Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* It is kind of like when the villain goes out of his way explaining to the hero in precise detail how he intends to take over the world.

* I know this is kinda concern trolling, but if you don’t want non-ruling-class whites to start banding together behind Trump or some other such figure, surely it would be smarter NOT to constantly harp on how white men are about to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

* This Jew hit pretty much every note. The most scathing hater of Jews could barely produce satire that could outdo this piece.

* The cognitively superior will always rule. White men have nothing to worry about.

* “White men have had a great run. From the rise of the Greeks to the birth of Western-based global empires, they have controlled much of the world…”

Deliberate deception. White men didn’t “control” merely much of the world, as if they were kids playing with remote control cars. They built/invented/designed much of the world. There’s a difference and it’s all the difference in the world.

I’d have a less difficult time with his overall premise if he could at least be honest with his wording. This reminds me of the phrase “male-dominated,” which is the feminist way of sidestepping the truth: That it really means “male-created.”

He who controls words controls thought. Calling people like this on their deliberate sleight-of-hand when it comes to descriptions is important. “Controlled” is not the right word to use and if he didn’t know better then some editor, somewhere, should have piped up.

The irony, of course, is he gets to communicate this on technology built by white men in a country where the idea of freedom of speech was made into law by white men. And if white men “control” anything, he might look to that to ask why.

(I’m choosing only to focus on his opening sentence. I know well there are a lot more questionable ideas here.)

* This narrative that whites have “controlled the world” for millennia needs to be opposed with facts. The global white empires only began around 1450 with the explorations of the Portuguese. Before that whites did not in any sense control Africa or Asia, and of course had no presence (bar a handful of Vikings) in the Americas.

And of course there were long periods of white contraction. For example, the retreat before the initial waves of Islamic expansion.

* If you could go back in time and obliterate a small swath of the inhabitants of the earth’s surface, at around 1600 AD, on a swath from GB, to France, to Germany, to Poland and perhaps also to Moscow, there would be no modern world. Bordering areas included.

The scientific and the industrial revolutions were centered in those areas. Capitalism was invented there. Every military in the world today looks and acts like the military model invented there.

Its not a matter of fashion that businessmen everywhere in the world look like Western men in a suit and tie. Or that solders everywhere look more like British turn of the century solders than samurai. Or that researchers look like German university researchers. Most of the great polyphonic music of the world would not exist. The Japanese would have no 9th to determine the playing time of the CD they invented. There might not even be perspective in painting. If you included present day Italy in the swath, perhaps monogamy, a Roman institution adopted by early Christians I am told, would be rare.

No modern world. A totally different planet if perhaps 20% of the surface area was obliterated by a meter or something in the past.

* Has every immigrant group made “huge contributions” to the United States? I’m trying to think what exactly Mestizo Hispanics have contributed to the USA….certainly not much in terms of technology, physics, chemistry, literature.

* I can’t tell you how many senior lawyers who’ve made very distinguished careers but never had to compete against female lawyers have told me how wonderful it is that there are so many women in the law now.

Not only is this attitude hypocritical, it is fundamentally selfish (as are all anti-traditionalists): It is the equivalent of saying, I was given something wonderful, I was initiated into a learned profession and into the particular customs of my firm or bar or chambers or inn of court, and I took that gift, that inheritance that was handed down to me, and I unalterably changed it and remade it and have given you, my successors and followers, something else, something different, something other. It’s so wonderful–though of course I didn’t experience it–but I know you’ll like it.

Uggh.

* How can (evidently) high I.Q. lansmen be so stupid? Derb did a great Mencken speech where he posited voting should be allowed only to those in the middle bands of I.Q. I believe his reasoning was the smart ones are more prone to romantic fantasies. That would sum up the tribe, or maybe they just loathe white Christians.

* “the real leaders for this new era will distinguish themselves by focusing not just on the social diversity that makes great nations, but on the truth and wondrous benefits of the diversity that actually lives within us all.”

The benefits of diversity and “non-othering” are so “wondrous” that Israel has chosen to generously allocate its diversity quota to white nations. At the same time Jews agitate endless for dilution of white countries.

* Rothkopf’s piece speaks extremely poorly for FP. It is exactly as Steve describes it: pure conventional wisdom (a polite way of saying it is a complete waste of any intelligent person’s time).

Even if one agreed with the political orientation of the article, life’s too short simply to read regurgitations of the conventional wisdom. Let’s be thankful we have the decidedly unconventional Mr Sailer to read as an alternative to FP (and the rest of the MSM).

* If women show their “empowerment” through their ability to reject all the men they don’t want in their lives – and the rejects have to accept this outcome and go away – then why don’t white people show our “empowerment” when we reject the world’s trash we don’t want in our communities and countries?

* And yet I suspect David Rothkopf believes that people like David Rothkopf – i.e. those who belong to Rothkopf’s tribe – will continue to stay on top of things for a long while to come. I guess it’s easier to end up as a member of “The Chosen” when it’s you who gets to do the choosing.

* Why do Jewish supremacist Caucasophobes like Rothkopf get to gloat over their destruction of white culture and civilization? White Americans should take anti-white distopian prognostications like this as a challenge to organize for their self preservation. There are hundreds of Jewish organizations and dozens of Hispanic and African American groups in the US. There are countless Christian groups. When will the white Christianish people unite to against the violence and discrimination they already experience as well as what they can expect in a hellish future like the one this Nazi eagerly looks forward to?

* And yet Bibi wouldn’t lift a finger for Trump. “Distanced himself,” actually. I bet I could go into a West Bank “settlement” (Jewish colony) and ask Jews if Whites should be allowed to have for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel and they’d say “no.”

* “Previously David served as CEO of Intellibridge Corporation, Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. . . . ”

I believe L. Paul Bremmer also served as Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. He also served as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. In that role, Bremmer made two horrendous decisions: (1) he disbanded the Iraqi army and (2) he issued a decree banning all former members of the Baath Party from playing any role in the new Iraqi state. Those decisions were made either because L. Paul Bremmer was incredibly stupid or they were done deliberately in order to sabotage the new Iraq and guarantee that it could not become a functioning country for a long time. Thus, he was either incompetent or corrupt. Hardly a good advertisement for Kissinger Associates.

Of course, Henry Kissinger himself endorsed the Iraq War of 2003 (unlike his former associate Brent Scowcroft, who came out in strong opposition to the war). In 2011, he acknowledged the war was a mistake, but he blamed his decision to support the war on “bad intelligence.” Now, I didn’t graduate summa cum laude from Harvard like Henry Kissinger and do not consider myself as smart as Henry Kissinger or as knowledgeable about foreign affairs, but I was able to scope out that we were being sold a pig in a poke by reading the NY Times and WS Journal and watching network TV news on NBC, with no access to intelligence reports. If I could have figured it out, I am certain that Kissinger could have figured it out. So, it seems that Henry Kissinger was either incredibly stupid in 2003 or incredibly corrupt.

Adding all these examples together, one has to conclude that hiring Kissinger Associates would not give you good advice unless you are looking for ways to do harm to the interests of the U.S.

* He writes of the demise of the white male’s world the way you’d write of a dying tree – a natural and organic process. In fact, there is nothing that has been planned and orchestrated as tirelessly during the last fifty years as the destruction of white countries and the dispossession of their people.

He also talks of white “privilege” as if it were something we just stumbled upon by sheer good fortune, like Jed Clampett finding the oil spouting out of his swampland. Agriculture, science, medicine and technology are all blessings that just fell into our lap.

* Dan Greenfield (Israeli) edges close to it, but always backs away to maintain his status on a neocon organization payroll. It’s unnerving to admit that your community (Jews) depends upon the approval of others (the West, Russia, Iran), that even nukes can’t guarantee. If the security of Jews and Israel depends upon the active existence of right-wing Christians, it causes tremendous theological quandaries for the religiously observant. In with Gospel, out with Talmud. Bridge too far for many…

* There is no doubt that some of the best minds on our side are Jews. My guess is about 20 percent of American Jews probably side with the majority opinion of this blog. But I have no hard stats to back it up.

The problem is that it seems most, if not all, organized Jewish groups are for open borders and such. Additionally most, if not all, high profile Jews and the ones who pony up the big bucks during election time are for open borders as well. So rightly or wrongly this does lead to the perception that Jews in the collective sense are pro open borders, even though we realize there are some great exceptions.

* The first racialist argument that ever appealed to me was when David Duke, of all people, was on Montel Williams or something 15 years ago advocating for his organization NO FEAR – the National Organization for European American Rights. It did seem a clever argument, but it’s so obviously motivated by white racialism that the zeitgeist has yet to accommodate the renaming.

* Don’t forget Peter Sutherland a UN migration chief, chairman of Goldman Sachs, and sometime attendee of the Bilderberg Group. He is quoted as the EU should “undermine national homogeneity”.

* It’s amazing how promise-of-diversity boosting has become so shrill, desperate, as if white-goy haters like Rothkopf realize their window of opportunity is fast-disappearing. The noble project to flood the evil West with very vibrant, colorfully throwback cultures of Gimmestan is crashing on rough shoals of reality. Let’s not forget Rothkopf, a dynamic if somewhat ethnocentric thinker himself, pushed hard for deposing Syria’s regime in 2013, only to be undone by an American public finally on to Israel Lobby strategies. Out of obvious commitment to democracy, he counseled then, as sun set on this brainstorm, that bold Presidents of the past knocked will of the people in a cocked hat and did what they pleased.

Doesn’t the gas-bag sound a lot like the “scientific Marxism is inevitability” prophets who ended up in the Tidybowl of history?

* Rothkopf and Michael Oren (American born Israeli military officer and former ambassador to USA) were roommates at Columbia University.

Rothkopf visited Israel for the first time a few years ago. Rothkopf and Oren then exchanged letters regarding Zionism and Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Rothkopf was critical in his analysis of Israel but did not declare Israel as an apartheid state.

I used to read Rothkopf before “Foreign Policy” was behind a pay wall. Rothkopf hold his most serious hate for white Christians, especially Catholics and most especially German speaking Catholics.

This was back when Pope Benedict held St. Peter’s throne. Rothkopf hated his guts.

* Philip Weiss writes in 2014:

And [Michael Oren] he is a man of action: he throws himself into supporting Israel, to the point of emigrating and changing his name from Bornstein to Oren. He serves in the Israeli army. He is repeatedly arrested by the KGB on feats of derring-do on behalf of the Jewish people in Eastern Europe. He serves in the Israeli government, ultimately as its ambassador to the United States, sacrificing his citizenship here.

While Rothkopf gets on the American meritocracy gravy train. He gets the fattest envelope that rising Jews of my generation could get — a political appointment in the Clinton administration — and that leads in time to a lot of other plums. The Council on Foreign Relations, ceo and editor of Foreign Policy. He writes a forgettable book celebrating the American elite, of which he is now a goldstamped member, and there’s a neurotic edge to this character. He needs a lot of affirmation. He gives too much respect to his old friend.

But the truth of the story is that Rothkopf is the smarter and stronger of the two, he just doesn’t know it yet. And as middle age breaks the two men on its wheel, Rothkopf finally takes Oren on, by visiting Israel for three short days in 2013, and comes away horrified as an American. Still he can’t break his silence, till Oren prods him. What did you think?

David Rothkopf

And Rothkopf breaks free in the remarkable exchange of letters that he published yesterday at Foreign Policy, in which he demolishes Oren and exposes him as a flat anachronism, made up of stupid bluster (“We’re surrounded by a sea of supremely armed insanity”) and hectoring lectures (“Do you regard yourself as part of the Jewish people? Do you consider your life inextricably linked to the Jewish story?”) and lies (Palestinians have equal access to water, he claims) with no sense of how the world regards Israel.

In this moment, the Rothkopf character comes into his own. He tells us what he really thinks and he’s the thoughtful and secure one, Oren is provincial. Zionism is “exactly the wrong” response to history, Rothkopf says, and delivers a speech about history that brings everyone to their feet:

The best protection (as the United States has demonstrated) is to institutionalize the concept of tolerance and diversity and to work tirelessly to ensure that the powerful impulses to segregate and divide are quashed. It is not easy. But it has made the United States the most successful experiment in cultural diversity in history — though only after a series of horrific errors, including slavery and the genocide against Native Americans and the devaluing of the role of women, were ultimately remedied. We’re not there yet.

I.e., everything you’ve devoted your life to was a mistake.

I wrote about the letters yesterday but obviously I can’t get over them. Ilene Cohen wrote me to say that Israel is now “cooked.” That when someone of Rothkopf’s stature comes out, it allows others in the elite to come out and declare, Guess what, I was never for Zionism, either. “I’m just a canary in the coal mine, Rothkopf writes,” she said. “There will be more. Kerry was a canary, too. And think about Martin Indyk making that speech at WINEP.”

Cohen also asked a question: How is it that Rothkopf never went to Israel before?

The answer is at the heart of the relationship between American Jews and Israel. Most of us have never been. I didn’t get there till I was 50 years old. Like Rothkopf, I was pursuing the rewards and pleasures of American society and was afraid of what that place looked like.

But there was also deference. We understood ourselves as part of a cohesive American Jewish community that held the breathing tube for Israel, for one part of our community was the political faction that ensured America’s devotion to Israel (in sharp distinction to Oren’s fantastical booklength propaganda that Americans love a religious state). In Rothkopf’s case, the advocacy was direct. He stood up for Israel against its critics. In my case it was passive: Till the Iraq war forced me to get on the stick, I accepted the prohibition of my Oren, neoconservative Eric Breindel, whom I knew in my elite college: You don’t know enough about this to get involved, he told me. I thought he was smarter than I was. And I stayed away.

* It’s true that many non-Jewish intellectuals are lefties. It’s also true that pretty much all Jews (left and right) call for open borders for Europe and the USA while maintaining closed borders and ethnic “othering” for Israel.

Ethnic solidarity for me, not for thee.

But no worries. Move on. Nothing to see here.

* Whether the threat is one associated with Islam or extremism or simply economic competition within a country, the reality is that the expressed fears are way out of proportion with the actual, manifested threats.

In other words, a certain level of civil discomfort and small-scale terrorist attacks are to be expected and tolerated as the mohammedan, Asian, and Hispanic populations in formerly White lands increase. The continued deracination of traditionally European countries–including the United States–is much more important, multitudes more even, than the physical safety and security of those country’s present inhabitants.

* A society is just a collection of people, and the character of a society depends on the character of its people.

* Two possibilities:

1. Not all Jews are racist, ungrateful sociopaths.

2. The smarter Jews realize that a white, gentile, Christian America is the best hing that’s happened to the tribe since the end of the Babylonian exile. And that they seriously, seriously fucked up by overstepping on the diversity crap and importing a ton of Muslim implacable antisemites.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

* A fun exercise:

(1) Rothkopf lists ethnic groups: “the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews … each group has made huge contributions to the United States”

(2) Then in his bio he lists the elite institutions he’s affiliated with.

The fun part: look for a match between lists 1 and 2. Painfully few of his favorite institutions were created by his favorite ethnics. “Huge contributions?” I don’t see it.

Examples,
-Foreign Policy: founded by Samuel P. Huntington [English ancestry] while a professor at Harvard [founded by Englishmen]
-Carnegie Endowment: Scottish-American
-Columbia University: Englishmen
-New York Times: British-Americans
-Princeton University: Scots

Compared to America’s early British population, no ethnic group (and I include my own) has really built all that much in this country. And Rothkopf tacitly admits this in his own status-obsessed bio.

* Minsky married a Jewish female doctor and they had three children.

No matter how nerdy, religious or observant Jews or those at least involved with Jewish life on a nonreligious level (Minsky was an atheist) seem to have little trouble marrying if they want to do so. That’s true of members of most nonmajority religions: Mormons, 7DAs, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc as well.

If Paris is worth a Mass, maybe a wife is worth magic underwear.

* That may still work for Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists, but I don’t think it does for non-Orthodox Jews. A large percentage of young secular/Reform/Conservative/Reconstructionist Jewish women aren’t interested in marriage. And of the non-Orthodox groups, only Conservative Jews would still show strong preference for marrying other Jews if they did decide to marry. Many Reform rabbis will now perform intermarriages, and secular Jews may not care if a rabbi is involved at all. These are my observations as a never-married non-Orthodox Jewish guy in his late thirties.

* He’s got the gay look and a subdued gay voice. Probably homosexual. It figures, deviancy in one aspect of one’s mind corrupts the other parts. This is a person giving foreign policy advice? No wonder we have problems in that area.

* David Rothkopf, M.O.T., celebrating the end of the white man, eh?

I wonder how long Israel would last without the white male American taxpayer giving it $3 billion per annum… and without white male defense contractors providing it with superior weapons to keep the brown-skinned Palestinians at bay. Six months? A year, maybe?

Next time Mr. Rothkopf’s power goes out, or the transmission in his car fails, perhaps he should get some women and some Africans to fix it for him…

* If Rothkopf and other like-minded types were a little more subtle they would actually be accomplishing more of their plans.

But no. Their stubborn ego is unmatched. They have to charge at the enemy’s defenses in broad daylight screaming. Very few people can put up with what is essentially taunting.

* Minsky was a celebrity for most of my lifetime. He advised Stanley Kubrick during the making of “2001.” He hung out with von Neumann and the top sci-fi writers like Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke. He came from a well-to-do family — his father was a New York eye surgeon. He went to Fieldston Ethical Culture private school and got his high school degree from to Phillips Andover boarding prep school. Sure he went bald and wore glasses, but his features were regular and he was masculine looking.

I suspect Mrs. Minsky was very happy with her catch.