March 23, 2016 AIPAC’s Weird Apology For Donald Trump Luke Ford No sacred cows.

AIPAC’s Weird Apology For Donald Trump

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

The AIPAC president was fighting back tears! What a wimp.

David Weigel writes for the Washington Post:

This morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu experienced something that American politicians have become all too familiar with — being overshadowed by Donald Trump.

The prime minister’s video-linked speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s conference was preceded by the unscheduled introduction of AIPAC President Lillian Pinkus and four other leaders. Choking back tears, Pinkus apologized for Monday night’s speeches, implying that Donald Trump had violated a nonpartisan standard.

“From the moment this conference began, until this moment, we have preached a message of unity,” Pinkus said. “We have said, in every way we can think of: Come together. But last evening, something occurred which has the potential to drive us apart, to divide us. We say, unequivocally, that we do not countenance ad hominem attacks, and we take great offense to those that are levied against the president of the United States of America from our stage.”

Trump’s speech, which he largely recited from a teleprompter, was actually notable for its low level of invective. A candidate who has mocked Marco Rubio’s thirstiness, Rand Paul’s looks, Jeb Bush’s energy level and Carly Fiorina’s face confined his criticism of Obama to a few tossed-off insults.

“With President Obama in his final year — yay!” said Trump, adding an exclamation not in the text and earning huge applause. Later, diverting from his text again, he called the president “maybe the worst thing to happen to Israel.”

AIPAC, already criticized for giving Trump an invitation, decided the rhetoric needed condemnation.

“While we may have policy differences, we deeply respect the office of president of the United States and our president, Barack Obama,” Pinkus said. “There were people in our AIPAC family who were deeply hurt last night, and for that we are deeply sorry. We are disappointed that so many people applauded the sentiment that we neither agree with or condone. Let us close this conference in recognition that when we say ‘Come together,’ we still have a lot to learn from each other, and we still have much work to do.”

Yet while AIPAC invites candidates and leaders from both parties, and while it discourages protests from the audience, Trump was hardly the first speaker to criticize a sitting president. He was followed on the stage by Ted Cruz, who compared the administration’s deal with Iran to the 1938 Munich agreement that handed Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Four years earlier, AIPAC allowed Mitt Romney to address the conference by satellite, and he went on to accuse the president of “lecturing” Israel and “emboldening” the Palestinians.

But no AIPAC speech had been criticized like Trump’s. Jane Eisner, the editor in chief of Jewish news source the Forward, wrote that she was “ashamed that any of my fellow Jews could applaud” Trump.

“I am ashamed that they would succumb to the pandering lies,” she wrote. “Donald Trump ought to have been received civilly but silently by AIPAC. Instead, the applause spoke volumes.”

Chemi Shalev, a correspondent for Israel’s Haaretz, left the Trump speech in shock and asked how fellow Jews could have applauded it.

“The enthusiastic reception given Trump could very well deepen the fault lines inside the Jewish community that were uncovered over the summer in the bitter clash over the Iran nuclear deal,” he wrote, adding that “it was good enough to transform Trump from a morally repugnant presidential candidate into a run of the mill contender who deserves as much respect as the others.”

It was the reaction — wild applause now available to view on Trump’s campaign website — that was officially rejected by AIPAC.

COMMENTS:

* The PC crowd, as usual, suffers & cringes at hearing the truth. I am no Trump fan, but he spoke the truth; it’s no small wonder his input was so well received by the audience. The world is a very dangerous place, mostly thanks to PC.

* If Jane Eisner and Lillian Pinkus are ashamed of AIPAC attendees for applauding Trump’s speech, then allow me to be ashamed of Jane Eisner and Lillian Pinkus. Since when do Americans sit on their hands at any kind of speech?! It is ALWAYS appropriate to applaud what you like something in a speech. It is unnecessary to boo what you don’t like (silence does the trick) but if you feel compelled, then go ahead and Boo.

The danger in the western world today is this over-arching sense of Political Correctness. It is self-censorship and muzzles freedom of speech. It is very dangerous not to express thought that could otherwise provide a new positive direction for society. If there are people in the audience that have their feelings hurt ty the words of a speaker, then too bad for them! They are demonstrating the pitifying of America where words can hurt. I have often disagreed with Obama’s and Hillary’s words. I am not hurt by those words and I am not asking anyone to stop them from speaking!

* Not sure why AIPAC leadership is disavowing a speech that garnered so much applause from its members. I am no fan of Trump and prefer Kasich but K’s speech is the one they should be apologizing for. It was pure pandering and painful to watch. AIPAC leadership is clearly all in for the Ice Queen in spite of what the rank and file thinks (knows). How typical.

* I watched the speech and practically the entire crowd was very receptive to Trump. They applauded him frequently and many gave standing ovations. He knocked it out of the park. Now this? Total nonsense. The people there loved what Trump had to say. Not one protester either. Until now…

* Well done AIPAC. You have invited a man to speak. Your audience has listened to what he has to say. Your audience has applauded him. Then you come with one of the biggest backstabbing , most disgraceful emotional garbage i think i have ever seen in my life. You just handed Louis Farrakhan the proof that he needed. “Trump didn’t accept Jewish money” Do you actually realise how stupid you are? You have set the cause back 100 years or more. It is clearly obvious that you do not understand what is happening in America right now and you have put your name to Barrack Obama in public. If Trump wins then you gain is only valid until November. If Trump is assassinated then god help the Jews of America because who do you think will be blamed? I am calling for the immediate removal of these traitors who have sold out AIPAC and the security of the Jewish people. This is really one of the most stupid idiotic things i think i have ever seen. Do you even realise how many people want Trump in and why. No probably not because you sold Israel out while you were having a latte last night deciding how you would demonstrate your political correctness in the speech that you wrote and read from. It was not from the heart, IT WAS A PREPARED DOCUMENT. Israel is under a daily threat and OBAMA has done nothing but lip service. You would have to be a complete imbecile to burn AIPAC in favour of Obama and to be honest, now i am even questioning who has been paid off. Even i am starting to question how many people are actually involved in this massive push to stop Trump. I even am wondering if Louis Farrakhan was right. This has opened my eyes to the entire truth. This is one of the biggest betrayals i think i have ever seen and i honestly believe that this situation that you created is going to come back to haunt, big time. This is a monumental mistake and AIPAC will be held to account for it. If Trump dies then the safety of jews and the distrust that will come will be on your heads. SHAMEFUL.

“Trump delivered a speech that could easily have been written in the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem or AIPAC headquarters in Washington, and for all we know, possibly was. He vowed to “dismantle” the nuclear deal with Iran as well as Tehran’s terrorist infrastructure, condemned Palestinian incitement and praised Israeli moderation. He said that Obama was the worst-ever President for Israel and the crowd burst out in loud applause, as if the assertion was some kind of “open sesame” that removes any roadblocks standing in Trump’s way.” – Chemi Shalev

Trump’s Hypnotic Gig at AIPAC Will Go Down in History – or Infamy
Like a Pied Piper, the GOP front-runner’s pro-Israel magic tricks swept his Jewish audience from initial suspicion to outright enthusiasm.

On Monday night, Donald Trump showed how and why he might be elected president of the United States. Invited to participate in a candidate’s forum at AIPAC’s annual conference, he came, he spoke, he conquered. In future history, the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference might yet be viewed as a watershed event on way to the Trump Era.
Trump entered the Verizon Center in Washington D.C. as a prime suspect but emerged clean as a whistle. In less than half an hour, he took a skeptical and apprehensive audience and turned them into gushing cheerleaders. He went into the arena as a racist demagogue but soon came out as an ostensibly serious contender. He faced a tough test of his mettle but passed it with flying colors and hardly any effort. He came away with a kosher “K” certificate, issued by one of the most powerful and influential organizations in America.
If Trump is ultimately elected president, AIPAC leaders will be able to proudly point to their prescience: They will have scored valuable points with a man who could soon decide Israel’s future. If Trump doesn’t make it, however, his appearance on Monday could live in AIPAC infamy as the day well-meaning Jews sold their consciences in exchange for banal pledges of support for Israel. This, in any case, is the way many liberal Jews will see it. They’ve been claiming for years that AIPAC has turned into a branch of both the Likud party and the GOP, though few of them knew it had gone this far.
Trump proved that he knows exactly how to press the right Jewish buttons, much as he has shown his expertise in manipulating the fears and resentments of middle class, white Americans. He told the AIPAC delegates exactly what they wanted and what they’re used to hearing — and they loved it. He mocked other candidates for pandering and proceeded to pander as if there’s no tomorrow.
Trump delivered a speech that could easily have been written in the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem or AIPAC headquarters in Washington, and for all we know, possibly was. He vowed to “dismantle” the nuclear deal with Iran as well as Tehran’s terrorist infrastructure, condemned Palestinian incitement and praised Israeli moderation. He said that Obama was the worst-ever President for Israel and the crowd burst out in loud applause, as if the assertion was some kind of “open sesame” that removes any roadblocks standing in Trump’s way.
Perhaps it was stronger than them. Everyone was well aware of the problematic invitation issued to Trump and if anyone had missed it, AIPAC officials repeatedly cautioned the crowd to act with respect and refrain from embarrassing spectacles or protests. But they could have saved themselves the effort. Like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, Trump played a beguiling Israel-pleasing tune that captivated the audience, calmed their fears, dissolved their doubts and then enticed them to proceed from hesitant applause through louder acclimation all the way to standing ovations and a crescendo of cheers.
“I will move the American Embassy to the eternal capital of Jerusalem,” Trump said, in a pledge that is sure to remain unfulfilled but nonetheless seemed to erase his words of hatred and bigotry against Mexicans, Muslims and even Jews, as if it was sorcery. Trump described his agreement to serve as Grand Marshal of the Salute to Israel Parade as a grave danger that only the bold and the brave could overcome, and his audience, now clearly warming to his act, refrained from bursting out in laughter.
Trump is usually an undisciplined speaker who lacks concentration and focus, allowing his stream of consciousness to narrate his thoughts and his powers of improvisation to phrase them. So it was that less than an hour before he came to AIPAC, which focuses on American aid to Israel, Trump raised the bizarre demand that Israel, like other rich American allies, repay the financial assistance it had received from America. Hey, it just popped into my head, Trump seemed to indicate, so it must be a good idea.

In honor of AIPAC, however, he undertook an extreme makeover, reading a tightly formulated speech from the kind of teleprompter that he usually mocks. He didn’t deviate from his prepared text, which wasn’t any different from the addresses made on Monday by Hillary Clinton, John Kasich and even House Speaker Paul Ryan, another AIPAC favorite. Ted Cruz, usually considered a far better speaker than Trump, suddenly sounded dazed and confused.
It’s true that Kasich garnered the loudest applause of the night, but the Ohio Governor’s nomination remains a pipe dream rather than a practical possibility. Cruz was also received warmly, despite his slightly off key evening in which he blasted Trump, for example, for talking about Palestine and Palestinians when everyone knows that these had ceased to exist in 1948. Even that sentence earned applause, because as far as AIPAC is concerned, even the sky is no limit for pro-Israel statements, no matter how bizarre.
Judging from a few conversations I had after the speech, it left many Jews in a state of shock. That’s because they weren’t there and couldn’t feel the magic, one AIPAC sympathizer told me, and maybe he had a point. Nonetheless, the enthusiastic reception given Trump could very well deepen the fault lines inside the Jewish community that were uncovered over the summer in the bitter clash over the Iran nuclear deal. With a Trump Presidency, it’s not the security of far away Israel that’s at stake but the well-being of America, closer to home. The potential for schism is there.
Some commentators, including this one, thought that the Trump Show at AIPAC would yield more protests and more turbulence, beyond the demonstrations outside. Instead, what we got was a standard AIPAC speech that promises the moon and garners applause even though everyone knows it’s just an empty slogan that isn’t really going to happen. Nonetheless it was good enough to transform Trump from a morally repugnant presidential candidate into a run of the mill contender who deserves as much respect as the others.

Posted in AIPAC, Donald Trump | Comments Off

Forward: Trump Appoints Aide With Anti-Semitic Ties

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

The bigger story is that Trump’s foreign policy team is all goyim.

The Forward makes quite a reach in this article to smear Donald Trump:

Trump Appoints Aide With Anti-Semitic Ties

On Monday, Donald Trump appointed a top foreign policy advisor whose father was an active member of the John Birch Society, which has a history of segregationist and racist views.

Trump named Joe Schmitz, a former inspector general in the Defense Department, his top foreign policy advisor.

Joe Schmitz’ father, John Schmitz, won election as a California State Senator and ran for president in 1972 as a candidate for the Independent Party.

The elder Schmitz, who was staunchly against abortion, was stripped of a Senate position after writing that while he chaired a hearing about abortion in California, he looked out on “a sea of hard, Jewish and (arguably) female faces,” according to a 1982 New York Times article.

When he died in 2001, a publication of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial organization, published an appreciative obituary and called him a “good friend of the institute.”

The John Birch Society opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Today, the society denies these allegations and claims anyone with these beliefs would be expelled.

The Trump campaign could not be immediately reached for comment.

COMMENTS:

* Sorry, but I don’t see anything in this article implicating Joe Schmitz, only his father — which I think is patently unfair. If the appointee has a record of anti-Semitism, that should be fully exposed. Otherwise, I think this is unfair journalism. (And I’m not a Trump fan — beLIEVE me.

* Obama and Rev. Wright – not a word

Hillary and Blumenthal – not a word

Sanders and Zoby – not a word

Trump and some guy whose father passed away 15 years ago and the rag Forwards treats it like the Spanish Inquisition.

The crew at the Forwards is on perpetual amateur hour.

* This web site is NOT opposed to anti-Semitism. On the contrary, insults to Israel by Obama are routinely accepted by this site and all of its writers. Hillary’s very close and long time friend is Sidney Blumenthal. His emails with Hillary were published and revealed his suggestions to Hillary on ways to pressure and humiliate Israel in public. Hillary would respond with appreciation and requests for more of Blumenthal’s ideas. Blumenthal’s son Max wrote the book “Goliath” which is so hateful toward Israel that even The Nation Magazine denounced it. The writers on this web site are essentially racists and anti Jewish bigots and proud of it.

* So, the candidate’s adviser’s father (who has been dead for more than 15 years) was affiliated with a reprehensible organization. Considering the Forward’s lack of concern over Obama’s association with racist Jew-hater Jeremiah Wright (or Rashid Khalidi, or James Ayers, etc., etc.), this is not only a real stretch, but pretty darned hypocritical.

* You show me one anti-Jewish quote from the John Birch Society…just one and I will never post another comment again. If you repeat a lie long enough people believe it. Remember, I only asked for one single solitary quote from the so-called racist organization. I challenge you to this!

* So silly. First of all this man has done nothing wrong. You are grasping at straws. If they hate Jews so much why do they have a Shomer Shabbat JBS group in Great Neck? You are graping at straws . Trump gives you awake at night. hahaha!

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off

UC Regents need a history lesson

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

David Myers is a UCLA professor of Jewish studies who is way on the left, but I usually find myself agreeing with most everything he publishes in the Jewish Journal, including his latest:

One can only hope that the Regents, with all their efforts to hear multiple perspectives, take more seriously the First Amendment argument against the inclusion of anti-Zionism when they meet on Wednesday to vote on the Principles. They could also benefit from a much broader and deeper understanding of modern Jewish history, since the working group’s report betrays gaps unworthy of a great public university.
Simply put, the advent of Zionism at the end of the nineteenth century inaugurated an impassioned Jewish argument that continues to this day. Participants in that debate included Jews of very different ideological positions, all of whom believed that they were acting in the best interests of the Jewish people. What should we do with the opponents of Zionism who lent such energy to this debate? Should we regard them as anti-Semites or refuse to teach them in our classes? To do so would be to exclude some of the most important and innovative Jewish thinkers of the modern age.
Many examples could be offered, but I will confine myself to four groups that might well have run afoul of the UC standards regarding anti-Zionism:
1) Jewish nationalists: Zionism was not the only form of Jewish nationalism. On the contrary, its adherents were engaged in a sustained conversation with Diaspora nationalists of various stripes who advocated not for a state in the land of Israel, but rather for cultural autonomy for large concentrations of Jews in the Diaspora. Take, for example, Simon Dubnow, the great historian and advocate of cultural autonomy, who carried on an illuminating, respectful, and sharp correspondence with his friend Ahad Ha-am, the equally great cultural Zionism. Ahad Ha-am himself was an opponent of Theodor Herzl, believing that the primary aim of Zionism should not be the creation of a state but rather of a spiritual and cultural center in the Land of Israel. Dubnow, for his part, believed that the most sensible path to assure the future of the Jewish nation was to seek state guarantees for cultural, educational, and linguistic autonomy where the largest concentrations of Jews were located—in the Diaspora. Numerous other leading Jewish thinkers and activists including Vladimir Medem, Elias Tcherikower, and Chaim Zhitlowsky promoted the ideals of Diaspora nationalism as against Zionism.
2) German-Jewish philosophers: The storied tradition of modern German-Jewish thought included a number of thinkers who might not have met the UC standards. The great philosopher Hermann Cohen published a famous essay in 1915 that celebrated the fusion of Germanness and Jewishness; the younger Martin Buber challenged Cohen’s stance in the name of Zionism, which Cohen failed to support. Notwithstanding Cohen’s position, it would be the height of absurdity to call him anti-Semitic. Martin Buber, for his part, belonged to a group of German-speaking Jews who moved to Palestine and defined themselves as Zionists even though they favored the model of a Jewish-Arab binational state over that of a Jewish state. Should we brand them as anti-Semites when teaching them? Or not teach them at all?
3) Religious Jews: Numerous groups of religious Jews have expressed deep misgivings about Zionism since the movement’s inception. When Theodor Herzl sought to bring the first Zionist Congress to Munich in 1897, leading rabbis of that city, including Reform and Orthodox clergy, protested vociferously, fearing that such an event would call into question their loyalty to Germany. Meanwhile, many traditionally observant Jews known as haredim have expressed unrelenting opposition to Zionism for decades. For example, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe and perhaps the leading Jewish anti-Zionism of the twentieth century, believed that Zionism was a gross violation of the divine injunction that human actors not commence a return to the promised land before the Messianic days. Followers of his teachings, as well as adherents of other Hasidic sects, continue to oppose the Zionist movement to this day.
4) Contemporary Jewish intellectuals: The UC Regents clearly had in mind advocates of BDS, many of whom favor a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when they formulated their sweeping and imprecise language on anti-Zionism. But if support for a one-state solution qualifies one as an anti-Zionist, then a number of right-wing Israeli politicians such as Deputy Foreign Minister Tsippi Hotovely, former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, and, for much of his career, President Reuven Rivlin would not pass UC muster. Moreover, there is a diverse array of Jewish thinkers and political figures who believe that Israel should aspire to become a state of all its citizens rather than remain a state of and for Jews. Among them are Ariella Azoulay, Meron Benvenisti, Adi Ophir, Yehouda Shenhav, and Oren Yiftachel. One might even exclude from kosher certification New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who recently cast doubt on the prospects for a two-state solution because of the extent of Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories.

Posted in Academia, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off

Terror In Brussels

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I think their goal is the age old islamic goal of conquering all of Europe. That is the prize of prizes. They’ve had pretty good success. They held onto parts of Iberia for 700 years. They occupied Eastern Europe for over 400 years, and still occupy Constantinople and its surrounds. Recently they successfully tore away Kosovo from Serbia and created a new muslim state inside Europe.

These attacks on Europe are showing just how weak Europe has become and it must give great encouragement to the tens of millions of muslims who seek to dominate Europe. They will continue to migrate and continue to setup their separate communities. Why would they assimilate into a culture that is dying when their culture will eventually prevail?

At first I thought these attacks on Europe were foolish because the muslims still needed more years of massive immigration to get a stronger foothold in Europe. I figured these attacks might close down immigration and begin a period of repatriation.

But now I think these attacks are smart. They are showing just how weak Europe has become and serve as a reminder to muslims to not assimilate and continue working towards the day when they can take over. I cannot imagine the feeling that many muslims must be feeling now. To see their historic enemy, who still has superior military, financial and technological abilities, become so weak and feeble that he is unable to stop what is happening must be surreal. If one were religious I could see how they could feel that God is indeed on their side.

* Yep, it’s hard not to see how Muslims feel that God is on their side the way Europe lays prostrate before them. That they can steal, rape and murder with impunity and all the Euros do is moan for a bit then it’s business as usual.

I wonder if the Europeans will ever wake up from that coffin of socialism they are laying in notice what the hell has happened to their countries.

That said, my money is on the tempo of attacks increasing. As others have stated London is next and probably Berlin as well. We might even get hit before the GOP convention as well since these sorts of attacks gets the jihadi fence sitters all motivated.

* The scorching crime rates, unemployment, and social discord that comes with mass immigration from mohammedan countries into European ones is the reason to prevent such immigration. Mass murder by jihadis is just the icing on the cake.

* It’s likely that most Mexicans are NOT, in fact, Catholic or Christian, in the USA. That’s an old myth that is not true now if it ever was.

We live in L.A. and personally know numerous Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who do not attend church and do not consider themselves Christian, and we don’t personally know many who are practicing Christians.

“Better than Muslims” is unimpressive and is no argument for letting in tens of millions more of these backwards, tubby, grunty, dim bulbs.

* This attack was a reminder to Brussels to keep on doing what they have been doing. In other words Brussels better continue to provide a sanctuary for all aspiring Jihadis where they can collect their Jihad allowance (welfare), relax, breed, and plot attacks. Or Brussels will suffer more attacks.

If Europeans had any fight left in them, they’d be descending upon Molenbeek right now with the intent of running out the inhabitants. Recall how such riots happened in the past. Whether it was the Tulsa race riot, or the Greek Town Riot in Omaha. My bet is that the Europeans will grow more meek and the muslim presence will only increase.

* There was a time when we could hope something like this could be the turning point that would bring people to their senses. Nowadays, it’s like watching a woman who’s been with the same abusive husband for years. At first you hoped each beating would be the last, but now you don’t even have to check – you know she’ll be going straight back to him even before her cuts have stopped bleeding.

Like Pavlov’s dogs, the usual suspects start yakking about the danger of a rise in Islamophobia as soon as they hear a loud bang. Ten years ago, Islamophobia might mean the fire-bombing of mosques or attacks on random Muslims in the street. Nowadays it means objecting to the mass immigration of Muslims.

* The motivation is somewhat impotent rage. There are no demands, there are no objectives. There is just a burning hatred for their host societies and the generally inability to think abstractly or introspectively which are the necessary traits of the career thugs and petty criminals these guys always turn out to have been.

Couple this with a media that tells them they are oppressed and primal sense that non-Muslim society is growing more weak and vanishing/ceding ground and they lash out. It’s basically a glorified version of what they did to people on the street they deemed intimidated by them.

I imagine you’d find the same impression from the black population in Brussels, they just don’t have as big a problem getting a girlfriend or a vast organisation giving them all the tools and examples to commit terrorism.

* It is noticeable that over at the FT their chief foreign commentator Gideon Rachman, whilst clearly intelligent, has simply nothing substantive to say now about mass immigration and Jihadi attacks.

He knows his arguments are flimsy but he has nothing else to offer having no great feeling for the national state nor any other policy than go-ahead globalism and Davos-style backslapping.

(The fool columnist Simon Kuper had a piece in the weekend FT praising Merkel as a safe pair of hands who “dreams in black and white” and was an example to all modern politicians. Christ, even the German papers are now starting to say that she has cocked everything up!)

* We live in Los Angeles, and things are even worse for people trying to defend themselves and their families in California now:

1. Since January 1, 2012, it has been illegal to carry a handgun, loaded or even unloaded, OPENLY. See unconstitutional California Penal Code section 26350.

2. When applying for a concealed-carry “permit”, the citizen has the burden of showing “good cause” (!) for wanting to exercise his Second Amendment rights, and the sheriff may in his discretion deny the application if he — the sheriff! — personally believes / feels that the applicant is not of “good moral character” (which the statute does not define).

Ironic that a paid government thug, who intimidates and oppresses and violates the rights of peaceful people regularly — would be the one to decide whether someone else is not of good character.

* Donald Trump just forced Wolf to “look at those pictures…look at those beautiful babies dead on the floor” – minutes ago! (don’t know if I got the exact quote right). I just want the world to admit that these savages are subhuman, damaged, psychopathic, nihilistic men that need to be exterminated.

* Most western pathologies — including socialism, multiculturism, environmentalism, etc. — are best understood as Christian heresies. Merkel and her seemingly inexplicable and irrational actions are best examined through this lens: she’s a heretic. She’s trying to redeem lost sheep through her own, and by extension her culture’s, perceived power of mercy.

“Then she presented her own policies as the heir to these miracles of Christian Democracy.”

And there’s the rub: to a faithful Christian, this statement reeks of sinful pride. Miracles are the work of God, not a human political party. Merkel has strayed far from her upbringing. It’s doing God’s will to minister to the least of these in one’s own home, giving freely of one’s own gifts and resources in grateful response to God’s gift of unmerited grace. It’s far different — it’s prideful and Satanic — to then instantiate true charity in government policies that are imposed on others via the threat of force.

This sleight of hand, this bait-and-switch, is at the heart of all contemporary Christian heresies. Western liberals of all stripes take God’s commands and principles for individual believers and twist them into soulless ‘policies’ that are then enforced on whole societies via government legislation and ‘programs’. Liberals then get the glory for supporting nice clean, abstract government policies while feeling no pressing need to engage in icky, hands-on charity in their own lives.

Posted in Europe, Islam | Comments Off

Conservative Pundit: The challenge of Muslim extremism is real, but we can meet it with humanity, courage, and an omnipresent totalitarian surveillance state.

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Conservative Pundit tweets:

* Donald Trump should AT LEAST have the decency to insult someone’s wife through a plausibly deniable proxy and not just say it outright!

* There is strong evidence to suggest that many of Trump’s most engaged social media followers object to the genocide of white people.

* We must stand with Europe in their resolute refusal to excise the cancer of Islam from their body politic.

* The lesson of #Brussels is clear. If we don’t want our own peaceful Muslims blowing up airports, we must rein in Trump’s divisive rhetoric.

* Muslims HAVE to live in our countries. That’s a non negotiable. So we just nuke their ancestral homelands until they stop radicalizing, duh!

* This is fine. Everything is FINE. People need to stop pretending Western civilization is in some sort of crisis; it only strengthens Trump.

* Our enemies are not discrete groups of people responding to concrete geopolitical realities. Grow up! The enemy is “hate” and “extremism.”

* New challenges require new thinking. I say we pivot towards a combo of Mid East destabilization and immigration from the countries affected.

Posted in Conservatives | Comments Off

Multi-Culti Requires A Police State

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* You’ve hit it: multikulti requires a police state. And the more multi it gets, the more strict the state.

Iraq, very multi with Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and Kurds and Arabs required extreme policing, which they got with Sadam Hussein.

Libya, all Sunni, with a few minority non-Arabs, survived with the more moderate Gaddhafi.

Syria is also very multi, and Assad Sr. ran a tight ship. He likely would have stamped out the revolt that has turned into a civil war.

The percentage of Muslims in the US is still pretty low. Just give it time. They tend to have big families too. They easily outbreed the natives in Europe.

* What measure does Max Boot use to claim that the US does a better job assimilating our Muslims than other countries? How about by death toll per capita? 3,000 people were killed on September 11 alone. Then there was Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and several others.

The US has about 30 times as many people as Belgium (pop. 11.2 million), but has lost about 90 times as many people due to terrorism (3000 vs. 34). We have ~5 times as many people as France, but I doubt France has lost anywhere close to 600 people due to Islamic terrorism. Etc, etc.

As a share of our population the US has far fewer Muslims, but our death toll per capita is higher than every other Western country. It may seem like cheating since 9/11 was one very large event, but given all the other terrorist acts that have occurred here there’s no reason to take comfort in the idea that we do a better job assimilating Muslims.

My guess is that there are two things holding down Muslim extremism in the US. First, the fact that Muslims comprise a much smaller share of the population than in most Western European countries. That gives them no chance to “own” neighborhoods and oppress their neighbors the way they do in so many parts of Europe.

The second reason is the Second Amendment. Muslims wouldn’t dare try a lot of the shit they’ve tried in Europe because Americans are armed. Lose the Second Amendment and quintuple our Muslim population and our problems would be every bit as bad as in Europe, if not worse.

There are effectively two kinds of Islamic terrorism. The first is the overt terrorism as exemplified by 9/11, Bataclan, Boston, and the Brussels bombing. The second, more insidious kind, is the kind where Muslims criminal networks that drive non-Muslims out of entire cities and oppress the non-Muslim majority – think Rotherham. This is the kind that needs a critical mass that America does not yet have, but there’s every indication that Muslims would be happy to do it here, if they could.

* Our terrorism problem would be far worse if our share of Muslims were higher, but there’s definitely something to be said for employment holding extremism in check. I’ve noticed in life that the more free time people have on their hands the more inclined they are to bitch and obsess about how badly they have it, no matter how well off they actually are. College students, the unemployed, and the elderly. A rough equation for fanaticism may be:

Fanaticism = F * T^2

Where F = free time, T = testosterone levels, with overt fanaticism declining somewhat with both age and lack of free time. Passive aggressive fanaticism is more constant with age. Elderly Muslims are probably more than happy to bitch about non-Muslims – where do you think the younger Muslims get their attitudes about Westerners? – but they’re less inclined to go blow themselves up over it.

* A better comparison would be with America’s black population – in terms of numbers, social pathology and ‘lack of integration’ – and, oh, the fact that America’s black population hasn’t ‘integrated’ in 400 years, and is, in fact, only diverging and isolating more from mainstream America.

Posted in Diversity, Islam | Comments Off

The jihadis’ master plan to break us

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Amir Tehiri writes after the Paris attacks: This is how Sheikh Abu-Bakr Naji, the late theoretician of the Sunni version of the Islamo-apocalyptic movement, put it: “No one should feel safe without submitting, and those who refuse to submit must pay a high price. The aim of our movement is to turn the world into a series of wildernesses in which only those under our rule enjoy security.”

According to the sheikh, in a world dominated by “Crusaders,” it is not possible to create a proper Islamic state in a single country. He cites as example the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Although a proper Islamic regime, it did not survive “infidel” attacks and opposition by Afghan elements. The Islamic movement must become global, fighting everywhere, all the time, and on all fronts. He wants neo-jihadis to create an archipelago of “wildernesses” in non-Muslim countries, especially in the West, turning them into parallel societies alongside existing ones. They do not set up formal governments that could be vulnerable to economic pressure or even military attack.

But they could also exist within cities, under the noses of the authorities, operating as secret societies with their own rules, values and enforcement mechanisms.

The “wilderness” will provide cover for operational bases. Jihad would be everywhere rather than in just one or two countries that the “infidel” could hit with superior firepower.

The sheikh recommends “countless small operations” that render daily life unbearable rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11. The idea is that the “infidel,” leaving his home every morning, should not be sure whether he would be alive in the evening.

The sheikh believed that, if subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims, especially in the West, would submit to Islam in exchange for a minimum of tranquility.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

Why Is Central Europe Free From The Islamic Terror Threat?

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Because that part of Europe has few Muslims.

Ed West writes:

Central Europe, chiefly Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, remain largely safe from the terror threat, despite the former in particular being a Nato player in the Middle East. It is precisely because the reasons for this are so obvious that they cannot be mentioned. Poland is 0.1 percent Muslim, most of whom are from a long-settled Tartar community, Britain is 5 percent, France 9 percent and Brussels 25 percent, and those numbers are growing.
For all the goodwill shown by the vast majority of people in Europe, Muslim and non-Muslim, and for all those things that shouldn’t have to be said – that most Muslims hate this monstrosity – these statistics correlate to terrorism risk. That’s not something people want to hear when they have a desperate urge to feel solidarity, but it is true nonetheless. …
Central Europeans have become the new target for liberal snobbery in the past couple of years, their antediluvian attitudes to Islamic migration making them the new hillbillies; low-status whites it’s okay to mock on account of their views. But looking at what is happening in Brussels, London and Paris, is it not rather rational for them to look at Merkel’s open-borders policy and the whole multicultural thing with some scepticism? I suspect those flags will be back at half mast soon enough.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Eastern Europeans’ cohesiveness, resistance to immigration, skepticism about homosex, etc. are legacies of the Soviet-Warsaw Pact period. These are exactly the things that the neocons fought the Cold War to eliminate. As those older generations are replaced by newer, more Westernized (in a bad way) generations, those countries will get on board the multi-culti train.

* If I were to judge Islamic terrorism by the results, I’d say it works very well. There’s an avalanche of Muslims that have been invited into Europe and put on welfare by liberal Europeans. If your goal is being able to put your feet up, relax, and watch the grass grow while someone else supports you, and that someone enables you never having to put up with your own crappy rulers in your own countries again while nice, civilized, educated Europeans run thing things the smart, proper, and ethical way, then Muslims have achieved it.

Therefore, it makes sense to set off more bombs, if this is how Europeans buckle in the face of militant Islamic terrorism both at home and abroad.

Soon, the modern Islamic mega-state (ahem, Europe), is going to resemble the Ottoman Empire back in the days in which the cowed white Europeans (kidnapped Mamluks) did all the civil service work and kept the economy going to support their brutal Islamic overlords in the style to which they had become accustomed.

* Listening to CNN today, still hearing the usual palaver. “We need to get moderate Muslims to cooperate with us, etc.” Hard to believe that some “moderate” Muslims weren’t aware that the wanted terrorist, Salah Abdeslam, was hiding in plain sight in their enclave for several months. Maybe someday the moderate Muslims will throw us a bone. We probably need to beg them more pathetically. The danger, as one CNN commentator noted, is Trump. “His rhetoric will push Muslims in the opposite direction.”

If the opposite direction is back to the lands from whence they came, who’s complaining?

* Here’s an alternate plan: How about we prevent Muslims from coming to the West and expel as many as we can. Then it won’t matter what they do or think, because they won’t be here.

As has been pointed out so many times around these parts, terrorism is merely the most visible aspect of Muslim dysfunction. They are parasites feeding off of the West. Disturbingly, terrorism may be what saves Europe. If Muslims were identical to how they are now minus the terrorism the European frog would probably be well and truly boiled. But maybe terrorism will some day wake them up.

* I think Eastern and Western Europe are so different today because of policies taken in the West in the late 1960s and into the 1970s. That was the era of Enoch Powell’s famous series of speeches on immigration, then the OPEC oil shock, going off the Bretton Woods agreement and France and Germany changing their immigration policies to allow “family reunification” for foreign guest workers. This may seem like a jumble but they do form a greater whole. This was the time the leaders of Western Europe decided to follow the American “nation of immigrants” model in order to artificially maintain the postwar trend of growth that would otherwise have come to an even sharper end than it did.

Enoch Powell was the first of many politicians who were ganged up on because he didn’t get it; he didn’t get the enforced consensus on this. Once this course of action had been chosen by the G7, Davos, Bilderberg consensus then a whole culture of bullying, peer pressure and happy talk had to develop to maintain and promote it. Policies quickly became self-fulfilling facts on the ground. These policies weren’t carried out in the East Bloc and so they don’t have several generations of consensus thought saying it’s all a wonderful thing that the West has. Again, it was the early 1970s when the two parts of Europe diverged when it comes to multiculturalism, immigration and all that comes with them.

* Ask a friend if they have an upper limit on how large they want the Muslim population to become. Will America still be America if it is 60% Yemeni-American. Most will say no. Everyone I’ve tried this on has some upper limit in mind.

Once they’ve arrived at their own personal upper limit, ask them to explain how they will cap the Muslim population at that proportion. No one has a good answer.

Next ask them if it will be easier to cap Muslim population growth when Muslims are 1% of the population or when they’re 40% of the population?

Next ask them if taking a hands off policy and allowing the Muslim population to grow will make America better for their children and grandchildren or maybe we should nip the problem while it’s still small and manageable.

The problem, of course, is that people are rationalizers rather than reasoners. Only a few were comfortable with the reasoning, the others didn’t like the conclusions and got agitated. Now though they have a little burr under their saddle and hopefully it will irritate them over time.

* A tweet by a Dutch yoga teacher. Translation according to r/the_donald:

“How are you supposed to continue teaching in your class if muslim children are applauding [the attacks]? #attacks #Zaventem”
“3 [Dutch] police officers on my front door because of my tweet this morning. Asking to not do it again. #Brussels #attacks #Zaventem”

* I have used that upper limit trick with people about immigration overall.

I start by noting that America currently has about 330 million people here now. And point out that there are over 3 billion people worldwide living in extreme poverty. I ask if all 3 billion should be allowed to come here? If America would be improved by that?

When they say no, I have some fun calling them bigots, xenophobic, pointing out that those 3 billion only want to make a better life for themselves, to do the jobs American’s won’t do, etc…

I then confirm that they agree that there should be a limit to how many people we allow in, and establish some set of standards. So ask them what that limit should be. Very few can do so, and most people get so agitated that I drop the conversation.

But hopefully I at least plant the seed in their mind that immigration should have some theoretical limit, and create a negative mental image of themselves surrounded by foreign hordes.

Once people break through the propaganda & stop seeing immigration as a sacred good there is hope for them.

* I really do not see how civic nationalism and white nationalism can coexist, since both are philosophically incompatible, and one must be destroyed for the other one to survive, in fact you could think of Islam and the United States as competing schools of civic nationalism. Of course it is best if the liberals and civic nationalists destroy each other. The fact that the United States was founded on civic nationalism makes its very existence incompatible with the aims of WN. A propositional nation and a ethnonationalist nation based on blood ties are polar opposites of each other ideologically, and one must be destroyed for the other one to be able to survive.

* ‘…to ourselves and our posterity…”

The United States was founded on blood & soil. It’s right there in the Declaration.

By the 1770’s the American ethny was well established. Many colonists were three generations removed from the Old Country. Some were five removed and some more. And they were almost all from England.

* I brought up the Brussels attack with my eye doctor this morning during a check up. I said something about this being a big issue for Europe. He said not all Europe, that he just got back from Poland. I nodded and said it certainly makes Trump’s message resonate. He said absolutely. For New Yorkers who take the packed subway twice a day, there’s a knowing nod. For all the talk of Trump and Hitler, you know who the real fascists are.

Then cooking dinner there was a Georgetown professor on the radio. She’d been to Brussels and lamented that this might make Belgians even more anti-Islamic. Even more? They seem tolerant enough to me. She said she was shocked by the attitude of cab drivers there. Oh sure. Cabbies, at least where they take licensing seriously enough to keep employment up for local map-reading proles, always an affront to university professors on tour.

* Eastern Europe is never going to get on the diversity train. Only Western countries that are too wealthy for their own good get on this train. Eastern Europeans know how hard life can really be and how diversity just makes things more difficult.

* It is almost as if the more Muslims a country has, the more Islamic terrorism it is likely to experience. But surely that can’t be true. After all, the media keeps telling us that Islam is the religion of peace and the media never lies.

Posted in Europe, Immigration, Islam | Comments Off

The Sadistic But Charismatic Archetype

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau: In Japan, a burgeoning “fake anime boyfriend” market is capturing the hearts of Japanese women and overseas American women.

Since the 90s, Japanese women have been playing otome (“maiden”) games, which allow the player to pursue virtual relationships with several virtual hunks. In the interest of journalism, I spent over $60 flirting with emotionally manipulative anime characters, and it fucking ruled.

So what kind of virtual boyfriends do nipply Nipponese and sassy statesiders prefer? Take one guess.

When I asked Gray which character types tend to perform best, she told me that the “sadistic but charismatic” archetype is beloved in both Japan and the US.

Chicks dig those charismatic jerkboys.

She pointed to Eisuke Ichinomiya, which she says is the most popular character in Kissed by the Baddest Bidder, Voltage’s top-grossing game in the US. […] On Eisuke’s character profile, he is billed in glittering pink and purple script as a “cold-hearted narcissist.” His quote is “I’m going to make you mine. And you don’t get to say no.”

What’s revealing about this dating simulation (aka female pornhub) is that it is essentially the female version of sex dolls for men. Women aren’t aroused as much by the visual and tactile inspection of men’s bodies as they are by the emotional and psychological inspection of men’s personalities. And when choosing male archetypes, the jerkboy narcissist is number one pulse amplifier in the arterial transverse between a woman’s heart and vagina. This is why real world feedback continually proves the efficacy of Game to the goal of seducing women: Game is the creation of sexier male personalities.

“Usually [this character is] sadistic and mean to you, but sometimes, when you and him are alone, he becomes so sweet and very kind to you,” Gray explained.

Vulnerability Game. A girl wants a challenging man (i.e., a man with a lot of poosy options) who can’t help but occasionally, and reluctantly, succumb to her erotic charms.

Also like Voltage’s millions of other customers worldwide, I was really only interested in the mean and sadistic gentlemen—which is weird, because I actively avoid mean and sadistic men in real life.

Fantasy is inward projection of outward sexual desire. We know this because no woman in the history of the world has ever fantasized about a reliable beta male in pleated khakis. Hence, the reason there’s a maxim stating “watch what women do and ignore what they say”. The details of female desire are quite disturbing to idealistic minds when seen up close, so much so that even women recoil from a cogent awareness of their own sexual urges. Which is why women are gifted with an ability to flim flam themselves whenever they are asked about what they want romantically.

This woman quoted above, when alone with her virtual tingle generator, chooses a badboy for her stimulus. “In real life”, she claims otherwise. But that’s the source of the fantasy’s power; in real life, most women don’t have the goods to attract and tame the badboys who turn them on, so in moments of introspection they fall back on sour grape-isms to rationalize the parade of dependable boring betas that is their lot in life. Or, oppositely, they have been burned by badboys so often in the past that avoiding them must be an “active” process rather than the more natural, unplanned pursuit that doesn’t require active effort typical of women who don’t have a dating history littered with alluring assholes.

Gray insisted that most of Voltage’s users “think that their real life and romance in our apps are totally different.” However, in the same response, she acknowledged that an elision between fantasy and reality does often take place. “The user who has a boyfriend plays our app to fill in the unsatisfied part of her boyfriend. Playing the app makes her happy and it helps to prevent fights with her boyfriend,” Gray told me.

Virtual alpha widows. Literally cucked by an anime lothario.

There is no bottom to the romantic humiliations that beta male boyfriends can suffer.

Posted in Sex | Comments Off

The Science Of Slurs

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau: There’s nothing quite like a sharp semantic shiv that hits a vital. But did you know slurs evolved to serve a social purpose? And that there are sex-based differences in the perception of slurs?

We investigated the influence of the sex of the target and the sex of the sender on the judgment of slurs (verbal derogation). From previous research, we selected and clustered slurs into seven categories and respondents rated their degree of perceived insult in two consecutive questionnaire surveys (N = 281 and N = 224, respectively). Results confirm that slurs are generally judged as being more insulting when directed towards females than towards males.

The fundamental premise: Women are the reproductively more valuable sex, and this biological reality has downstream effects on human psychology. This is why Trump (PBUH) catches so much flak for insulting fat, caustic pig Rosie O’Donnell or slimy gotcha “reporter” Megyn Kelly, yet no one cares when he levels worse insults against the hundreds or even thousands of men who have landed in his target designation cross-hairs.

In comparison, differences in sex of sender were small. When directed towards females, slurs referring to “being loose” were rated as the most insulting.

That’s because it undermines the female prime directive to attract and keep a high value man with promises of fidelity (aka paternity assurance).

For both target sexes, remarks referring to homosexuality and physical unattractiveness were among those rated as the most insulting.

I guarantee you the homo slur was rated more insulting by men.

Least insulting were slurs referring to unethical acts, lack of intelligence and cowardliness.

This is why I usually favor a rhetorical attack on shitlibs that hits them where it hurts: their sexual androgyny and circus freak physiognomy. Although I don’t buy the finding that “stupid” isn’t an effective insult, especially when aimed subversively at the pencilnecks whose only source of pride is their MENSA membership.

A sex of respondent effect was found, suggesting that women rated slurs generally more insulting than men. The pattern of results showed considerable stability across surveys attesting for the reliability of the method for measuring the social evaluation of slurs.

Rank of slur effectiveness, least to most shivvy:

Character
->
Economic status (more effective against men)
->
Social status
->
Smarts
->
Looks (for women, less so for men)
->
Sexual worth (“slut”, “nerd”, “creep”)

The most vicious slurs circumvent the superego and ego, striking at the pith of the id, where the rawest measure of a man is contained: his (or her) worth as a mate.

Posted in Sex | Comments Off