he is.

He’s a Tea Party guy, having made a flattering movie about Sarah Palin. There are a few of his speeches online. It’s basic 2009 Tea Party rhetoric: unfunded entitlements, the Constitution, and American exceptionalism.

But I suppose the media has to vent their rage at someone.

* Trump should be judged almost exclusively on what he does with immigration, with the balance being made up of his trade policy. As much as I’d hate to see the Neocohens’ reign of terror in foreign policy continue, that is a bargain I’d be willing to take if it turns out nothing better is possible. Trump has a lot of runway to burn before he gets even close to Bush country. In fact, he has already single handedly destroyed TPP and averted socialized medicine, and that’s before he even assumed office. He’s so far ahead of Bush that they’re not in the same dimension.

* Paul Kersey: The Beck stuff mentioned above is fascinating, because he met with Facebook in early part of 2016 as part of the whole “conservative sites being blocked by algorithm” story; obviously, Beck sold his soul as his empire was tanking (went all-in to stop Trump and pissed off his readers), and was promised to be the voice of the new, respectable conservative opposition in a post-Trump world after Clinton defeated the ‘bigot’.

With the GOP remade (all those loyal to Trump purged) and the Alt-Right discredited forever, Beck could go back to shadowboxing the egalitarian left in complete control of the government. Remember all that Wikileaks has shown us; I bet Beck has been in talks with CNN, Clinton’s inner circle on this scheme since at least early June, when Beck laid off 40 percent of his staff.

But, because of hubris, our enemies overreached: they never could imagine that America still had a heartbeat. Thus, the purge of the Alt-Right (which was already planned) on Twitter today.

Thus, Glenn Beck going on CNN and attacking Richard Spencer, Steve Sailer and Alt-Right, trying to connect them to Steve Bannon.

His comments on 3 percent of Trump voters being Alt-Right are chilling (watch the Beck/Cooper interview).

Glenn Beck got a fawning article in New Yorker (published Nov. 12, but leaked BEFORE the election), which described his reinvention, signaling he was “safe” opposition in a Post-Trump world safely controlled by the MSM/Clinton.

But it all backfired.

Now, with Trump’s victory destroying the plans of reinventing Glenn Beck as useful opposition to President Clinton, he must be the “good” conservative attacking Bannon.

Regrettably, I’m close to a lot of this nonsense. Conservatism is a f’ing scam, far worse than the Conservatism Inc. Peter Brimelow describes.

It’s a racket unworthy of… any more of our time.

But for what it’s worth: Bannon is a really, really good guy.

* Trump is deliberately provoking his enemies. I’m certain he wants them to react to his aggressiveness in a crazy and asinine fashion, and they’re obliging him. It’s pure pecking order. Trump is signalling that he’s King of the Hill, and that liberals are not. I suspect this is something he learned at the military academy. Neutral bystanders will look the situation over and see Trump being perfectly cool while his enemies are shrieking their lungs out and making idiots out of themselves, and the bystanders figure out who’s the alpha here and they side with Trump.

Trump is beginning the process of turning liberals into Untouchables, and they sense it and don’t like it. They were on top with Obama. Now they’re like Cinderella after the ball, a ragged mess whose glittering coach is now a pumpkin, trudging back home to life as a charwoman.

Young liberals are still living in their mommy’s basement, they’re deeply in debt for college, they have trouble finding work, and their Obamacare didn’t work out too well. Obama failed them and they know it, but they don’t dare admit it to themselves because that would mean they screwed up by voting for him, and that liberalism doesn’t work. They’re displacing a lot of the anger they feel for their life situation onto Trump.

* I’ve seen a lot of complaining about the possible cabinet picks throughout the Alt-Right-osphere, with no small number of people openly lamenting that Trump has betrayed the principles that got him elected already. However, to that I can only reply that Trump has to draw from a rather small pool of applicants. How many people do you think exist that simultaneously

A) Have the necessary skills and experience to move Trump’s agenda forward?
B) Would be willing to serve in a Trump administration?
C) Are known to, and trusted by, Donald Trump himself or his closest advisers?

These criteria trim the list down considerably. If you add to them the further requirement that the candidate must have lily-white hands and no fingerprints whatsoever on the foulness that is currently Washington, D.C., the number of potential applicants drops to essentially zero. Donald Trump is going to need to leave at least some of the Washington machinery intact while he’s getting established in the White House and consolidating his power.

As I’ve said numerous times before the election, getting Trump to the presidency was only the opening skirmish of the battle. The real war begins now—the long war to root out and destroy the Left. Trump is by no means the last president we’re going to need. He is himself more of a transitional figure, an agent of change yet part of the old guard, a Moses not a Joshua. Perhaps in 10 years’ time we will have politicians who openly talk like Viktor Orban. In 20 years we may have our own Perons and Putins. That’s what I’m hoping for, anyway. But we have to prepare ourselves for a very long march. This is only the beginning.

* Secretary of State is an upper class job, which would seem to exclude Giuliani, Bolton, Gingrich, and Rohrabacher, who is a buddy of Sammy Hagar.

One possibility is that Trump could pick an elderly elder statesman as Secretary of State for, say, a year to get his Administration up and running. Recently, SoS’s have served 4 year terms, but Reagan fired Alexander Haig, who had sounded good on paper, midway through 1981 and replaced him with George Schultz and that worked out okay.

I don’t know much inside baseball about foreign policy, but former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) seemed to be less enthusiastic about Invade-the-World policies than most foreign policy experts back in the day.. He’s in his early 80s now. But if he’s still spry maybe he’d want to be Secretary of State for a year. Sam Nunn (D-GA) is in his late 70s.

Nunn’s probably too hawkish, but he also thinks about the foot soldiers who would have to execute his policies. One of his major accomplishments came in the late 1970s when he repeatedly grilled the Pentagon about what drill instructors were telling him: that there was something wrong with new enlistees in the “Stripes” era military. Finally, in 1980 the Pentagon realized that they had screwed up the scoring of the AFQT enlistment test and had been allowing a lot of morons to enlist. They renormed the AFQT/ASVAB in 1980 using the NLSY79 sample (that provided the core of “The Bell Curve”) and presented new President Reagan with a much more competent military as the 1980s progressed.

That’s a real service to his country that Nunn provided.

A year ago a friend and I were kicking around the feasibility of a Trump Administration. Our fantasy pick for Secretary of State to give Trump maximum initial credibility was Mitt Romney. But then Romney and Trump decided they hated each other. So maybe Romney’s Mormon rival and doppelganger Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to China? Huntsman endorsed Trump, but then wimped out in September.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Trump’s Appointees

Is NASA Too Old & Pale?

Posted on November 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments: Former NASA head administrator Dan Golden:”NASA is too Male…Pale and Old”….

Does Dan Golden believe that Israel’s Space Program is to Jewish….Male…Pale…and Old?

* The gods on Mt. Olympus gave [Hillary] the most brilliant political mind of her generation as a husband. The Fates thwarted their plan by rendering her deaf to his words.

The Ancient Greeks would have relished it.

* So Bill got it all right. The funniest thing about this election’s aftermath is realizing that if he had run again, he would have won, again. Goes to show that being married to an extraordinarily skilled and intuitive politician does not make you one.

* Only so much greatness can be thrust upon one so shrewishly untamed.

* Two points: the first is that the Clinton campaign’s Ada software failed miserably (because polling was so bad in this election), so it’s hilarious to see the most data driven campaign ever get called out by a hillbilly political savant. A few newspapers had to hastily edit their pre-written pieces about Ada in order to explain why it didn’t work. The second is that it’s surprising the Clinton’s have a condo near the River Market instead of a mansion in the Heights. Then again, Ted Danson has a condo around there (his wife is from Little Rock), so maybe there’s a secret celebrity enclave in Little Rock for folks who want to get away from New York and LA.

* I knew as soon as Beck started quoting Richard Spencer that when he got to Sailer the quote would be the New Orleans/Let The Good Times Roll thing. Probably the most ill considered thing Steve has ever said (even though it’s true). Spencer at least is a honest to goodness racist, but I’d be willing to bet somebody spent a lot of time coming up with the worst things he’s ever said as well.

MORE COMMENTS:

* Come on, the connection is quite logical. Breitbart specifically named Steve Sailer as an intellectual center of the alt right, and that is widely acknowledged far beyond Breitbart. And Bannon specifically claimed Breitbart as the official news outlet of the alt right. Sailer and Bannon may not have direct communication but they both have clear prominent ties to the alt right movement. Sailer has never refuted the alt right or the neo reaction. AFAIK, “alt right” and “neo reaction” are labels for the same general political movement.

* Glenn Beck is following the same career trajectory as Morton Downey Jr. Within a week or two he’ll stagger out of an airport men’s room with backwards swastikas magic-markered on his face, shrieking that he was jumped by alt-righters.

* There’s a very intelligent parts of the alt-right and there’s various mean, smug, obnoxious parts.

The people Twitter banned were definitely on the mean, smug, obnoxious part of the alt right. I used to follow John Rivers and Ricky Vaughn, I’ve read them a ton, Sailer has linked John Rivers, they occasionally have great tweets, but they had a lot of mean spirited, nasty stuff too. I unfollowed them. Richard Spencer also has too little intelligent insight and too much meanness and obnoxious smugness. I’m alt right and I can’t fault Twitter for banning those guys.

A younger alt-right twitter guy I would recommend as a better choice is nunzioni.

And as serious adult writers, I’d pick Sailer (of course) and Ilana Mercer.

Steve Sailer is definitely a intellectual highlight of the alt right. That one Sailer quote Beck and NRO criticized does seem unnecessary and mean, I’d like to hear Sailer’s explanation, but it is still a rare exception to Sailer’s witty and intelligent writing.

* When we consider that according to crime statistics, black offenders commit more than 50% of the country’s murders, even though blacks make up only 13% of the population, isn’t that substantial corroboration of Steve’s point that blacks “tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups” and that they “need stricter moral guidance from society.

* I can’t for the life of me think why what Steve said about letting the good times roll be a good message for the Black underclass is either wrong or motivated by racial hatred. That statement is self-evidently true, and the message of Black preacher after Black preacher. That message is front and center for example, for the Nation of Islam. That Black underclass people need order and structure in their lives, and the NOI is just the one to provide it.

As for Twitter, banning anyone not a Liberal Democrat makes them feel good, but it is likely to burn their company down to the ground. Disney and Microsoft and Salesforce all passed on buying them, as did Fox and a number of other potential suitors. Twitter is not making money now, and with their user base halved and Gab.ai poised to make them the next Myspace, things are not looking good for Jack Dorsey and company.

Indeed Zuckerberg may feel he has to placate his Whitey-hating wife (who doubtless hates him most of all, she’s a woman and Chinese, thus full of hate hate hate for White beta males like Zuck). And his board. And his pals in Silicon Valley. But all that will do is produce an exodus from Facebook of those advertisers most want to reach beyond young White women — White people with money. There are not enough ultra-rich people to support an ad network which is all Facebook really is. There is Google Hangouts, and a host of other social media places, besides Fakebook.

Fakebook is likely to be just another liberal social platform, along with lots of non-English speakers from poor Third World countries who are of limited if any interest to advertisers with real money to spend. Fakebook may have 1.7 billion “active” users; but about 989 million are exclusively mobile (read: living in a Third World hell-hole with no computer).

Of course, Donald Trump is a man who does not get even with those who cross him, he is notorious for turning the other cheek and just groveling before his enemies, so the actions of Bezos and the Amazon/Washington Post, AT&T/Direct TV, Comcast, NYT, Fakebook, Twitter etc. have no anti-trust, Sherman Act ramifications. None whatsoever.

* Steve Sailer: “That statement is self-evidently true, and the message of Black preacher after Black preacher.”

I would imagine Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton more or less agree with what I said.

* Spencer might well be smug, and I can’t say that I’m his biggest fan, but he didn’t actually do anything on Twitter to warrant the ban except hold verboten political views. Yet Twitter’s let “Rape Melania” trend and accounts that have tweeted death threats at Trump are still up. They’re not just banning people for being nasty, they’re banning them for being heretics.

* Can we get a categorical statement from Steve Sailer on whether he opposes white genocide or not? And whether he is opposed to the formation of a white ethnostate? To just put it on the record formally for documentation purposes? A simple yes or no will do.

* Congratulations Mr Sailer — so far you’ve survived Twitter’s purge of alt-right accounts — although it’s not clear to me that an ‘alt-rightist’ is worse than a ‘white supremacist’ — anyway, just for fun I looked at Twitter’s ‘About’ page — Our mission: To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers — I emailed them to suggest they change the wording to almost everyone.

* Beck’s histrionic hand-wringing over what was, in fact, a perfectly accurate and reasonably expressed comment by Steve, seems to me not only obsequious and desperate, but also rather ill-played even from his own point of view. It’s obviously an attempt at virtue-signalling, but to whom is he sending the signal? To the very group people whose ideals were just roundly thrashed in last week’s election. Hillary Clinton and her fawning presbyters in the MSM had the entire presidential campaign with which to make “racism” do as much damage to Donald Trump as they possibly could, and the result was a whole lot of nothing. So now comes Glenn Beck belatedly to the scene, to pick up the Left’s shivered spears and brandish them around at nobody, pretending to be a veteran of a battle he was never in, all so that he can ingratiate himself with the losing side’s host. What kind of sense does that make?

It is evident from this that Glenn Beck is an evasive, ascetical carper. He has a psychological need to remove himself from real currents of action that might prove definitive, to stake out deliberately contrarian positions, and to set himself up as pastor over his little flock of losers who have been left out of the big decisions. Thus his muslin “concern” and his instinctive ministering to the defeated. The man born for priestcraft will always find some “church” over which he can hold his intellectual sway, his presence as indicative as a carrion bird’s as to where the bodies lay. I hesitate to say it, but it was precisely Glenn Beck’s presence in the Tea Party that proved to me that the process was doomed to fruitlessness, for they were nothing but the dispirited remains of the old Movement Conservatism which had received a fatal blow with the first election of Obama—a field white for the harvest of laborers like Beck.

It is best, indeed, to simply stay away from this man, to not try to make sense out of what he is doing, unless you can see beneath the surface of things. His expressed ideology at any given moment counts for very little. His real purpose is ever and always to be an alternative to reality. His kingdom is not of this world. He is the lord of the loons.

* Beck’s career trajectory should serve as a timely wake-up call to Megyn Kelly. After the Million Mall Thing, Glenn Beck was on top of the world.
Megyn has just doubled down on the progressive future of FOX, for which network she was all set to become The Face.
It didn’t work out. She’s rattled. She wishes she could edit most chapters of her book, but it was timed to release straight after Hillary’s victory.
They are both victims of pop psychology and poor judgement, but I repeat myself. They ought to have realised their limitations and settled for something realistic.

* Think BIG and Kick Ass in Business and Life in Business and Life by Donald Trump & Bill Zanker. (HarperCollins, 2007). Chapter 6, Revenge:

Donald J Trump:

…

So do not hesitate to go after people. This is important not only for the person you are going after but for other people to know not to mess around with you.

When other people see that you don’t take crap and see you are really going after somebody for wronging you, they will respect you. Always have a good reason to go after someone. Do not do it without a good reason. When you are wronged, go after those people because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it.

Getting even is not always a personal thing. It’s just a part of doing business.
…

I love getting even when I get screwed by someone—yes, it is true, people still try to take me for a ride, and sometimes they succeed, rarely, but when they do I go after them. You know what? People do not want to play around with me as much as they do with others. They know if they do, they are really in for a big fight. Always get even. When you are in business you need to get even with people who screw you. You need to screw them back fifteen times harder. You do it not only to get the person who messed with you but also to show the others who are watching what will happen to them if they mess with you. If someone attacks you, do not hesitate. Go for the jugular. Attack them back in spades!
…

I always get even. In the 1980s I recruited a woman from her job in government where she was making peanuts. She had nothing when she met me. I thought she was smart and that under my mentoring she could be very good. She was a nobody in her government job and going nowhere. I decided to make her into somebody. I gave her a great job at The Trump Organization, and over time she became powerful in real estate. She bought a beautiful home.

When I was going through tough times in the early 1990s, I needed her help. I asked her to make a phone call to an extremely close friend of hers who held a powerful position at a big bank and who would have done what she asked. She said, “Donald, I can’t do that.” I had taken her out of a dead-end government job. I encouraged her. I mentored her. I made her, and then she told me she couldn’t do it. I got rid of her and then she started a business on her own.

Later I found out her business failed. I was really happy when I found that out. She had turned on me after I had done so much to help her. I had asked for one favor in return, and she turned me down flat. She ended up losing her home. Her husband, who was only in it for the money, walked out on her, and I was glad. Over the years many people have called asking for a recommendation for her. I only give her bad recommendations. I just can’t stomach the disloyalty.

I put the people who are loyal to me on a high pedestal and take care of them very well. I go out of my way for the people who were loyal to me in bad times. This woman was very disloyal, and now I go out of my way to make her life miserable. She calls asking to get together for lunch or for dinner. I never return her calls.

* Beck has always seemed like a desperate man seeking redemption. Still, it’s amusing to see him triple down on cuckservatism as his media organization crumbles, plan for political obstruction fails and his credibility craters.

The reason for the near media blackout on Steve Sailer in the afterglow of the Trump victory just dawned on me. His reasonable, well-researched views presented in a sober manner will resonate with far too many rubberneckers, unlike the more inflammatory presentation from the likes of the Radix Journal. Richard Spencer’s demeanor can also be off-putting the uninitiated. That’s why they choose Spencer as the Face of the Alt Right.

* Between 1980-2008 blacks (13% of the US population) committed:

64% of homicides
70% of robberies
50% of rapes
45% of aggravated assaults.

NATIONWIDE.

[Source: Darrell Steffensmeier, Ben Feldmeyer, Casey T. Harris, Jeffery T. Ulmer, “Reassessing Trends in Black Violent Crime, 1980-2008: Sorting out the ‘Hispanic Effect’ in Uniform Crime Reports Arrests”, Criminology, 2011]

Posted in America, Blacks | Comments Off on Is NASA Too Old & Pale?