Steve Sailer: Another BLM Fiasco: White Bicycle Cop in Baltimore Acquitted

Posted on May 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

CjKBMlaWUAAsAB-

Comments posted at Steve Sailer:

* Freddy was a slip and fall scam artist. And his family won the ghetto lottery, they got a six million dollar payout from the city.

* Too many Blacks try to resist or escape arrest. While trying to do so, some of them get killed. This was such a case.

* The narrative just keeps breaking down. The Freddie Gray case was initially packaged by the MSM as another example of police brutality against a harmless black citizen. Just the predictable type of incident the DNC house organs of the MSM like to headline during an election year, designed to stoke the sense of grievance and alienation among the black community so they’ll get good and fired up to turn out in force in November and vote for you know who. Except…. half of the cops involved were black, which mirrors the racial composition of the Balamer PD. Also, the mayor, the chief of police, the DA, and the judge who acquitted Nero are also black. The first trial (of a black officer) ended in a hung jury. Now the second trial has resulted in an acquittal. Hmmm – maybe it’s time to flush this egregious example of racial injustice down the old memory hole.

* The Baltimore Sun website has several “banners” that divide the home page into sections.

There is a “National News” banner, a “Maryland News” banner, “Sports”, etc.

They have had an entire “Freddie Gray” banner section for “in-depth Freddie Gray coverage” on their website every day since the incident occurred.

Think about the absurdity of devoting an entire section of the newspaper, every day, for over a year, to this pathetic case.

* Without looking it up, I think that the left vs. right terminology arose during the French Revolution. At that time the people who called themselves the left were anti-clerical, in many cases astheist. The right was religious. That’s still true. So there is some consistency to these terms.

200 years ago the right was associated with monarchy and the aristocracy. Those things are almost entirely gone from Western political life – that was a victory of the left.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Another BLM Fiasco: White Bicycle Cop in Baltimore Acquitted

One Man’s Liberation Is Another Man’s Destruction

Posted on May 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Washington Times:

Islamic State aims to destroy Israel, ‘liberate’ Jerusalem with Sinai Peninsula terrorist force

Arabs and Muslims, not just ISIS, want to destroy the Jewish state of Israel because they believe that land belongs to them. For this crowd, the liberation of Jerusalem means destruction of the Jewish state.

I don’t think the terms “hate” and “bigotry” and “anti-Semitism” are useful. There’s nothing sinister or satanic or unique with the Islamic antipathy to Israel.

What we might have here is a failure to communicate.

Different groups have different interests. For instance, it might be in the interests of Arabs and Muslims to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. Meanwhile, it might be, in certain contexts, in the interest of the Jewish state to expel its Muslims. For Arabs to feel liberated in Israel, they might have to expel the Jews. That’s how the world works. Much of life is zero sum. You either kill or get killed.

Your Southern patriot in America might well feel that to liberate his people, he needs to expel some people. Your average non-Muslim Belgium or Dutchman might well feel that to liberate his people, he needs to expel Muslims.

Having different subspecies in the same place competing peacefully for dominance is sometimes natural and sometimes deadly. Normally in nature one subspecies will destroy his competitors and then expand his territory as far as he can. More room for Germans to roam in the early 1940s meant there less freedom and survival for Germany’s neighbors, including slavs and Jews.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on One Man’s Liberation Is Another Man’s Destruction

Trump leaving neocons in dust

Posted on May 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment: “The neocons are desperately trying to get a spy/saboteur into the Trump camp as a wrecking move. Rice, Rubio – whoever – it’s all crap. There’s two ways to be pro-Israel, one is indirect by making nation states the default again and the second is the neocon thing, globalism for everyone else except Israel. I’d suggest the neocon method is in the process of back-firing spectacularly and it may even be too late.”

The Hill: The rise of Donald Trump is threatening the power of neoconservatives, who find themselves at risk of being marginalized in the Republican Party.

Neoconservatism was at its height during the presidency of George W. Bush, helping to shape the rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But now the ideology is under attack, with Trump systematically rejecting each of its core principles.
Whereas neoconservatism advocates spreading American ideals through the use of military force, Trump has made the case for nationalism and a smaller U.S. military footprint.

In what Trump calls an “America First” approach, he proposes rejecting alliances that don’t work, trade deals that don’t deliver, and military interventionism that costs too much.

He has said he would get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin and sit down with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un — a throwback to the “realist” foreign policy of President Nixon.

As if to underscore that point, the presumptive GOP nominee met with Nixon’s Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, earlier this week, and delivered his first major foreign policy speech at an event last month hosted by the Center for National Interest, which Nixon founded.

Leading neoconservative figures like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have assailed Trump’s foreign policy views. Kagan even called Trump a “fascist” in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

“This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac ‘tapping into’ popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him,” wrote Kagan, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution….

John Mearsheimer, a preeminent scholar in realist theory, says there’s a parallel in history to the way America turned inward after the Vietnam War.

“There’s no question that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger went a considerable ways to pursue a less ambitious foreign policy, and they talked about allies doing more to help themselves, and they began to pursue detente with the Soviet Union.”

“And this was all a reaction to Vietnam. Vietnam of course was a colossal failure. The body politic here in the United States was deeply disenchanted with American foreign policy, especially in its most ambitious forms and the end result is we ended up backing off for awhile,” he said. “We have a similar situation here.”

Posted in Neoconservatives | Comments Off on Trump leaving neocons in dust

How Eli Lake tricks readers so as to cast realists Walt, Mearsheimer and Freeman as anti-semites

Posted on May 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Yakov Hirsch writes: Let’s read this Bloomberg story about the Koch Institute in Washington hosting Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer at an event on the future of foreign policy today. “Koch Brothers Give a Megaphone to the anti-Israel Fringe.”

On Wednesday, the Charles Koch Institute, a think tank funded by one of the conservative movement’s most generous donors, will host a conference featuring some of the academy’s most virulent foes of Israel.

Eli Lake made it almost through a whole sentence without giving away he wasn’t really a journalist. But then he just had to stick in “virulent” foes of Israel. Wasn’t “big” or “vigorous” foes of Israel enough? “Virulent” is defined as venomous or poisonous, as in a virulent disease. So now the intelligent reader has a decision. Does he or she want to risk becoming an anti-Semite by continuing to read Eli Lake right now? Because if history is any guide, the reader knows a lot of nasty things are about to be said about usually decent people.

Charles and David Koch, scions of the Koch Industries fortune, have always leaned libertarian in their political giving and nonprofit work. The two brothers have supported criminal-justice reform and other free-market initiatives in education and labor. In foreign policy, the Kochs have stayed away from the uglier fringes that blame Israel and its supporters for hijacking U.S. foreign policy. That is, until now.

Koch brothers, we used to think we had an understanding with you guys. You stick to your “conservative” issues, we stick to ours. What you’re doing would lead to a turf war on “The Wire.” You already know you can have all the conservative issues you want except for our “conservative” issues like the “special relationship”, overall Middle East policy; and of course we insist on being the “intellectuals” of the movement, too.

OK, time to meet our foaming-at-the mouth friends. Let’s recap. Virulent, uglier fringe, blame Jews Israel for “hijacking” US foreign policy.

The institute’s conference scheduled for Wednesday will feature separate panels with Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, co-authors of the 2006 [actually 2007] book “The Israel Lobby.”

While Walt and Mearsheimer are hardly household names, they are known in U.S. policy circles. Their book prompted Abe Foxman, who was then national director of the Anti-Defamation League, to write a response, “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”

Mr. Eli Lake– you were about to introduce us to some bad, bad people; and now we learn this is on the “word” of one Abe Foxman– and who is this Abe Foxman? He “was then” the “National Director of the Anti Defamation League.” Here Mr. Lake is where anti-semites are made. You led us to believe we were going to get as a “witness for the prosecution” an impartial witness. Do you not understand that people look at “Abe Foxman” the same way they look at, say, Ralph Reed talking about abortion rights? And if you ask why would they look at Abe Foxman like that, then you’re not being very objective. So already a dispassionate reader is thinking, If this is the best evidence you can marshal, the accused is probably innocent because everyone already knows you throw the proverbial kitchen sink at your enemies.

The institute’s decision to host a conference that features Walt, Mearsheimer and a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, is in keeping with a general realignment of U.S. politics in 2016. Under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, conservatives have embraced Israel and accused their partisan foes of not supporting the Jewish State, but this year has brought a shift. This week for example, the conservative website Breitbart featured a story that accused Weekly Standard editor William Kristol of being a “renegade Jew.”

OK; so it used to be that conservatives embraced Israel and accused liberals of not supporting Israel. But something has now changed and the example you give is a very, very vocal and combative pro-Israel American, David Horowitz, who is angry that another very, very vocal and combative pro-Israel American Jew (Kristol) is trying to sabotage Trump who Horowitz says is good for Israel and the Jews. This is evidence of what? One crazy Jew called another a “renegade Jew” and now you’re saying it’s Trump’ s fault? Or it’s Walt’s fault? Or maybe it’s the Mufti’s fault?

What it looks like is going on here is that you want to create a certain “impression” about the discourse of your enemies– but you take the discourse of your friends (Horowitz and Kristol) and say, See what I’m saying?? Well that’s just plain dishonest, isn’t it Eli? Horowitz himself insisted on that “renegade Jew” title; it wasn’t some anti-semitic Breitbart editor.

In recent years Walt and Mearsheimer have gotten a cold shoulder from the right, but have been embraced by the anti-war movement. For example they were the featured speakers at a 2011 conference sponsored by Code Pink and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. It was called Move Over Aipac, a reference to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

You’re supposed to be an objective journalist. You’re writing for Bloomberg. But the reader can sense for sure that some “smearing” is going on here. Look what you did, connected them to Code Pink and to a conference called “Move over Aipac”. But again Eli, this is where anti-semites are made. A smart reader says, Wait, isn’t this the same Eli Lake who put up an article last year on what a cuddly outfit Aipac is — “AIPAC is no different than the National Audubon Society.” And they also know from reading other Jewish journalists that AIPAC isn’t as innocuous as you make them out to be. And they heard Hillary’s AIPAC speech where she promised to take the relationship with Israel to “the next level,” and they thought to themselves WTF. And maybe some readers leave your article now to google “Move over Aipac” because it sure sounds interesting.

This made sense. Walt and Mearsheimer have doubled down against the pro-Israel lobby. In 2011 Mearsheimerblurbed a book from the notorious Holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon. During the Iran deal debate last summer, Walt tweeted his praise for an article that asserted the opponents of the Iran agreement were puppets of Israel’s prime minister.

Before you can even catch you breath, here comes the next volley of shit! And this is it: Here’s the evidence. This is going to be the best the opposition researchers came up with to explain why the Koch brothers made such a big mistake inviting Walt and Mearsheimer.

And first off, I couldn’t help but notice you offering that Walt and Mearsheimer were “not household names,” but now you give us the “notorious Gilad Atzmon” who has been giving kids nightmares for years. After all they’ve done, they’re still nobodies! What a childish knock. Then what do we get? A blurb from 2011 and a retweet from last summer. This is your evidence. Mearsheimer put a blurb on a book no one has even heard of; and on this basis the Koch brothers should throw out his 30 years at the University of Chicago and countless books.

Eli, seriously, you know you can’t be trusted with these things. Let’s cut to the chase: you want your readers to believe you when you say that Walt and Mearsheimer hate Jews. And you will do everything within the limits of the law to convince people of that “truth.” You and your friends will have no compunction about destroying their lives. Because like many, many people before Eli Lake and many people after, regular rules of civility, fair play, honesty, don’t apply when you “know” you are on the side of the angels and your opponents on the side of the devil. Of course it is lost on Eli Lake and his friends that their behavior is the strongest case for the thesis in “the lobby.” But other people are aware, the “lobby” had a fatwa put on it by Jeffrey Goldberg and the other warrior scribes have been tormenting Walt and Mearsheimer ever since.

Freeman, another panelist at Wednesday’s conference, has a similar record. In 2009 many Republicans led a campaign to stop his nomination to be the chairman of the National Intelligence Council in part because of his extreme views on Americans who support the Jewish State. In 2012, Freeman delivered a speech in Moscow on the topic, where he said, “In some countries, like the United States, Israel can rely upon a ‘fifth column’ of activist sympathizers to amplify its messages.”

So Chas Freeman gave a speech in Moscow! Is that here to suggest Chas Freeman is some sort of traitor? Or is it supposed to remind people of the Pale of Settlement? Definitely “Moscow” means something bad for Freeman. Maybe Eli Lake just put Moscow there to let each individual reader make their own negative association. So Chas Freeman in “Moscow” said that Israel has some fanatical supporters who are very aggressive in pursuing what they claim is in the American Interest but was ALWAYS in the state of Israel’s interest. Perhaps “fifth columnist” is too strong a term, but then again it may not be. We are going to explore that question in the coming weeks. And what if we discover together that 5th columnist is the most appropriate word; well then we are stuck in a situation where the truth is anti-Semitic.

Will Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute, pushed back on the idea that his think tank was providing a “platform” to Walt, Mearsheimer and Freeman. “They are all very respected members of the foreign policy community and the academy,” he said.

Big student of propaganda that I am, I have a 6th sense for trickery. What is the only fact in the above paragraph? It is that Will Ruger said of Walt, Mearsheimer and Freeman “they are all respected members of the foreign policy community and the academy.” Now read the paragraph again. Who is interpreting that statement as “pushback”? Eli Lake. Eli, did you just make that up to imply that Will Ruger is “defensive” about hosting them? Because his statement is pretty straightforward.

When asked whether he endorsed Freeman’s view of American supporters of Israel, Ruger backed off: “We’re not endorsing anything or everything these people have said; we are trying to have a broad conversation about foreign policy.” But he stressed that Freeman was a former ambassador and assistant secretary of defense and that he wrote the entry for diplomacy for the Encyclopedia Britannica. “His voice as a practitioner is relevant to a foreign policy conversation,” he said.

Look what a trick Eli Lake is playing on the reader. Ruger said what every person in the history of conferences says: “we’re not endorsing anything or everything…..” But look what Mr. Eli Lake adds here: “Ruger backed off.” What did Ruger do that showed the great journalist Eli Lake that he was “backing off?” Nothing. Eli Lake put those words in to show again some defensiveness which just isn’t there.

Do you feel any sense or responsibility to be honest, Mr. Lake? Do you expect “non partisans” to read you and believe you’re in the right? Why all the dishonesty if your cause is just?

“We went out of our way to invite a broad, diverse set of panelists for this conference,” Ruger said, pointing out that the institute had also invited two prominent advisers to Hillary Clinton, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Michele Flournoy, who both served in the Obama administration at senior levels. Neither Slaughter nor Flournoy could make it, but Kathleen Hicks, who served as a senior Pentagon official during Obama’s first term, will appear on a panel at the conference with Mearsheimer.

But the ideological diversity for the Charles Koch Institute has its limits. When asked whether the institute invited any neoconservatives to the conference, Ruger said, “Since I don’t want to assign labels to people, I don’t want to say.” He added, “We are trying to get away from labels, and we’re trying to focus on ideas.” The same cannot be said for Freeman, Mearsheimer or Walt.

So Mr. Lake ends this great polemic by saying I think Freeman, Mearsheimer, and Walt don’t “focus on ideas” but labels. I guess that means when those three have lunch together at the conference, while other tables are discussing ideas, these guys will just be “labeling.” I think the image Mr. Lake wants the reader to be left with is: Walt, Mearsheimer, and Freeman eating off in a corner (everyone else keeping away to not catch the virulent disease) and everyone else is discussing the big ideas of the conference but these three will just be chanting “Jew” in between each bite.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel | Comments Off on How Eli Lake tricks readers so as to cast realists Walt, Mearsheimer and Freeman as anti-semites

Lord of the Rings star Elijah Wood says Hollywood is gripped by a powerful pedophile ring and Tinseltown is covering up a ‘seedy’ underbelly full of predatory ‘vipers’

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Daily Mail: Lord of the Rings star Elijah Wood claims that young actors in Hollywood are being sexually abused by predatory high-powered ‘vipers’ working in the industry..
The Hobbit actor, 35, told The Sunday Times that the child abuse is ‘probably still happening’.
Shocking allegations that top Hollywood figures have been protecting child abusers have circulated widely in recent years.
Several industry figures have been convicted following claims of sex abuse and former child actors – including The Goonies actor Corey Feldman, 44 – claimed he was ‘surrounded’ by molesters when he was a teenager.
Anne Henry, co-founder of Bizparentz – a group to help young actors – said that Tinseltown is currently sheltering around ‘100 active abusers’.
Wood, who stars in his new film The Trust told The Sunday Times that his mother had protected him from abuse when he first arrived in Hollywood aged eight.
But he said: ‘I’ve been led down dark paths to realise that these things are probably still happening.’
The actor, who played Frodo Baggins in Lord of the Rings, believes that other actors remain in danger.
He added: ‘If you’re innocent, you have very little knowledge of the world and you want to succeed.
‘People with parasitic interests will see you as their prey. What upsets me about these situations is that the victims can’t speak as loudly as the people in power.’
Wood was talking to the Sunday Times about Jimmy Savile, a British entertainer who sexually abused dozens of victims over five decades.
He was knighted by the Queen and his crimes were only revealed after his death, despite years of rumor and innuendo and led to allegations of a cover-up by government figures and broadcasting chiefs.
Henry believes that around three quarters of child actors that ‘went off the rails’ later in their life had been abused in Hollywood.

Hollywood Gay Mafia.

Following up on this post, I’m thinking that if elites through the media can convince much of the world to celebrate same-sex marriage, then is there nothing they can’t do in shifting basic moral values?

Does anyone seriously think that if elites were against same-sex marriage, we would have same-sex marriage?

Jews provide most of the funding for the Democrats, much of the funding for the Republicans, we dominate some media and finance, and some academia and law. We help set the agenda in America. For instance, we got the country to provide Israel with over $100 billion in aid.

Traditional Judaism is 100% against gay marriage, but only about 12% of American Jews are Orthodox, and most of the rest appear to support same-sex marriage.

Jeff* emails:

There are three things that interest me about this story: (1) I got the link from Instapundit which is very widely read and usually sympathetic with gay issues, (2) that Moira says some things about male homosexuality that are anathema to the general narrative; first when she says that young men who are used by older gays see themselves as gay because the activity produces an orgasm, second when she says that homosexuals need to get to young men before they have their first experience with women and three that she believes that homosexuality is “imprinted” by conduct and environment rather than having a genetic cause. (3) that despite her feelings and experiences she still loved her father and her musical work is inspired by her mother.

There are few things that separate her from most of the anti Gay marriage activists: (1) she is not religious. So much of the opposition to same sex marriage comes from religious people, (2) she has first hand knowledge of same sex relationships, (3) she has first hand knowledge of the rationalizations gay people go through and (4) she has first hand knowledge of the consequences inflicted on others by at least those gays who share her parents’ perspectives.

The New Republic has a story (sympathetic to gays) about how gay marriage will change the nuclear family.

Concerning the Gawker story outing Tim Geithner’s brother for trying to set up a tryst with a homosexual porn actor, Nick Denton said that if he hadn’t pulled it he would have lost 7 figures worth of advertising.

Katy writes (she features in Last Chance U, S5E4):

I was born into a family of famous gay pagan authors in the late Sixties. My mother was Marion Zimmer Bradley, and my father was Walter Breen. Between them, they wrote over 100 books: my mother wrote science fiction and fantasy (Mists of Avalon), and my father wrote books on numismatics: he was a coin expert.

What they did to me is a matter of unfortunate public record: suffice to say that both parents wanted me to be gay and were horrifed at my being female. My mother molested me from ages 3-12. The first time I remember my father doing anything especially violent to me I was five. Yes he raped me. I don’t like to think about it. If you want to know about his shenanigans with little girls, and you have a very strong stomach, you can google the Breendoggle, which was the scandal which ALMOST drummed him out of science fiction fandom.

More profoundly, though was his disgust with my gender, despite his many relationships with women Moiraand female victims. He told me unequivocally that no man would ever want me, because all men are secretly gay and have simply not come to terms with their natural homosexuality. So I learned to act mannish and walk with very still hips. You can still see the traces of my conditioning to reject my femininity in my absolute refusal to give in and my outspokenness, and my choice of theatrical director for much of my life. But a good part of my outspokenness is my refusal to accept the notion that “deep down I must be a boy born in a girl’s body.” I am not. I am a girl reviled for being a girl, who tried very hard to be the “boy” they wanted.

Suffice to say I was not their only victim of either gender. I grew up watching my father have “romances” (in his imagination) with boys who were a source of frustration because they always wanted food and money as a result of the sex they were subjected to, and didn’t want HIM. (OF COURSE!) I started trying hard to leave home when I was ten, after the failure of my first suicide attempt, and to intervene when I was 13 by telling my mother and her female companion that my father was sleeping with this boy. Instead of calling the cops, like any sensible human being, they simply moved my father into their apartment, which I called “The Love Nest” and they moved back into our family home.

Naturally that made things much worse. I had already been couch-surfing at the home of my directors from the Renaissance Faire for some time, but nobody could take me all the time. As might be imagined, where my father was, there were teenaged boys, drugs, and not a whole lot of food, though I wasn’t really starved in my teens once my mother’s books began to sell really well. I lived all kinds of places as a teen, though I moved back in with my father when I started college…

…Now it should be noted that boy lovers do not think of what they are doing as “molestation.” To them it is sex, they imagine it is consensual, and any objections will certainly be overridden by the orgasms they are certain they can produce, and it is the shame of these orgasms that silences the boy-victims, and persuades them they “must” be gay. (Regardless of subsequent heterosexual marriages and children.)

…Years ago I read [Jeffrey] Satinover, who believed that gays were largely “pansexual” that is, preferring sex with EVERYONE of EVERY age and EVERY gender rather than wanting to be limited to one person, and he regarded it, credibly, as a moral and ethical problem, rather than a sexual “orientation.” I can’t tell you how many lesbians I know who simply hate men, or who have been raped and can’t face sex with men because of that.

…My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this: since everyone is naturally gay, it is the straight establishment that makes everyone hung up and therefore limited. Sex early will make people willing to have sex with everyone, which will bring about the utopia while eliminating homophobia and helping people become “who they really are.” It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.” If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish. As sex is integrated as a natural part of every single relationship, the barriers between people will vanish, and the utopia will appear, as “straight culture” goes the way of the dinosaur. As my mother used to say: “Children are brainwashed into believing they don’t want sex.”

…This March I met Katy Faust online: one of the six children of gays who filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing gay marriage. We corresponded, and I left CA. I am still reeling from the death of my last bits of denial. It IS the homosexuality that is the problem. It IS the belief that all sex all the time will somehow cure problems instead of creating them that is the problem.

So I have begun to speak out against gay marriage, and in doing so, I have alienated most of even my strongest supporters. After all, they need to see my parents as wacky sex criminals, not as homosexuals following their deeply held ethical positions and trying to create a utopia according to a rather silly fantasy. They do not have the willingness to accept the possibility that homosexuality might actually have the result of destroying children and even destroying the adults who insist on remaining in its thrall.

Now for all well-meaning people who believe I am extrapolating from my experience to the wider gay community, I would like to explain why I believe this is so: From my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that EVERYONE is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy.

If you doubt me, research “age of consent” “Twinks,” “ageism” and the writings of the NUMEROUS authors on the Left who believe that early sexuality is somehow “beneficial” for children.

Due to my long experience with the BSDM community (bondage/discipline, Sado-Masochism) it is my belief that homosexuality is a matter of IMPRINTING, in the same way that BDSM fantasies are. To the BDSM’er, continued practice of the fantasy is sexually exciting. To the gay person, naturally, the same. However, from what I have seen, neither one creates healing. My mother became a lesbian because she was raped by her father. My father was molested by a priest–and regarded it as being the only love he had ever experienced. There are a vanishingly few people who are exclusively gay, but far more who have relationships with people of BOTH genders, as my parents and other relatives did.

What sets gay culture apart from straight culture is the belief that early sex is good and beneficial, and the sure knowledge (don’t think for a second that they DON’T know) that the only way to produce another homosexual is to provide a boy with sexual experiences BEFORE he can be “ruined” by attraction to a girl.

If you’re OK with that, and you might not be, it is worth your consideration. If you think I am wrong, that is your privilege, but watch out for the VAST number of stories of sexual abuse AND transgenderism that will come about from these gay “marriages.” Already the statistics for sexual abuse of children of gays are astronomically high compared to that suffered by the children of straights.

Naturally my perspective is very uncomfortable to the liberal people I was raised with: I am “allowed” to be a victim of molestation by both parents, and “allowed” to be a victim of rather hideous violence. I am, incredibly, NOT ALLOWED to blame their homosexuality for their absolute willingness to accept all sex at all times between all people.

Posted in Abuse, Hollywood, Homosexuality | Comments Off on Lord of the Rings star Elijah Wood says Hollywood is gripped by a powerful pedophile ring and Tinseltown is covering up a ‘seedy’ underbelly full of predatory ‘vipers’

No True Scotsman

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

I grew up hearing that “no true Christian…” and I got tired of that type of thinking.

One thing I liked about Dennis Prager’s worldview was that he never used this logic.

As soon as I hear someone taking the “No True Scotsman” line, I immediately dismiss them.

From RationalWiki:

The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when:

NTS can be thought of as a form of inverted cherry picking, where: instead of selecting favourable examples, you reject unfavourable ones. Thus, the NTS fallacy, taken to its logical conclusion, paves the path to other logical fallacies, such as letting the “best” member of a group represent it.

Thanks to these remarkable qualities, the NTS fallacy is a vital tool in the promotion of denialism.

The coining of the term is attributed to professor Antony Flew,[5] who gave an example of a Scotsman who in his 1975 book, Thinking About Thinking, wrote;[6]

“”Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.

Thus, when McDonald is confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that “no true Scotsman would do such a thing,” thus disavowing membership in the group “Scotsman” to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for him not having been a Scotsman in the first place.

This reasoning is clearly fallacious, as there exists no premise in the definition of “Scotsman” which makes such acts impossible (or even unlikely).

Form

P1: All X are Y.
P2: Clearly, not all X are Y.
C1: All true X are Y.
In practice, application of the NTS fallacy is far more subtle than this, but the line of thinking always boils down to a denialistic attitude towards counterexamples.

“”No man can ever be opposed to Christianity who knows what it really is.
—Henry Drummond, the Scopes Trial
With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use NTS to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups (and vice versa), but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious — they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as “not true Muslims” as Islam is a “Religion of Peace.”
Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them “not true Christians,” even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association. The NTS fallacy likewise occurs when believers attribute any and all good fortune to divine intervention on their behalf, yet insist that the same can never be true when things go awry.
The NTS fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don’t believe the extremist’s viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (i.e., Christians who support gay marriage are not “real Christians” or Muslims who support women’s rights are not “real Muslims”).

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on No True Scotsman

Pamela Geller, Breitbart: On Trump and the Jews, David Horowitz Is Right

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Pamela Geller writes: David Horowitz is under heavy fire from the Republican establishment for his article “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” in which he points out that, as the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump is “the only obstacle to the party of Obama and Hillary and Huma Abedin, of the Iran deal and the appeasement of Islamic Jew-hatred beginning with the Hamas terrorists of Gaza and the Fatah terrorists of the West Bank.”

David Horowitz is right.

It’s revealing how weak, spineless Jews go off when a proud Jew calls out them out. That’s what happening now in this brouhaha between Horowitz and Kristol. The GOP elite — The Weekly Standard, National Review Online, et al — has betrayed our key principles for years now and has gotten away with doing so. The Republican establishment has now jumped the shark with the #NeverTrump movement — happily throwing Republicans under the bus because Trump isn’t “controllable” or one of them.

Breitbart readers know that I have been a vocal supporter of Ted Cruz, coming out and endorsing him early, back in May 2015. I was and am critical of Donald Trump because of his dangerous and reckless remarks about the First Amendment and our Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas and his personal attacks on me, as well as his position on eminent domain, free trade, etc. But the fact is that Cruz lost, and I will support the GOP nominee.

But instead of throwing their support before the man whom Republican voters have chosen out of a crowded field, GOP elites including Kristol and Mitt Romney are talking about an independent party run. What hubris. It is the height of stupidity and arrogance. Acting more like Democrats then Republicans, the #NeverTrump RINOs mean to upend the will of the people.

That is not who we are. The fact is that conservatives held our noses and supported RINO John McCain, and after that we supported weak sister Mitt Romney. Now it’s their turn, whether they like it or not. A third party run will destroy the GOP and hand the election over to the corrupt and criminal Clinton. See the groundbreaking film Clinton Cash to grasp the depth and breadth of Hillary Clinton’s crimes. There is no contest between Trump and Clinton.

Ben Shapiro also came out against Horowitz – yes, the Ben Shapiro who bravely staked his career on the laughable claim of assault of journalist Michelle Fields by a Trump staffer. Shapiro actually changed his Facebook description to “Michelle Fields’ former co-worker.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Pamela Geller, Breitbart: On Trump and the Jews, David Horowitz Is Right

‘René and Juan Carlos set out to convert their Colombian megachurch to Orthodox Judaism. This is what happened.’

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Essay: With its decaying two-story homes and grazing cows, Bello looks like just another sleepy suburb of Medellín, Colombia. Thirty years ago, though, it was known as la capital de los sicarios, the capital of the assassins. Pablo Escobar, the leader of the Medellín cartel, which supplied most of the world’s cocaine, recruited many of his sicarios from Bello, paying them to eliminate his adversaries. Mostly teenagers, they rode motorcycles, prayed to La Virgen María Auxiliadora, and killed their victims in the streets. René Cano grew up in Bello at the height of Escobar’s reign.
Born in 1978, René was the child of a textile factory worker and a housewife, both observant Catholics. At 13, he was so tall and self-possessed that he passed for an 18-year-old and, by his own description, was sexually precocious. He could talk anyone into anything. When his father announced one evening there was no money, nothing for dinner, René ran outside with a chair and came back with cash.
His cousins were sicarios and so were his neighbors; almost everyone he knew was on drugs. His mother understood it was only a matter of time before René would join them, and she feared for his life. “Don’t hang out on the corner,” she told him one day, “because they will come.” Five minutes after she called him into the house, men gunned down seven boys on the spot where he had been standing. The stench of their deaths lingered for weeks.

Posted in Conversion | Comments Off on ‘René and Juan Carlos set out to convert their Colombian megachurch to Orthodox Judaism. This is what happened.’

This Is It!

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Many would-be converts to Judaism think Judaism is it! Then they convert and their enthusiasm dies out. It’s like a man chasing a hot woman. Once he gets her he wants something else…

FFB friend: “If only you had the capability of showing these pathetic people the truth.”

Posted in Conversion | Comments Off on This Is It!

Steve Sailer: The O.J. Simpson Story Is About Violent White Racism Toward Black Bodies

Posted on May 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* To be fair, Black men beat the ever loving hell out of Black women way more than they do white women. Black women are almost totally inured to it. Many, if not most, Black women have been repeatedly beaten by one or more significant other. They also know, that most of the time, said significant other will stop short of killing them, so they don’t necessarily make the leap from jealousy based abuse to murder. That is why Blacks on O.J.’s jury were not impressed by Nicole having a few bruises on her face, that just means love to them. Black women are incredibly loyal to Black men. I often think they are trying to make up for how often they (willingly) consorted with the slave masters and the slave masters’ sons. In any case, we white women could take a leaf out of their book and be more supportive, loyal and faithful to our white men.

* When you meet a black person who was an adult at the time and the subject of the OJ case comes up, ask them 3 questions:
1) do you think O.J. did it?
2) (if they say yes) when did you arrive at that opinion?
3a) (if they said some time before the end of the trial) when did you first tell a white person that you thought he did it?
3b) (if they said some time after the trial) what new evidence changed your mind?

* I will never understand “white guilt” over slavery. Africans sold each other into slavery. They were purchased by Jews, Whites, Arabs, and other Africans. Why should only Whites be blamed?

* There’s an amusing phenomenon where young liberals assume that America was under control of a Nazi-sympathizing segregationist government until *maybe* 5 or 6 years ago, and things have only started to turn around thanks to campus SJW activists and the Black Lives Matter movement.

So you have people sharing videos of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton speaking out in favor of civil rights or feminism back in the 80s and 90s, and acting like that makes them heroic trailblazers. “OMG they were saying discrimination is bad back in the 80s! Incredible!”

* The issue concerning this trial was not whether O.J. did it, but whether an African-American, for once, could get away with it — sort of like the affirmative action of criminal justice — because white people had gotten away with it so many times. The most awkward moment in People vs. Simpson was when Simpson, after his acquittal, says “We should find the culprit, or culprits” to a room full of people. There’s an awkward silence in the room, because everyone implicitly knew that O.J. actually did it.

In his original incarnation, OJ was custom made to give proof to White America’s delusional narrative that “clean, well-spoken negros who shed ghetto culture and are ambitious” can succeed in life.

This fantasy view of an equal opportunity America was of course was forgotten the instant he was seen as an abusive, murdering thug, whose supporters were blind to justice.

* Actually the black women on the jury pretty much despised Nicole, which was well known to the defense team and missed by the clueless Marcia Clark, who fantasized she had some kind of “connection” with black women. The black women deeply resented what they saw as a white gold-digger who had ‘stolen’ a rich, successful, handsome black man from them.

* I’m sure there were some who wanted him to get off whether he did it or not. Still others tried their darndest not to think about whether he really did it. However, there was a substantial portion of the population who truly believed the LAPD set him up. Just like there are people now who think Mike Brown had his hands up and Trayvon Martin was ambushed on his way home to study for AP Chemistry, or whatever.

* And don’t forget the self-aggrandizing District Attorney who moved the trial from Santa Monica where it should have been conducted to the Central courthouse so he could be on TV regularly. The Santa Monica jury panel is wholly different from the downtown panel.

* The prosecutors decided to have the trial in the Central courthouse because (especially after Rodney King) they thought it was important to have a “representative” jury.

* I remember watching a low budget Lifetime film in the 1990s where a Mulatto woman played by an actress named Jasmine Guy, marries a White man she met in the military.

He ends up becoming an abusive alcoholic husband, beats her, and eventually murders her. It’s like the OJ case, except the races are reversed. It’s a man bites dog film.

* I was in Philadelphia the day after the verdict. All the black folks I encountered were bubbly and smiling, it was weird. I almost got mad for a minute, but then, whatever. I will say I have never invested in a capital case of any kind since then. I just assume the jury will get it wrong.

* A friend of mine, when he was a young doctor doing his residency, worked in the ER at a large public hospital in Baltimore. He used to see all sorts of victims of marital violence. One regular was an older black male who often ended up at the ER after a dust-up with his wife. He’d slap her around, and when she had enough, she’d stab him with a paring knife. The wounds were typically messy but superficial. He’d then come into the ER via the “amberlamps” to be patched up, and when the cops asked him if he wanted to press charges, he always declined.

The last time they fought, his wife’s aim was deadlier. She cut a major artery, her husband bled out, and was dead on arrival at the ER. The police went to the house to inform his wife of this, and that she was under arrest for killing him. Her response, according to my doctor friend:

“He die? He nebber do dat befo’!”

* I worked with a few blacks at that time in the 90′s. They were all convinced that OJ was innocent. Reasons? Nope, they just “felt” it. The cops were all racists. All cops everywhere are racist.

* “Everything in our age conspires to turn the writer, and every other kind of artist as well, into a minor official, working on themes handed down from above and never telling what seems to him the whole of the truth.” (George Orwell)

* Blaming everything on white people is its own kind of white supremacism – the only kind still allowed.

* What OJ Simpson taught me was that blacks do not care about justice or right and wrong, and only care about their own skin color.

* I have a friend whose wife beats on him occasionally. He said he does not fight back because 1) he was taught not to hit women, and 2) he will be the one going to jail if she calls the police. Because, as we all know, women never lie.

* Geez, talk to your friend. I supposed it’s possible that both he and his wife are on opposite ends of their respective sex’s personality spectrum, and this relationship could be “stable”. But from the huge majority of relationship observations I’ve made in life, a woman being able to roll right over her man–essentially not having a man that is her superior–is very unstable. It violates female hypergamy. Mostly when a woman loses respect, it just snowballs–gets worse and worse, onto contempt and more–into divorce.

Unless they are in some bizarre stable kink, i’d suggest when she tries to beat on him, stop her, flip her over and give her a good spanking. I think the marriage from that point on will be a lot better. It might be what she’s actually looking for from him–boundaries.

* I was happy to see OJ found not guilty. It confirmed my views of our culture while demonstrating the results of our leftist media and education complex .

In addition the trial highlighted the dangers white females face when they associate with blacks. Nicole was a gold digger, she was not a sympathetic character. In many cultures Simpson’s actions would be seen as justified. She dissed OJ, while she continued to take his money and flaunt her slutty behavior for all to see. If I was on the jury I would not have convicted OJ of murder.

* I’ve done plenty of stupid things in my life, but a default requirement for a woman is to make reasonable choices about romantic\sex partners. For a white woman, a black ex is a giant “fail” and a signal of a bunch of character flaws that you do not want in a woman you’re investing any time in.

Despite the general decline in the quality of white women’s behavior, since “liberation” or whatever you want to call it, there are still plenty of quality white women out there, who, with strong guidance from a man about what’s required to merit his continued attention, can make fine girlfriends, wives, mothers. No need for slumming.

* OJ had a young white girlfriend during and after his trial. One might think that a person who murders his significant other might be a bad choice for boyfriend. Yet here we have white women lining up to date this negro murderer. What is wrong with this segment of the white population? Their parents must be proud.

* Black women are deadlier. I remember seeing a statistics that black women kill their partners more often than vice versa. We do not hear much about it as it does not fit to the feminist narrative.

* For blacks the thinking was, “black people have been losing in America for 300 years. He’s our chance to win one for the black team.” Actual justice for Ron and Nicole was much less important to them than racial justice for all of black America. It was nothing personal. I’m sure that if OJ had been white, the black jurors would have had no problem finding guilt. Juries usually get it right but this was an unusual case in that the defense was (assisted by the idiot judge – Asians can sometimes be as stupid as Jews when it comes to these matters and the clueless prosecutors who allowed the trial to take place downtown instead of having OJ judged by a jury of his Brentwood peers) allowed to make this case about racial justice. The system breaks down mainly in these kind of high profile cases – everyday juries are usually commonsensical.

* It’s ironic because Santa Monica would have been truly a jury of OJ’s “peers”. OJ never wanted to have anything to do with black people before he was arrested.

Although leftists pretend not to notice things like black criminality, in fact they are keenly aware of them (you can see from things like their revealed preference in where they send their kids to school) and take them into account in their decision making, just not in a way that conforms with justice and common sense.

* The apple never falls far from the tree.

Nicole’s folks aren’t wholly blameless. She wanted to leave O.J. years before she did, but they pushed her to stay so they could keep on milking the Juice.

If your wealthy son-in-law were beating your daughter, would you tell her to grin and bear it for the sake of your bank account? If the answer is yes, then you’re a POS.

* “Nicole’s folks aren’t wholly blameless.”

An understatement. They pushed her to “get back together” after O.J. cut them off when they divorced.

Detectives Lange and Vanatter felt Nicole’s father didn’t accept she was dead or that Simpson was guilty.Marcia Clark was amazed that Lou Brown seemed totally indifferent to his daughter’s murder, wasn’t mad at Simpson, and refused to help the prosecution.

This is from their books. Lou Brown seems to have gone beyond what you call a “POS.”

* EVERYTHING must serve the globalist/radical agenda -Sports are the perfect place for that :

a. people who watch are ‘addicted’ and invest emotionally in ‘their’ teams. It’s worked since the roman empire. So you have a literally captive audience. and the audience, as you noted is the one that needs the most reeducation -because they have become effeminized by watching other men instead of hunting or some other character building activity , it’s the perfect place for it.

b. what better place to prove black prowess? if only whitey wasn’t keeping blacks down in the silicon valley the %s of minority startups would be as high as the black % of the NBA.

c. large number of sports journalists are …. “scots-irish” and carry the same radical politics. Also the media companies that own these sport channels are carrying out the same radical/globalist agenda literally on ‘all channels’.

* My rule is: no tattoos or piercings on a woman. Those are the marks of a slut.

* A jury in Santa Monica would very likely have consisted of pretty much the same racial mix. The city of Los Angeles is not all that black, I think even then it was about 15%. (Even less now since Section 8 plus ethnic cleansing of Blacks in Watts by Latino colonists). The jury was unrepresentatively black because the defense wanted nullification, while the prosecutors didn’t want to look like racists who had him convicted by a White jury, and figured Black women would vote guilty anyway. In LA County jury pools are drawn from very large geographic areas. I live in the Beach cities and have served on juries in downtown LA more than 20 miles away. A jury pool in Santa Monica would have had about as many black prospective jurors as one in LA and the lawyers would have empaneled the same mix.

* Read Daniel Petrocelli’s book on the civil trial. The original jury pool in Santa Monica was about 40 % black. During voir dire, nearly all the black prospective jurors were so openly pro-Simpson, they eliminated themselves and only one black made the trial panel.

* People need to remember two things:

(1) how incredibly popular “the Juice” was in 1992. He was a popular actor and was one of the greatest RB in Football history. Unlike Jim Brown, he wasn’t “angry” but came off as likable and gregarious. And non-political.

(2) how overwhelming the evidence against him was. The Bronco chase, the bloody glove, the DNA evidence, the bloody shoe prints, the expensive Italian gloves, the cut on his hand, the cap left at the scene with hair that matched his, the limo driver, the bloody sock, the lack of an alibi.
Short of having a picture of him slitting Nicole throat, there’s been few murders with so much evidence showing one man did the killing.

And therefore, how incredibly shocking the verdict was to most White Americans.

* A true story: On old guy I once knew, a retired widower, hard of hearing, Reagan conservative, got involved with a divorcee, she a Hillary / Obama supporter. She did have going for her that she wasn’t grossly fat and ten years younger. He was lonely, you know, whatever.

They didn’t cohabitate, both of them owning their own houses, but they each had a key to the other’s house and would go traveling together.

One day this nutjob divorcee got ticked off because she decided the old gent hadn’t been paying her sufficient attention and deference of late. So in the middle of the night, she unlocked his house door, crept into his bedroom where the old guy was snoring, and commenced screaming and beating him with her purse.

He woke with a start, naturally, and it being dark and him hard of hearing, he didn’t initially understand who it was or what was happening. He jumped out of bed, swinging his arms. A few seconds later, having come fully awake and realizing it was her being a wildcat, he scooped her up in a blanket to stop her whomping on him, wooshed her out his front door (him in his underwear) and unceremoniously dumped her in the snowbank.

So what does the crazy old harpy do? She goes to the D.A. and files a “domestic violence” complaint.

You’d think the D.A. would laugh, no? After all, SHE entered HIS house and started it by smacking him with her purse. Nope. D. A. took the case.

This old guy in a panic, thinking, I’m retired, she’ll take me for all I have, asked her what it would take to settle.
Her price was ten grand. So he took a reverse mortgage on his house to pay her extortion fee.

Moral of the story? Stay far, far away from libtarded divorcees, even when you’re old.

* Whites were not particularly fond of Blacks until recently. Lincoln had highly negative things to say about Blacks, perhaps Blacks trying to kill him as a young man floating logs down to Baton Rouge had something to do with that. Dashiell Hammett is in bad odor with SJW because his stories portray Blacks negatively (criminal, stupid, low time orientation). The somewhat later and more upscale Rex Stout books have Blacks portrayed positively, though still subservient and lower IQ.

I think the shift came in during WWII, when Blacks were needed as laborers and Dems needed their votes as servicemen were overseas fighting. But the inflection point was probably pro sports, not Jackie Robinson but likely the 1960s with Professional and College Football players. “Paul Kersey” at StuffBlackPeopleDontLike.com makes the point that college and pro sports are the true opiate of the people, and positive views of Blacks correlates highly with their dominance, near total, of college football and pro football.

This is somewhat of an accident, baseball was never committed as pro football was to nationally televised games on a regular basis; and college football also filled the need for programming by the networks while other sports fell by the wayside (like Boxing). College and Pro Football fed a fantasy of a “respectable” Black athletic hero who was tougher/faster/stronger than White players but just as Middle Class White in behavior and attitude.

I think this aspect is dying, rapidly:

1. Increased integration for all but the higher income SJW/SWPL elites means more thug street Blacks in real life to offset TV fantasy Blacks.
2. Whites turning off from TV mainline sports that cost as incomes decline in favor of free/low cost online stuff like racing, extreme sports, etc. ESPN has seen declines in viewership/carriage fees strong enough to push Disney stock down despite a new Star Wars movie and Marvel movie.
3. Competition for the scarcest of resources, attractive young women. Nothing can turn a young White man into hate like losing a girl to a Black man. That’s just human nature. Humans are genetically hard wired that way.

This last is key. I’ve seen more and more mulatto babies with White mothers, Black father half around, half not. With the obesity epidemic hitting White women too, just not as hard as Black women, and Black women being both generally unattractive, and the very few who are preferring violent Thug Black men and being also unavailable save to a few celebrities like Robert DeNiro or the late David Bowie, the sexual competition aspect is IMHO a main but poorly recognized or understood driver of White American (men anway) not really having favorable opinions of Blacks.

Loot at Television. That’s a female/gay ghetto, though the drive for mass in reaction to carefully quantified demos via online advertising is changing things (the new Nancy Drew reboot starring Sarah Shahi was dumped after pilot because it “skewed too female”). But for now it remains startlingly female (around 85% of sitcom audiences are female IIRC). The sexy Black love interest for the White woman remains an audience staple. One bound to offend White male potential viewers; and cord-cutting (no more lucrative carriage fees — in 2013 CBS got half its revenues from carriage fees), online competition mean the 1980s Brandon Tartikoff NBC strategy of fewer viewers but more upscale income won’t work. Not the least of which real disposable income is declining for almost all but the top few percent.

The future of Black/White approval is likely to be White women, gays, upscale elites in elite zip codes, highly approving of Blacks and desiring approval backwards, and most White men having little to no interest to outright hostility over women moderated by ever eroding social control of angry professional White women and increasingly effete and inept elites.

Posted in America, Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: The O.J. Simpson Story Is About Violent White Racism Toward Black Bodies