April 26, 2016 Gentrification CA-Style Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Gentrification CA-Style

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

* When I was a yuppie in San Francisco back in the 80′s, I lived in the Castro for about two years. Me and two other straight guys had a flat in “Noe Valley” until that dissolved and we went our separate ways. My take away from being the only straight household on the block was that we weren’t liked and we weren’t welcome. Some of it was the fact that gays are just as prejudiced as the rest of us, only their hate is direct at straight white men. The worst was the men (the lesbians all lived over the hill in Hayes Valley) who went to the SF specifically so they could be openly gay. We where a constant reminder that there was a wider world inhabited mostly by “breeders” and our mere presence reminded them of the shame that they felt in whatever little corner of middle America they left. The Castro is a ghetto.

On a related note, I remember picking up a copy of the local rag, the SF Bay Guardian if I remember correctly. It is a typical left wing dreck but like every other newspaper, it had an obituary that covered they gay community. Like every other obit, it sad who they were, when they were born, who their family and lovers were, AND WHERE THEY WERE BORN. Not a single one was born in SF (3rd, 4th, 5th … generation San Franciscans’ are quite proud of it and now few). Gays had pushed out the normal Irish who grew up there until the 1960′s and now claimed it as their own. I knew one guy who would now be about 55 who said he could remember when there was only on gay bar in the Castro. How times change.

* Anaheim has got real trouble in its future. They have recently switched from city council members chosen at large to council districts of equal population, with illegals and other non-voters counted. La Raza will be demanding a bigger cut of all that money from Disneyland, Angels Stadium, and the Duck Pond.

* I can’t help but notice the parallels between anti-gentrification sentiment and anti-immigrant sentiment. Instead of “diversity,” I think we should start calling it “cultural gentrification.” And “immigration” should be “the gentrification of white people.”

After all, the same people are behind both forces.

* Mexicans are professional minorities; low education, very little money and dependent on a welfare state. Once Trump is elected most will self deport the rest will be sent back to Vicente Fox for rework.

* There’s been several murders of Asians by Latinos in S LA and the OC, worse most of the Latinos are renters or waaay upside down on their house and way overhead.

The city of Bell CA is 87 % renter.

Trying to evict these people will be impossible, I’m thinking they’re thinking “sub-prime program to rent controlled house forever” is their living plan, and Kamala Harris’ too.

Nearly all the sub-prime banker settlements didn’t go to those burned investors but for bailouts for the liar loan fraudster speculators that bought homes requiring 400% higher incomes than they had.

Then there’s the drug cartel unlimited income aspects to Mexican invasion, many are rolling in cash.

Posted in California | Comments Off

American Women Are Becoming Less Feminine

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

And less white.

From the Chateau:

Longtime Chateau guests know I’m keen to *preen* when the pretext is right. But sometimes even an egregious preening can’t sufficiently convey the tumescence of my stroked ego when SCIENCE! lands a study in my lap that grinds me to completion.

A recurrent theme at CH is the personal observation that American women are becoming less feminine. As it so happens, CH was right! A new study finds that, hey, American women are becoming less feminine.

Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis
The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.

This is yuge… (news, as well as study sample size.) The implications in the study’s findings about the transformation of the American sexual market are profound. If American women are becoming less feminine, then American men will find them less attractive, especially as long-term investment vehicles for marriage and family. And that is what the data show; the overall marriage rate is down and the age of first marriage is up, coinciding with the period during which women have lost their feminine charms.

Men are dropping out because women are leaning in. Way to go, feminist harpies!

In the big picture, female femininity has declined over the last generation or two because of feminist indoctrination and social signals encouraging and celebrating the abandonment of femininity.

In the bigger picture, widely and cheaply available birth control, abortion, obesity, processed food toxins, and female economic self-sufficiency have all conspired to denude women of their femininity and to impel women to adopt masculine posturing.

In the biggest picture, the loss of American women’s femininity is exactly what one would expect to see in a culture that is unmooring from its historical K-selected, predominantly White biomechanical foundation (patriarchal, high paternity certainty, slender women with low cock counts) and drifting toward an r-selected, increasingly nonWhite society (matriarchal, low paternity certainty, muscular and obese women with high cock counts) similar to the African sexual market norm, (where men more than anywhere else in the world are “dancing monkeys” for women and the women toil in the fields and bring home the bacon while crapping out kids from behind-the-bush trysts with multiple fathers).

When men’s sexuality is maximally restricted, and women’s sexuality is released of all constraints, the inevitable result is a dispiritingly corporate romantic market of supplicating male lackeys and aggro “slut positive” careergrrl chubsters whose very financial independence (government gibsmedats by any name) obviates the need to be more pleasing and feminine to attract beta male providers with tight resource sharing Game.

An unfeminine androgyne is the New World Woman, and she is letting men know they aren’t worth her effort to please, (and her unkempt vagina has seen lots of action DEAL WITH IT).

PS Would have loved to have seen this study controlled for race (if it hadn’t been). Mass invasion of nonWhites must certainly skew raw femininity/masculinity scores in one direction or another.

PPS Another SCIENCE!❤ CH knob job: Storytelling ability increases a man’s attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Women Prefer Laconic Men

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau: We’ve talked here about the problem of being tongue-tied in the presence of women. A scarcity of speech is the biggest issue for the majority of men. But we shouldn’t forget the mirror image of this attractiveness-killing ineptitude: the nonstop talker. The motor mouth. A significant minority of men — particularly greater betas and lesser alphas on the cusp of making a mark in the world — suffer from the second problem: they don’t know when to shut up and let the woman speak, enamored as they are with their blossoming manhood and acquirement of conventional male attractiveness traits.

Talking too much fails on multiple dimensions: it increases the odds you’ll say something dull or beta, it strips away mystery, and it demonstrates a lack of interest in the woman’s values and desires. It also shows you don’t truly understand women, for a harangue about your accomplishments, social climbing, materialism, or connections is a red flag to women that you are an insecure, approval-seeking mediocrity, no different than the thousands of other men dancing like monkeys for a pretty woman’s attention. Harangues are especially off-putting to women when the subject matter is devoid of emotional resonance, as most men’s shop talk would be.

And why do women despise male suck-ups? Well, because women in their natural state rarely seek the approval of any man except the most dominant ones, they become confused and irritable when men for whom they might grant sexual access seek their approval. They don’t subconsciously apprehend why a man would work SO HARD for her endorsement. What has she brought to the table in a few seconds that would catapult her to superstar status by her doting date?

Oh yeah, tits and ass. But that doesn’t alter the disgust women feel for lapdogs and credential burnishers. Sure, they may recognize on some deep limbic level that T&A revs men’s engines, but their own psychological latticework is not constructed of male body parts, and so they don’t project a female fascination with the body onto men. What they project instead is a female fascination with a man’s personality and character. I.e., his alphaness. Thus, they expect men to think and feel the same way about women. They wonder why he talks so much when he should be connecting with her.

On the contrary, a man who has his inner shit together, who feels pretty damned good about himself, won’t be impelled to talk ad nauseam about his alpha fortune. His relaxed, cocky demeanor is his best advertisement.

The vignette above is by no means exceptional. You see this sort of dynamic all the time if you go out to places where lots of couples go for dates. It should be heartening to the readers of this blog that the vast majority of men simply have NO CONCEPT WHATSOEVER of how to properly arouse a woman. Fully 90%+ of the world’s men do not run any active game.

It’s even worse than that. Of those 90%, at least half run ANTI-GAME, like the man in the above situation. Observe people on dates and you’ll see a lot of men shooting themselves in the foot. It’s a wonder the species manages to propagate itself, but male persistence — and relatively faster female aging out of sexual viability — sometimes conspire to get a woman to open her legs.

I remember a while back I had taken a couple of E tabs with a female friend. We spent a sleepless weekend hanging out and elevating our mental states. The E tabs pranked my brain into loquacity. I talked and talked. Verbal diarrhea. So did she, but she had not reacted to the pills the same way I had, and she hadn’t consumed as much. As a result, her awareness of presence was sharper than mine. Toward the end of the weekend bender, pre-withdrawal, her demeanor had changed. She was zoning out, and crabby. Everything seemed to rub her the wrong way. Only in hindsight did I hit upon the reason for the change in her temperament. She was driven to peevishness by my excessive talking.

Women may say they want a man who shares his feelings, and who tells her things about himself, but the truth — as is often the case at the disjunct between women’s words and actions — is that women love laconic men. Men who don’t say much. Men whose default programming is to shut up rather than open up. When these men do deign to speak, women hang on their words.

Women want an EF Hutton man. When EF Hutton speaks, women listen. Be an EF Hutton man.

The next time you’re on a date, remind yourself to stop talking. Step outside the moment for a second and, like a third party observer floating off to the side, focus your mind on the interaction. Listen to yourself. Are you a blabbermouth? Apply the brakes to your brain. Let it cool off. Lean back and allow her to engage you for a change. Her hindbrain will thank you.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off

Why Do Women Love Felons?

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau: The usual Hivemind-approved rationalizations are given for why women LOVE LOVE LOVE incarcerated lowlifes (“emotional manipulation”, “forced intimacy”, “savior mentality”, etc), but really the answer is the most Occam-y of the hypothesis razors: dangerous men make women’s vaginas wet with arousal and their hearts flush with yearning.

Scathing ridicule aside, let’s keep something in perspective. Women fawning over hardened inmates and opening their pussies to criminal cock is an insult to the families of the victims of these killers. SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

But that is female nature for you. Instead of ignoring that nature, or hand-waving it away under a shitstream of sophistry, we should all confront it and accept it as an unchangeable fact of life. Then, we as a nation need to have policies which recognize and synchronize with the reality of female sexual nature rather than attempt to defy it or mold it into something alien. So here’s an eminently reasonable suggestion that will be dutifully tut-tutted by our equalist overlords: ban women from working at male prisons.

Perhaps Trump can bring this up on his victory parade to the White House.

Posted in Sex | Comments Off

What Lesbians Teach Us About Straight Women

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau:

Lesbians are repulsive to look at. To gaze upon a lesbian is to scoop out one’s retinas as an offering to the sun god who will burn them to a crisp. Almost all of them are fat and ugly with bad skin and worse clothes. The “lipstick lesbian” is a trope of porn-addled dweebs; sure, they exist, (I’ve come across a few) but their numbers are vanishingly small set against the IMMENSE majority of lesbians who are the furthest thing from bangable any man could imagine.

The general impression of lesbiandom is blobbiness. Lesbian couples are two extra large pastry puffs meiotically becoming one super sized pastry puff. Or two circling gas giants gravitationally stripping each other of a pleasing personality.

Yet they Find, Meet, Attract, and Close…. looking as they do. Clearly, lesbians care not, or care very little, for appearance. Looks are somewhere below “can breathe without mechanical assistance” on the lesbian ledger of acceptable mate criteria.

Lesbians, then, tell us something true about straight women. Retention of crucial psychosexual characteristics of the heterosexual standard is common in both lesbians and gay men. Just as gay men behave sexually like straight men, except with damaged target designators and no female gold-plated pussy obstacles to outmaneuver, lesbians behave sexually like straight women with no need to arouse visually-oriented straight men.

In the heterosexual sex market, the opposite sex is like a check on each other, placing constraints on just how much a person can express his or her sexual nature. Women can’t let themselves go without risking solitude and men can’t satisfy their urge to sleep with thousands of women without achieving a high social or material status or a degree of skill in the crimson arts.

These opposite-sex constraints are missing or greatly mitigated among homosexuals. Gay male libido is just as visually-oriented as that of straight men’s, but is allowed to fully express because gay men are less protective of their cheap sperm than straight women are of their expensive eggs. Ugly gay men have it rough, but for most it’s a sexual circus with no safety net.

Think of straight women as boots on illegally parked straight men; a straight man with T levels above manlet metadeath would love to park in the tight space of every pretty girl he sees every day of his life. He can’t because the cooch collective has bolted the boot on his hot rod. If he manages to park in one of those spots, he’s staying there for a while. Gay men, otoh, are free to park their hivvy pork wherever they like and come and go as they please; very few gays will put the boot on gay boner. The gay male sexual market is a parking lot of receptive rectums*.

Lesbians, likewise, are essentially unconstrained straight female sexuality hypercharged, or rather hypocharged, to its inevitable conclusion in lesbian bed death (and tremendous levels of domestic violence). Dyke Fright is real because women, straight and homo alike, just don’t care as much about a sex partner’s looks as do straight and homo men about their sex partners’ looks.

Lesbian dishevelment and apparent apathy toward improving their appearance to please other lesbians is indirect proof that straight women place less emphasis on men’s looks than men place on women’s looks (and less than gay men place on other gay men’s looks). The difference between straight women and lesbians is that the former aren’t trying to find love with other women who will care as little about looks as they do.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off

Amazon Doesn’t Consider the Race of Its Customers. Should It?

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments:

* The same-day delivery gap. In this case, I doubt there’s any racist motive, but this is an another example of how more and better data, can actually lead to more and “better” levels of discrimination, i.e. profit-relevant profiling that can exacerbate “disparate impacts” for particular groups; which in this case means residents of certain majority-black neighborhoods having to wait twice as long to receive their Amazon purchases.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off

The Most Important Thing About This Election

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

William S. Lind writes: The most important question in this election is what the peasants do when the election is over and they are again shut out. Many may simply give up on politics and go home. Others may remain politically engaged as the equivalent of Cleveland Browns fans, whose motto is, “There’s always next year.”

But many from both parties may stay angry, stay involved, but realize that neither party offers a way forward. Those people have the potential to create what usually happens when a corrupt and incompetent Establishment endlessly clings to power: a pre-revolutionary situation.

Pre-revolutionary situations do not necessarily involve mobs in the streets carrying torches and pitchforks, though they certainly can. Both the Trump and Sanders campaigns to some degree reflect a pre-revolutionary situation. My great if slender hope, following Establishment victories in both parties’ nomination contests, an independent Trump-Sanders ticket, would clearly manifest a pre-revolutionary situation. Post-election manifestations could include a variety of politically-oriented mass movements, including one for a constitutional convention.

The most likely direction such a pre-revolutionary situation would take, I think, is one for devolution: the movement of power away from Washington to state and local levels. This would not be a “mother-may-I”, hat-in-hand request to Washington for devolution, but concrete actions at state and local levels to seize power. On issues ranging from gay “marriage” to the use of GMO seeds, states and localities, through their governments or through direct action, would nullify rulings coming out of Washington. Should the Left obtain a five-vote majority on the Supreme Court, nullification by state governments might become a powerful movement in itself. State National Guards, forced to choose between home and Washington, might decide to take orders from home.

A wise Establishment, faced with a pre-revolutionary situation, would accommodate it with Constitutional devolution, which is to say a return to federalism. Life in South Carolina would again be allowed to differ from life in Massachusetts, as it did when our republic still followed its Constitution.

But falling Establishments are seldom wise. It may turn out that the question of who sits in the White House come January, 2017 is about as important as who became Roman Emperor in 450 A.D. favicon

Posted in America | Comments Off

Chinese police officer texted: “I hate that beaner, but I think the nig is worse.”

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Scott Glover and Dan Simon, CNN, April , 2016

“I hate that beaner,” one text reads, “but I think the nig is worse.”

“Indian ppl are disgusting,” proclaims another.

“Burn down walgreens and kill the bums,” a third message states.

These and numerous other racist and homophobic text messages were allegedly sent by a San Francisco police officer at the center of an ongoing scandal that is the most recent disturbing revelation for the beleaguered SFPD.

CNN has exclusively obtained a list of dozens of offensive texts sent to and from Officer Jason Lai. {snip}

Lai resigned from the department earlier this month, according to a police spokesman.

In addition to disparaging blacks, Hispanics and Indians, Lai used coded language to talk about gay officers, according to a source, and made a blanket statement impugning residents of the city’s largely minority and low-income Tenderloin district.

“They’re all drug dealers in the TL,” his text stated.

{snip}

In the messages, Lai makes a disparaging joke about President Obama and says he hates basketball player LeBron James.

“F— that nig,” he says.

{snip}

Lai, who was identified as Chinese by his attorney, makes several references to “hock gwai,” apparently a misspelled reference to the Cantonese “hak gwai,” a derogatory phrase for African Americans.

In a series of texts sent last June he describes an incident involving a “bunch of hock gwais shooting each other.”

“Sprained my ankle over these barbarians,” he says.

One of the suspects “went to the hospital after he got shot lol,” the officer texted.

“Too bad none of them died,” he added. “One less to worry about.”

{snip}

In another exchange referencing African Americans, Lai wrote: “They’re like a pack [of] wild animals on the loose.”

The exchange happened during a night of civil unrest in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray. Gray, an African American, died after suffering head and neck injuries in the back of a police van.

Posted in Race, San Francisco | Comments Off

Neocon: Hold Donald Trump’s voters accountable, too: They are embracing a demagogue with eyes wide open

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

Gabriel Schoenfeld writes April 9:

Even before he entered the political arena, it was evident to most anyone with eyes that Donald Trump was a moral disgrace.
Philandering, misogyny, fraud, bankruptcy and tackiness were almost synonyms for his name. To all that, as a candidate for the presidency, Trump has added serial lying, racism, religious bigotry, slander and the outright encouragement of violence, with threats of more violence should he be deprived of the delegates needed to clinch his party’s nomination.
Yet many people with eyes — millions of them, in fact — have cast their votes for this creature from the cesspool. What are we to make of these fellow Americans?
For obvious reasons, they are being treated by Trump’s rivals with tender solicitude. Trump’s followers remain important players in the ongoing battle for votes in the Republican primaries that remain. And whoever ends up as the Republican nominee will need them to show up at the polls in November to defeat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
What is harder to excuse is the fact that more than a few conservative commentators, including many who revile Trump himself, have addressed his supporters with sympathy. The conservative columnist and Cruz supporter David Limbaugh has appealed to Trump’s followers as “patriots,” telling them, “I understand and share your frustration” as he implores them not to vote for their candidate of choice.

Michael Scheuer responds:

Well, if collective punishment for Palestinians, and Muslims generally, is acceptable, why not for pro-Trump Americans?

America’s flagship voice of disloyalty, Israel-First, and Neoconservatism — Commentary Magazine — has unleashed one of its key staff Gauleiters, a man named Herr Garbriel Schoenfeld, to demand that all Americans supporting Donald Trump be held “accountable” for disagreeing with their Israel-First superiors.

Herr Schoenfeld characterizes Trump as “this creature from the cesspool” and Trump’s voters as losers who are “beleaguered economically” and have been left behind by “globalization” and “de-industrialization”. (NB: The only U.S. human cesspools I know are the three found in meetings of the writers, editors, publishers, and owners of Commentary, Weekly Standard, and the post-W.F. Buckley National Review. I strongly suspect Trump is not invited to those events, and so he could not have come from America’s only known human cesspools. Mr. Schoenfeld, of course, swims in that stinking pool among his fellow champions of the republic’s demise.)

This is just the start of Schoenfeld’s barely disguised wish — apparently shared by the editors, publishers, and owners at the New York Daily News, which printed his essay — to visit some kind of a holocaust on Americans holding views not approved by Israel-First. The following is from the Gauleiter’s diktat. It calls for the collective punishment of pro-Trump, legal , and loyal U.S. citizens — perhaps bulldozing their homes or smothering them with pillows, a la another nation’s security service? – who refuse to repent and intend to vote other than as demanded by Israel First.

“Yet however much Trump voters have grievances, this does not absolve any one of them of personal responsibility for their political choice. We are not only speaking here of those who engage in violence or shout vicious chants at Trump rallies, or the innumerable others who spew anti-Semitic and racist bile across the Internet.

All Trump voters can and should be held to account for embracing a candidate whose character is so dubious, and whose plans for the country — among them, singling out a religious group for a ban on an entry to the United States — amount to an assault on the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

Followers of notorious dictators of the past also no doubt had legitimate grievances, yet this hardly spares them from the condemnation history has rightly heaped on them.

It is particularly rich to attack critics of Trump supporters as “condescending intellectual snots” — [Dennis] Saffran’s words — when Trump himself flagrantly treats his acolytes with condescension and contempt. He has exulted in their low attainments, declaring after his victory in one primary that “I love the poorly educated.” Remarking on his disciples’ mindless loyalty, he has said that he “could stand in the middle of 5th Ave. and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

As a practical matter, Republican political candidates may need to court Trump voters. As a moral matter, the rest of us should not close our eyes to the fact that those who pine for a strongman, and who would have us all follow Trump into the abyss, are in the best case willfully ignorant, and in the worst case knowingly endorsing a dangerous demagogue.”

If you read this Goebbels-esque quote again slowly, you may hear a chorus quietly singing behind the Gauleiter as he writes the words and feels the pain caused by those who disagree with his genius, the whole story of which he surely must be jotting down in a diary likely to be entitled “My Struggle”. I could not tell if the words were being sung in German, English, or Hebrew, but the melodies seem to sound very much like “Die Wacht am Rhine” and “Das Panzerlied”. Which tune, do you suppose, would go better with the physical punishment Schoenfeld apparently wants inflicted on all “Trump voters [who] can and should be held to account”? (2) One wonders what Schoenfeld knows about the activities of his Neocon and Israel-First friends — perhaps on the Internet or at rallies? – that are meant to identify Trump voters. Whatever they are up to, Schoenfeld writes with certainty that the ballots of pro-Trump voters will not be secret, so they “can” be identified and “held to account“.

What the Gauleiter is suffering so much angst over is not, of course, Mr. Trump, but rather his and his kind’s growing awareness that Trump appeals to many Americans of all races who work for a living, raise families, pay for their kids’ schooling, are good, community-minded citizens, and who deeply resent that they are the half of Americans who pay income tax to support the idleness of the other half of their eternally freeloading fellow citizens. Herr Schoenfeld and his disloyal associates are even more alarmed to be learning that these same Americans hate having their exorbitant taxes, and often their soldier-children’s lives, given to worthless-to-America foreign entities — which also are often America’s enemies — including Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Arab tyrannies, any number of the thieving tyrants who govern in Africa, and the galaxy of tax-eating/wasting international organizations.

People like Schoenfeld, the Neocons, most senior Democrats and Republicans, and the Israel-Firsters have no patience with the temerity of those they snidely look down on as left-behind and under-educated Americans. How dare this ignorant American rabble, think Schoenfeld and his stern gang of fellow haters, challenge their au courant and Ivy League-educated betters?

Well, whether or not Schoenfeld and his gang like what they are hearing, the American citizens they hate are demanding that their voices and votes be heard and counted, and that their taxes be used not to support domestic slackers, illegal aliens, and war-causing foreigners, but to rebuild the republic’s infrastructure, feed the 25-percent of American kids who are hungry, find shelter for the homeless, control borders and end illegal immigration, and begin reducing the ever-growing national debt, much of which is the product of the bipartisan U.S. governing elite forever giving away their tax payments — and with them their kids’ future economic welfare and the nation’s security — to slackers at home and utterly expendable nations and organizations abroad.

Gauleiter Schoenfeld, et al. ought to listen intently to what Mr. Trump and his supporters are saying. And they should keep in mind that however much they dislike what they now hear, they will like much less what they will hear if they, the rest of the arrogant and corrupt governing elite, and the media block Mr. Trump from getting the nomination by procedural tricks, delegate stealing, the denial of citizen voting, election-night misinformation, media lies, or simple bribes. I would suggest that if Mr. Trump is defeated in that manner, the angry words Herr Schoenfeld and his fellow Brownshirts will hear are nearly certain to be accompanied by the lilting, but subtly ominous strains of “The Chambering of Rounds Concerto in F.U. Major”.

Posted in America, Donald Trump, Neoconservatives | Comments Off

Haaretz: A Screenwriter, a Hasidic Mother of Seven, and a Sex Poet

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Haaretz:

Marilyn Wennig, 36, uniquely combines the two estranged worlds of an ultra-Orthodox lifestyle with secular Israeli film and literature.

A day after Marilyn Wennig was interviewed on Channel 2’s late night news show about the Oscars, she asked her parents how they liked the show. “You’ve put on a lot of weight,” they told her.
In our interview she explains how in the secular world and the family in which she was raised in particular, appearance is a very important and competitive matter. This diverts attention from what is important, from the interior, says the lecturer and researcher of movies, screenwriter, poet, activist and film critic who became religious some 15 years ago.
The mother of seven is a member of the Belzer Hasidic sect. For Wennig, covering one’s head and dressing modestly is a kind of rebellion. Discovering religion is also a feminist step.
Wennig, 36, bursts a lot of myths in our interview. In fact the preconceptions collapse even before you meet her, just by reading her latest poetry collection, “So What Do We Have Here.”
In the poem called “Purity,” she writes: “Do Haredi women touch themselves/ By mistake, with excitement, without noticing.”
A poem about sex is not exactly what you would expect from an ultra-Orthodox Israeli mother. But Marilyn Wennig doesn’t do the expected.
She was born in Australia to Israeli parents, and the family returned to Israel when she was three. As a child she wrote for childrens’ newspapers, appeared on children’s television shows and went to the Experimental High School in Jerusalem. She did her military service with the IDF magazine Bamahane.
Her husband Erez Hever was her first boyfriend. They separated and then reconciled at 21, got married and became religious. But whereas Hever is a full fledged yeshiva student, Wennig lives between worlds. In her Jerusalem home she is a Belzer Hasid, her children learn in Yiddish at Hasidic schools. In Tel Aviv she meets with film industry people and moves in an entirely different world.
“Every day I go to Berlin,” she laughs.