The Lessons Of The OJ Simpson Acquittal

Posted on January 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: For crimethinkers, however, the O.J. case offered a cornucopia of insights:

– If blacks get themselves all worked up over the putative racist injustices of a particular case, it will probably turn out to be a factual fiasco, just as conspiracy theorists are right a lot less often than conspiracies actually exist.

– One of the more interesting figures in the case was OJ’s attorney Robert Shapiro (played by John Travolta in the show), who by the end, was deeply disturbed that he had facilitated a black man getting a way with murdering a Jew with impunity by bringing on Cochran to play what Shapiro called “the race card.”

– As a feminist, civil servant prosecutor Marcia Clark thought that female jurors would side with the murdered woman. As a highly successful racialist lawyer, Johnnie Cochran thought that black jurors would side with the black murderer. So they effectively agreed to pack the jury with black women.

– Black women turned out to be more racist than feminist, just as Cochran assumed.

– Black women feel that white women who steal their men have it coming to them.

– People who can’t get out of jury duty, especially black people who can’t get out of jury duty, aren’t all that bright on average. They are easily bored and baffled by technical testimony, so Cochran’s nursery rhyme was more effective than all the egghead DNA stuff.

– DA Gil Garcetti, the father of the current mayor, pretty much threw the case at the outset by moving the trial from the local courthouse in Santa Monica, where the jury pool would have been mostly bright white liberals, to downtown, which allowed Cochran & Clark to pack the jury with blacks from South-Central.

– The rioters’ threat to the justice system had a lot to do with Garcetti’s decision.

COMMENTS:

* It’s interesting to note all the members of Simpson’s supposed ‘Dream team’ who have completely disappeared from public view, excepting the dead one. If they were so great…

* Basically jury deliberations in a racialized trial like this are just waiting games until the holdouts cave, and blacks tend to be less willing to spend days sitting in a room in defense of moral principle than whites are.

* At my place of work in Florida, black employees cheered and clapped when the jury announced its not guilty verdict. Whether this meant they believed Simpson to be innocent, or were just expressing racial solidarity, I was never sure. After the event one or two explained to me that Simpson might actually have killed the two victims, but the prosecution had failed to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Of course in the civil trial that followed, the standard of proof was lower and a jury found that Simpson WAS responsible. It has always seemed to me that the subsequent sentencing of Simpson to 33 years in prison for what sounded like a relatively minor act of criminality in recuperating some of his memorabilia which was of disputed ownership and no one was injured was really an act of retaliation by the judiciary.

As I recall there were no riots or mass protestations of innocence at the time of the verdict by an all-white jury or at his sentencing. In his defense Simpson had argued ” I thought what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas”, but the jury apparently thought not.

* I confess I felt sorry for Robert Kardashian. My take was that he knew that O.J. was guilty and was surprised when O.J. decided to brazen it out, but wanted him to have a fair trial. As things progressed, Kardashian got more and more horrified but didn’t know how to extricate himself, and when the verdict came down…if you look at Kardashian in the videotape, it seems clear that he is saying to himself, “Holy fuck, I helped this bastard get away with murder!”

I have no such sympathy for Robert Shapiro, who knew what he was getting into.

* Blacks don’t trend towards objectivity, you can’t really expect them to put aside feelings and evaluate the particulars of anything. They are who/whom to the nth degree.

Then and now, the only real issue to them was “do I want to see another brother go to jail”.

* I remember seeing Marcia Clark in a interview years after the trial and she sounded totally stupid. Feminist and brain-dead, as often happens. A clear case of affirmative action at work. Same for the Japanese judge, Ito, who looked both bored and out of place.

OJ spent the whole trial making his best impression of “dindu nuffin”.

As for Mark Fuhrman.. Whatever happened to him? He was the only likable person in that grotesque trial, yet convicted of felony because he once said the dreaded N-word, somewhere, sometime. Not that it had anything to do with the case.

* So I was working in a bank trading room when this happened: it, of course has wall to wall TV.

All of the support staff came in from their domain to hear the verdict.

All the blacks applauded, the whites were astonished.
It was the first time I’d seriously smelled a race war.

* It wasn’t just the not guilty verdict, it was that blacks were so gleeful about it and defended it using a perverse logic.. “We’ll talk about OJ when you talk about Emmit Till”.

* So Shapiro was upset by the death of the Jew but not the beheading of the shiksa?

According to Torah both were committing deep sin.

The loverboy Goldman is the least pitiable in the whole sordid mess. But the media made him a victim! Like he was an innocent bystander. He injected himself into that volatile situation. Pun intended. But now Wiki page claims he and the shiksa were “just friends” …wut?!

In LA and NYC there are a zillion of these young guys ready and willing to schtupp other men’s wives.

* Two reasons:

(1) Kardashian’s name recognition is based on her father, whose Q rating shot up due to his involvement in this trial. Heck, every lawyer’s name on the defense spiked in the national consciousness. For example, for years afterwards, the standard jokes by every black character on every sitcom whenever he encountered the police was “Watch out! I’ll get Johnny Cochran” and “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit”.

The Kardashian spawn would not have gotten their initial television show without Kardashian’s spike in household name recognition thanks to his involvement.. After that, they just did “shocking” things one after another to maintain fame, culminating in Jenner pretending to change his gender.

(2) it demonstrated how a tawdry 24-hour reality-TV show cycle-formula could be profitable.

Video “real” people + some name recognition + make them due “shocking” things and you get a cheap, reliable ratings machine. Thrown in inter-racial sex + violence (as was the case in OJ) and ratings spike more (how many reality shows now have scenes where characters get drunk and get into fights at bars? it’s about every 3rd commercial for them that I see).

This is why the Kardashians are such a big hit—they are just recreating the OJ trial formula, minus the murder.

N.B.: During the trial it became gossip that the white Clark and Christopher Darden, the other prosecutor (who is black), had dated for a while. That helped contribute to the atmosphere of viewers watching, and you can bet Ryan Seacrest (who is the producer of the Kardashians) has seen that black men + white women=ratings. I’m sure he’s got that written down somewhere.

* [Mark Fuhrman] occasionally appears on Fox News. When I saw them giving him air time (at least a decade ago), I knew Fox portended meaningful change in the media landscape.

* Keeping in mind that striking jurors for race, or any other protected class membership, is a cardinal no-no in legal ethics. It happens, obviously, but a prosecutor can’t be obvious about it. Also, you only get to strike 3 jurors, so rigging is harder than it may appear. Venue, on the other hand, has a tremendous effect on jury composition.

* The prosecution was going to go for as many women on the jury as they could as the putative target of the murder was a woman. The defense wouldn’t be carrying out their ethical responsibility to offer the best defense for their client if they didn’t go for as many black persons on the jury as their client is black.

They ended up with a jury of a large number of black women, which was not only the worst demographic to have sympathy for the estranged white wife of a black man, but also the demographic with the greatest deal of skepticism about the domestic violence narrative.

The idea was that Mr. Simpson was a beloved celebrity so the prosecution’s job was to portray him as a monster so as to break down this affection for him? So “they”, and especially Marcia Clark played the male-domestic-abuser-turned-murder card.

I am speculating that the black woman jurors may have had more life experience with abuse in relationships or knew first hand people with such life experience and had a more nuanced view. Is the man an abuser from the outset or is he acting that way in response to outside stress or provocation within the relationship? Can a woman be the abuser in a relationship? If the man is the abuser can there be, in car insurance jargon, proportional fault of the parties?

Any of those views are crime-think in the white-female-SJW world, so much so that Marcia Clark couldn’t even entertain the thought that her jurors could have possibly been thinking that way.

If the prosecution had stuck with the blood and the DNA evidence, the smoke and mirrors offered by defense experts notwithstanding, ” Mr. Simpson is popular public figure, but something must have pushed him over the edge because his blood is found comingled with that of the two victims” I think they could have won over the skeptical jurors. This hammering at Mr. Simpson being an abuser and therefore you should conclude he is a murderer rubbed those jurors the wrong way.

Backup for my theory are the public comments of jurors regarding the use of the N-word. The reasoning was along the lines of “As black people we know that every person, white or black, has uttered the N-word sometime during their lifetime, as black people we don’t like that but we are realists and know that word gets uttered. How stupid does a police officer think we are to defiantly claim that he has never, ever used such language, and if he is lying about this what other lies is he telling?”

* Come on, don’t make it any more difficult: Race trumps gender. PERIOD.

For the jury members, the fact that OJ was also charged with killing a Jewish person only added a bit to the periphery. Not a deal maker but definitely in the background. As in “I sure ain’t sidin’ with someone who’s ancestors helped enslave our people during slavery times.” Let’s not pretend that blacks aren’t anti-semitic, because they very much are. But that was incidental to the larger narrative of Race trumps gender. Darden of all people should’ve been more aware and alerted the Garcetti to this fact.

Remember what Cochran said to Darden post-trial. “Don’t worry. One day we’ll let you back into the community.” As in, “the man made you his house slave and you had to do what you had to do, we get that. It’s gonna take time, but one day you will be allowed back into the community again.”

Kim better watch her back. OJ is just determined to mean what he says.

* -Ito really lost that trial. He allowed TV cameras (a big no no), and then, when it was obvious that the cameras were causing the circus, he refused to get rid of them.

The first thing a judge needs is command of the courtroom. Ito let the cameras in and lost control, and the defense took control. He never regained it.

-As to Clark, she became an Entertainment Tonight “reporter.” I’m not kidding about that, either. That pretty much shows you her level of intelligence and ability.

Feminists, it should be noted, always way over-estimate the amount of female solidarity that really exists, mostly because they are extrapolating from the very small number of feminists they know, who are either man-hating, extremely masculine lesbians or brittle career gals who think if they just do a few more things in their career, women will all converge and hug them for their work and bow down to them. Both of these categories of women rarely swoon in front of sexy confident men—because they aren’t around such men all that often, for various reasons (choice, career, agoraphobia, etc.)—and so can’t imagine how one confident male leader can overcome female solidarity.

-Give Johnny Cochran credit: he knew a Billy Flynn-Chicago-style circus would be best for O.J., he created it, he fed it, and he appeared as the ringmaster to the jury.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on The Lessons Of The OJ Simpson Acquittal

Comedian Harmonists (1997 film)

Posted on January 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

I begin Friday reading this New York Times article:

Israel, Mired in Ideological Battles, Fights on Cultural Fronts

JERUSALEM — There have been fights over books, music, plays, funding for the arts and academic awards. This being Israel, they have been underpinned by fierce rhetorical exchanges about democracy, fascism and zealotry, identity, the future of the state and the fate of Jews.

A new front in the culture wars opens nearly every week, ripple effects of shifts in Israeli demographics, attitudes and politics that are shaking the society.

The latest was an attack on Wednesday by a far-right group on beloved leftist literary icons including Amos Oz, A. B. Yehoshua and David Grossman, writers who have been considered the voice — and conscience — of the state for years. The group, Im Tirtzu, began a poster campaign calling the writers “moles in culture,” which prompted accusations of McCarthyism and worse, even from many on the right.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several members of his conservative coalition joined the chorus of condemnation over the vilification of such Israeli cultural pillars. But some of those same ministers have been behind many of the other battles. The previous round was the brainchild of Miri Regev, the divisive and conservative minister of culture and sport, who wants to deny state money to institutions that do not express “loyalty” to the state, including those that show disrespect for the flag, incite racism or violence, or subvert Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

Ms. Regev said that the aim of this “Loyalty in Culture” initiative, proposed as an amendment to a budget bill, is “for the first time to make support for a cultural institution dependent on its loyalty to the state of Israel.” She added, “I won’t be an A.T.M. — I have a responsibility for the public’s money.”

For one well-known poet, Meir Wieseltier, the law “brings us closer to the rise of fascism and exposes its true face.” But Isi Leibler argued in The Jerusalem Post that the government is “not obliged to subsidize the demonization of the nation” and should instead support “the inculcation of love of Israel.”

The steady stream of such conflicts, over what cultural works the state should promote for schoolchildren to read or for citizens to see and hear, is part of a political drama in which the politicians of a new generation are jockeying for position as leader of the so-called nationalist camp.

The cast includes Ms. Regev, 50, a rising power in Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party; Ayelet Shaked, 39, an outspoken hard-liner from the more conservative Jewish Home Party; and Naftali Bennett, 43, the education minister and head of Jewish Home.

The Israel they represent is more religious and less beholden to the values and inheritances of the old, Europeanized elite and its dwindling left. They are unapologetic in their nationalism, supportive of both poorer Jews of Sephardic — Middle Eastern, or Mizrahi — background and of settlers in the occupied West Bank, and unmoved by criticism from international leaders and liberal activists.

“It’s not just a culture war, it’s political, demographic and social at the same time,” said Nahum Barnea, one of Israel’s most influential columnists. “The core of the struggle is: Who is the dedicated elite, who are the legitimate heirs to the Zionist movement that built the state?”

Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, said the culture wars reflected “a growing sense of siege” that Israelis felt from the region and the world.

“This has set off the deepest fears in the Jewish psyche, fears that Zionism tried to free us from,” he explained. Instead of feeling as if they are in “a normal nation among nations,” he said, many Israelis are heading back “to a statist version of the old Jewish ghetto, and the Israeli response increasingly is to view those of our fellow citizens perceived to be in league with this process of siege, or encouraging it, as collaborators.”

But Mr. Leibler, The Jerusalem Post columnist, defended Ms. Regev and Mr. Bennett as trying to “restore a climate that nurtures love of Israel and promotes pride in Jewish heritage” after years when “far-leftists, postmodernists and even post-Zionists took over the Education Ministry.”

This month, the left-leaning daily Haaretz highlighted internal discussions in the ministry about what artistic works might be considered “politically undesirable” for high-school students. Among the criteria, the newspaper said, were whether artists would perform in West Bank settlements and declare loyalty to the state and to the national anthem, something that is particularly problematic for Israel’s Arab citizens.

Internal discussions are not policy, but even this report drew stinging responses, with Oded Kotler, a prominent Israeli actor and director, comparing Israel to the Soviet Union and telling Israel Radio, “There’s a real culture war underway here, but the war from that side of the political map is a harbinger of zealotry, darkness and coercion.”

Mr. Kotler infuriated the government and the political right last summer when he compared its supporters to “cud-chewing cattle.” That was in response to Ms. Regev’s effort to freeze state funding for an Arab theater in Haifa because of a play about a Palestinian prisoner who murders an Israeli soldier. The production, “Parallel Time,” had enraged the right and Mr. Bennett banned school trips to see it.

It makes sense to me why Israel through its government wants to control its culture in a pro-Jewish direction. It equally makes sense to me why gentile nations, including Germany, would want to control their culture in a nationalist and nativist way, which will often be anti-Jewish.

The Jew is the ultimate other, the ultimate stranger, and not even the angels like strangers.

Later on Friday, I watch this 1997 German movie:

According to Wikipedia:

Comedian Harmonists succeeded in Europe. U.S. President Bill Clinton told critic Roger Ebert it was among his favorite films of the year, although the movie did not get widespread release, hence reception in the United States.

Bernd Reinhardt of the World Socialist Web Site called it “an exciting film which is well worth seeing and which pays proper attention to the sextet’s music.” He also remarked on the film’s attention to historical detail and the importance of its theme of musical internationalism.

The movie contains a joke set in a German school.

Teacher: “What race do the Jews belong to?”
Child: “The semites.”
Teacher: “What race do the Germans belong to?”
Child: “The anti-semites.”

If you’ve ever snapped Nazi salute all alone in the bathroom, or put on tefillin in shul, you’ll know the surge that comes with strengthening your identity. The stronger your in-group feeling, the more likely you are to dislike outsiders.

The movie is about a music comedy troupe that developed in 1927 Germany and was very much in sync with Weimar Germany. The troupe was at least half-Jewish.

The troupe spent a lot of time in brothels. They thumbed their noses at the conventional German morality. They promoted decadence.

One Jew in the movie falls in love with his favorite hooker and asks her to marry him. When she says yes, he gets very serious.

Ho: “What’s the matter?”
Jew: “I’m very religious. If we are to marry, you will have to convert to Judaism.”

And so she does and they have a very Jewish wedding.

When the Nazis take power, they also take control of the culture, just as Israeli is currently, and they stop the group from performing.

If you perform publicly mocking the gentile majority, you might receive some unpleasant consequences.

Near the end of the movie, at a party at the home of Julius Streicher who proclaims himself a big fan, a Jew in the group refuses to sing a German folk song.

Almost at the end, the protagonist rants to a member of the group who just divorced his wife because of Germany’s new race laws: “Racial differences have indeed become irreconcilable differences.”

The Jewish members of the group leave Germany and have long lives. The Jew who married the ho moved to San Francisco and became a cantor. They remained married until his death at age 97

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Germany, Israel, Jews | Comments Off on Comedian Harmonists (1997 film)

From 2013: Trump on immigration: Let in white Europeans

Posted on January 30, 2016 by Luke Ford

From SFGate.com on March 15, 2013:

Republicans are on a “suicide mission” if they back a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States, and should be encouraging immigration by white Europeans, real estate mogul Donald Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday morning.

Trump, briefly a 2012 Republican presidential hopeful, delivered the morning wakeup at CPAC, lecturing on immigration, then ridiculing the Republican “SuperPAC” masterminded by former Bush guru Karl Rove.

The undocumented workers already in the U.S. are to be feared as voters, said Trump. He argued:

“When it comes to immigration, you know that the 11 million illegals even if given given the right to vote — you know, you’re gonna have to do what’s right — but the fact is, 11 million people are going to be voting Democratic. That’s the way it works, and you have to be very, very careful . . . You’re just not going to get those votes.

“Now I say to myself, why aren’t we letting people in from Europe? Nobody wants to say it, but I have many many friends from Europe, and they want to come in. Tremendous people, hard-working people. They can’t come in. I know people whose sons went to Harvard, top of their class, went to Wharton School of finance, great great students. They happen to be a citizen of a foreign country. They learn, they take all of their knowledge, and they can’t work in this country.”

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration | Comments Off on From 2013: Trump on immigration: Let in white Europeans

The Casting By Julius Streicher

Posted on January 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Did Western Civilization go off the rails when Julius Streicher, an anti-Jewish satirist, was put to death after WWII for incorrect opinions? Streicher never killed anyone. He simply made fun of Jews.

From Tabletmag:

While most Coen characters could be considered garden variety shmeggeges, Larry Gopnik is something more culturally specific: a schlemiel. A shmeggege is merely a nitwit. The luckless and self-deceiving, well-intentioned but ineffectual schlemiel, defined by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia as one who “handles a situation in the worst possible manner” is an existential victim—or maybe the embodiment of an existential condition. It’s been suggested by Ruth Wisse in her published doctoral dissertation The Schlemiel as Modern Hero (a title sounding like a Woody Allen gag) that for writers like Sholem Aleichem the Jews were “a kind of schlemiel people” and that his American heirs, Saul Bellow, Bernard Malamud et al., perfected the schlemiel as literary type.

Abandoned by his wife, betrayed by his colleagues, ignored by his children, confounded by his rabbis, Larry Gopnik could be the most fully fledged schlemiel in American fiction since the eponymous anti-hero of Bruce Jay Friedman’s Stern. Stern, however, was a schlemiel in a gentile world; Gopnik is surrounded by Jews so grotesque that the movie might have been cast by Julius Streicher. (A Serious Man, as outraged Village Voice reviewer Ella Taylor wrote in a memorable rant, was “crowded with fat Jews, aggressive Jews, passive-aggressive Jews, traitor Jews, loser Jews, shyster-Jews, emo-Jews, Jews who slurp their chicken soup, and—passing as sages—a clutch of yellow-toothed, know nothing rabbis.” They are, to say the least, uniformly unlovely.)

Although a robust disdain for their creatures is a given, it is when the Coens deploy explicitly Jewish characters that their glee turns hostile. The spectacle of the pathetic cringing Jew played by John Turturro on his knees and begging for his life in Miller’s Crossing was less antic than appalling. Turturro starred as another sort of Jew in Barton Fink, which, set in 1941, staged a virtual death match between two then potent stereotypes—the vulgar Hollywood mogul and the arty New York communist—without any hint that their minstrel show battle royale was occurring at the acme of worldwide anti-Semitism. That might have ruined the joke.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on The Casting By Julius Streicher

Inside Llewen Davis – A Goy Among The Yidden

Posted on January 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I was really struck by Inside Llewen Davis. The entire movie is about a goy desperately trying to make his way among Jews in the early 60′s New York folk scene, whether they are promoters, his few fans, or rival musicians, including a crypto-Jew (nice touch). It’s so blatant that it’s a joke that keeps running through the film. The Jewish characters try to help him and give him a break, but his relentless quest for some kind of warped purity as a musician keeps him shooting himself in the foot. The scene where he visits his father shows that he has an “authentic” folk background as a merchant marine, but he rejects that in favor of the Southern hillbilly style that everyone’s trying to emulate in the early 60′s. In the end he gets angry at having to “appropriate” Southern culture and gets his ass kicked literally for it, while the more subtle Bob Dylan literally makes his entrance, possessing all nuancing will make him rise to the top. One can live with paradox, the other can’t- so he fails.

I thought the scene where he has dinner with his Jewish friend who’s about to marry a Chinese girl and they start discussing how to have a multicultural name was another funny scene. Paging Amy Chua.

* …the public will never know that complaining about anti-black animus in the Oscar nominations, and boycotting the ceremony, as Lee very publically did has little to do with a non existent majority of generic whites in the Academy. The group being criticised (ie people who are mainly Jewish) knows it, and they are not without influence. Not a single gentile, including Lee, dared to mention that most of the those supposedly voting bigoted in the Oscar nomination are actually Jewish, because they will take you down if you cross them. He has learned to avoid Jews and concentrate on attacking a non existent white ascendancy. White people laud and reward Lee for attacking them.

* Anti Whitism was unthinkable in Jewish run Hollywood, back when Jews made Yankee Doodle Dandy and Holiday Inn and Miracle on 34th Street.

Jews in Hollywood were busily flooding the nation with depravity, anti-Christian sentiment and miscegenation. It only stopped when the Motion Picture Production Code was forced on them, largely by the political muscle of Catholics at the time. In fact, what Hollywood was busy putting out is made clear by things the Hays Code specifically called out as unacceptable. Among them:

– Pointed profanity – by either title or lip – this includes the words “God,” “Lord,” “Jesus,” “Christ” (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), “hell,” “damn,” “Gawd,” and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled;
– Any licentious or suggestive nudity – in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;
– Any inference of sex perversion;
– White slavery;
– Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races);
– Children’s sex organs;
– Ridicule of the clergy;
– Willful offense to any nation, race or creed;

Of course, the moment the Code was lifted, Hollywood went right back to doing what it had been doing in the first place, and those “shalt nots” in the code pretty much look like a list of “must haves” for current film and television.

* As to Jews, Bill Lee, his father, married a Jewish woman after Lee’s mother passed away. And got hooked on or reverted to abusing street drugs. Jump to your own conclusions.

Wiki-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Lee_(musician)

Though Bill Lee scored his son’s first four movies, they had a falling out shortly after the arrest on drug charges.

“I don’t have anything to do with Spike now,” Lee told New York Newsday in 1994. “We haven’t talked for two years.”

Bill Lee has said their problems started with his son’s intolerance of his interracial second marriage. The family feud began in 1976, when Spike Lee’s mother Jacquelyn died of cancer and Susan Kaplan moved in with Bill. Spike has been quoted as saying, “my mother wasn’t even cold in her grave.”

Bad feelings intensified with Jungle Fever, Spike Lee’s film on White-Black romantic relationships.[6] “That’s directly talking about me and my wife in a negative way,” said Bill Lee, who has a son, Arnold Tone Kaplan Lee, by his present wife.[6] Mrs. Lee has said, “I’ve never been a Spike Lee fan.”[6] In 1992, when Bill Lee asked his son for a few thousand dollars to cover household expenses, Spike turned him down “and his attitude was very insulting,” said Bill Lee in 1994.[6]

Asked if he would give his side of the story, Spike Lee stated, “Hell No.Why should I dignify comments my father said, or play it out in a public forum?”

* Adult kids seldom feel warmly toward their father’s next wife.

* Just because he isn’t being very specific, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. For Lee, Jew is a subset of white. He attacks (more like indicts) whites because he’s not allowed to specify Jews.

It’s akin to the campus rape hysteria where males are indicted because women aren’t allowed to specify foreign/black males.

* I’ve got a great idea for a movie about a man who capitulates to the unreasonable demands of the ADL. It could be called Do The Wrong Thing.

* Is the freaky psychopath who’s the main character in Nightcrawler meant to be Jewish? It looks that way, given that his name is Lou Bloom and he’s played by the Jewish Jake Gyllenhaal.

* It’s allowable because it’s not emphasized. His surname is Bloom, but he exhibits no overtly Ashkenazi traits. And no one describes him as a Jew in the film. Hence, his surname is without dramatic significance.

* I was watching a C-SPAN lecture recently by Steve McWhitey Whiterton White-ingham Inskeep about his book Jacksonland.

Steve “Running Deer” Inskeep kept up a non stop dialogue of white man diseases and white man maps. It was an over the top case of signaling. Inskeep is one of the good ones, ya know. Inskeep also made a point of praising the first woman to ask him a question and demanding more. I mean, there are too many guys already, can’t they just go die or something, after they buy the book.

It did occur to me that many consider smallpox to be a white man’s disease, brewed by the Devil’s own, ignoring all the white victims of the disease and its Asian origins. Rather than see them as another example of how heartlessly cruel Nature or the Divine plan can be,trade-offs from Neolithic innovations, afflicting everyone regardless of individual worth, Old World diseases are recast as an important part in the Manichean tale of Colonialism and Empire. Leftist whites have a hard time dealing with the banal, stony indifference of the Universe.

A much better argument could be made that HIV counts as the black man’s disease. Will Tecumseh Inskeep go there?

I pray to gods above and below everyday that Soros’ eye turns on NPR and its overpaid old white dudes.

* “However, the brothers John and Nicholas Turturro play two white club owners.”

Tell it like it is, Steve: “two Jewish club owners.” As with Donald ‘Sterling’ Tokowitz, they’re only ‘white’ when it’s convenient.

* Speaking of which, is anyone watching Colony on USA Network? The main villain, played by the Der Sturmer cartoon looking Peter Jacobson (the diminutive plastic surgeon from House), is a collaborator, go-between, and all around tax farmer for, apparently, an alien race which has invaded the Earth/US/whatever. There was a scene in episode 1 in which Jacobson explains to the, um, Northern European looking John Holloway that he (Jacobson) is a collaborator because he is smarter than the goyishe kopf resistance. Did I mention Jacobson lives in the Hollywood Hills (I think, not so hot on LA geography, actually). The show’s producer/writer is a Latvian German Catholic Mexican guy named Carlton Cuse. All of which I thought was kind of interesting.

I assume the season 1 plot arc will have Jacobson’s character join the resistance or otherwise redeem himself, but episode 1 was pretty heavy handed.

* Anti-semitism is the one thing that will unite blacks and whites. It will bring the races together. It will heal. It will mend and repair all the hard feeling of the past. It is the one thing above all others, that would do the most good for blacks and whites and Spike Lee is against it.

* “Spike Lee – whose success is largely due to his efforts to break down racial stereotypes and prejudice . . . .” Funny, every Spike Lee movie I have ever seen has been filled with racial stereotypes and prejudice. I guess Mr. Lee’s “efforts” have come up just a bit short.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Inside Llewen Davis – A Goy Among The Yidden

Politico: Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right

Posted on January 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Tucker Carlson writes:

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.
Pretty embarrassing. And yet they’re not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents “an existential threat to conservatism.”
Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal.
It turns out the GOP wasn’t simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.
On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn’t appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good.
Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn’t said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals — these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the “ghost of George Wallace” that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.
Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It’s Thrilling
When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn’t been long. That’s not just a talking point about political correctness. It’s the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t have the words to describe it. You can’t even think about it clearly.
This depressing fact made Trump’s political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it’s thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he’s wrong. It’s especially exciting when you suspect he’s right.
A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven’t assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What’s our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino—attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.
Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.
Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He’s so obviously faking it.
They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they’re looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How’d that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

Posted in America, Donald Trump | Comments Off on Politico: Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right

Coulter: Fox News Is ‘Indistinguishable From George Soros’ On Immigration; ‘Implacably Pro-Open Borders, Anti-Trump’

Posted on January 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Breitbart: Conservative columnist and eleven-time New York Times best-selling author Ann Coulter is blasting Fox News.

“When it comes to immigration, Fox News is indistinguishable from George Soros,” the popular columnist wrote Thursday.

The “Rupert Murdoch enterprise,” Coulter writes, “is implacably pro-open borders, pro-amnesty and, consequently, anti-Trump.”

As Breitbart News has previously reported Rupert Murdoch, Fox News’ founder, is the co-chair of what is arguably one of the nation’s most powerful immigration lobbying firms, the Partnership for a New American Economy. Via his lobbying firm, Murdoch endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s Gang of Eight immigration bill, as well as Rubio’s 2015 immigration expansion bill, and has expressed his support for Rubio’s desire to grant citizenship– and, thereby, voting privileges and welfare access– to illegal aliens.

Coulter’s decision to speak out distinguishes her from the vast majority of conservative thinkers, who fear being iced-out of the so-called “conservative” corporate media.

“You won’t read about Fox News’s open-borders philosophy in National Review. You won’t hear about it on almost any ‘conservative’ webpages, magazines, radio shows, Twitter feeds or blogs,” Coulter writes.

Coulter says this is because “Fox News is the only game in town for conservative commentators and politicians. That’s why no other candidate would dare cross Fox… Viewers beware: The only ‘conservative’ opinion allowed on Fox News involves dissolving the nation’s borders.”

Coulter asserts that there is a real danger in continuing to perpetuate the charade that Fox News represents the “conservative” alternative: “One of the biggest problems facing the nation is that viewers think of Fox as the ‘conservative’ network. If NBC or ABC were this spiteful to Trump, everyone would see it for what it is: political bias. Your enemies can never hurt you; only your ‘friends’ can.”

For the “conservative” network to be pro-open borders is like secretly switching a diabetic’s insulin with sugar. The false labeling is lethal. Millions of people watch Fox News and think they’re getting the conservative antidote, when in fact the open borders corporatists have found a new way to package their open borders poison.

Coulter explains the network’s bias presents itself not so much in what the Fox News hosts say, but rather in what the network’s hosts do not say:

One of the hardest things to notice is what you’re not being told. Immigration is the issue shaking up this entire election and driving Trump to the top of the polls. But at Fox News, immigration is Issue No. 22 — after Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton’s emails, ISIS, ISIS, ISIS, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Export-Import Bank, entitlements reform, ISIS and everything else.

“Fox News’s bias is more insidious,” Coulter writes.

The hosts avoid stridently attacking Trump. You simply never hear from any pro-Trump guests — unless they’re completely ineffective. Immigration-opponents have been aggressively shut out — just as they were when Mr. Amnesty Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)36%
was running for president in 2008; when the Senate was debating Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) amnesty bill in 2013; and when congressional Republicans were trying to defund President Obama’s executive amnesty last year. Are you seeing the pattern?

Former George W. Bush speechwriter and senior editor of The Atlantic, David Frum, recently wrote of Coulter that “perhaps no single writer has had such immediate impact on presidential election since Harriet Beecher Stowe.” Frum explained that in Coulter’s latest book, Adios America, a tour de force on the critical issue of immigration, “Trump found the message that would convulse the Republican primary.”

Yet at the height of national intrigue following Trump’s announcement to abstain from the network’s debate, Fox News viewers tuning into Megyn Kelly’s program were presented with Michael Moore’s commentary on the GOP frontrunner’s decision– rather than Ann Coulter’s analysis.

Posted in Ann Coulter, Immigration | Comments Off on Coulter: Fox News Is ‘Indistinguishable From George Soros’ On Immigration; ‘Implacably Pro-Open Borders, Anti-Trump’

Can Jews Be Trusted?

Posted on January 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Most Jews I know would say no, Jews cannot be trusted, no group can be trusted, only individuals can be trusted, but if non-Jews say the same thing, they’re anti-semitic and must be destroyed.

In other words, the label “anti-semite” is a bully club.

The most polite, law-abiding and ethical Jews I know generally come from England, Germany and Western Europe.

Most Jews in the West love their gentile countries and they do not act like such radical Jewish organizations as the ADL. Few Jews in the West want more Muslim immigration.

We have International Holocaust Remembrance Day but no remembrance day for the victims of communism? Are Jewish lives more important than Gentile lives?

Do you think rabbis can be trusted? If so, read this book Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History by Marc B. Shapiro where you will learn that lying for the greater good (whatever the rabbi decides is the greater good, the glory of Torah, communal cohesion, etc) is often considered kosher.

In my experience, religiosity among Jews does not currently correlate with ethics.

Chaim Amalek: “Most people do not trust most people, not even their own kind. High trust societies are the soon to be extirpated exception, just ask Angela Merkel, goy-killer Hammer of the Goyim.”

According to this study: “45% of European Muslims believe that Jews cannot be trusted.”

Israel is the Jewish country and it is also a low-trust society.

I suspect a higher percentage of Jews believe that Jews can’t be trusted than Muslims believe Jews can’t be trusted.

Life is competition. Resources are scarce. All groups are in competition for these scarce resources and hence have different and often competing interests.

I am not arguing that any group is bad. Every group is the product of genes and environment and choices. Another people with the Jewish genetic mix who went through the Jewish historical experience (living as a tiny minority for thousands of years in the diaspora, sometimes oppressed and sometimes oppressing) would behave like Jews do today.

The Anglo-Saxon genetic mix is very different from the Jewish genetix mix and the Anglo-Saxon historical experience is very different from the Jewish one. Judaism and Protestantism are very different religions and they develop different cultures. White Anglo countries are consistently high-trust, low-corruption societies. Jews are more like Asians in their in-group vs out-group distinctions. For instance, the East Asians I’ve known tend to be intelligent, hard-working and sometimes duplicitous when it comes to dealing with outsiders (the Japanese are the least duplicitous).

Jews from Germany and Western Europe tend to be nicer to the goyim than Jews from Eastern Europe who lived in a situation of mutual loathing with the goyim for centuries. You can read Shalom Aleichem for many stories of Eastern Europe where Jews tended to a skeptical view of their fellow Jews, not to mention the goyim.

Many Christians and Muslims do not believe that God listens to the prayers of Jews, but a far higher percentage of Jews believe that God does not listen to the prayers of Jews.

Gene Expression says:

Jews are among the most wealthy groups in America, with a median income close to $100,000 a year.

Naively, you might expect Israel to be about as wealthy. Israel is, after all, a country filled with Jews. Yet Israel is far poorer than a hypothetical “Jewish-America,” and is also poorer than America in general. Israel’s wealth is a little difficult to parcel out due to the presence of a large Arab minority. Yet even if you assign an income of non-Jews of 0, you arrive at an Israeli per capita GDP of $36,000. By comparison, both Ireland and America are in excess of $45,000 per capita. Corrections for Purchase Price Parity correct for some, but not all, of this difference.

This is part of a general phenomenon. As Tino has calculated, virtually all hyphenated-Americans do better in America than their home country.

With respect to European countries, this makes sense. As has been argued elsewhere, America/Europe income differences are due in no small part to different taxation policies. Lower marginal tax rates do have long-term effects on standards of living, even if they don’t “pay for themselves.”

Figuring out what’s going on in Israel is a bit trickier. This country looks more free-market than European standards. There are two crucial issues here:

1) Trade is very low. For its given level of wealth, Israel has a very small export sector. For instance, it has about an eighth as many exports as Belgium, a country with an economy less than twice as large. This should come as no surprise—the largest determinant of trade volume is geography, and Israel faces a far rougher neighborhood than Belgium. This forces Israel to produce more products domestically, rather than specialize.

2) Israel is a low trust society. I caught a lot of flack for this in the comments, but I stand by this statement. There is an enormous literature tracing the effects of trust and cooperation on firm size and GDP. In general, where social trust and cooperation is low — corruption is higher, and firms tend to be small-scale organizations built on kinship links. Managers must actively monitor their employees, rather than being able to scale up.

Somewhat surprisingly, Israel stands out as a country with high IQ but low levels of trust. Some 56% of Israelis report that you cannot trust others, which is a figure comparable to other low-trust societies like South Korea or Italy. Think of Israel as a Mezzogiorno with nuclear weapons.

One manifestation of this is that there are very few large Israeli firms. Teva, a generic drugs manufacturer, is a notable exception. By contrast, high-trust Switzerland is home to several national superstars like UBS, Novartis, TAG Hauser, etc. Israel’s economy is dominated by small-scale firms, many of which are founded by people who formed close bonds in the IDF. Even in America, there are host of large Jewish-founded firms, like Google.

Of course, a lack of large, productive multinationals may play a role in explaining Israel’s relatively poor economic performance. Firms with scale and branding are able to tap into the tail ends of a “smiley curve” economy by focusing on the value-added activities of branding, design, and distribution. Smaller firms operating in heavily competitive industries, by contrast, earn few economic rents.

It’s in this vein I want to revisit Helen Thomas’ comments that the Jews should return home. Set aside the Ashkenazi bias implicit in this question (where would Jews from or Iraq go?). A simple calculation would suggest that a mass relocation of Jews to other Western Democracies (particularly free market ones like America) would allow them to plug into a high-trust societies with more robust institutions.

More broadly, though we frequently assume that individuals are the same everywhere and growth should be possible for all — this just doesn’t look to be the case. The roots of post-Malthusian explosive growth are deeply rooted in a particular institutional form which was innovated in the Netherlands and exported to England in the Revolution of 1688. From there, it spread to a group of Anglophone settler nations and colonial dependencies like Singapore and Hong Kong (and by further American tutelage to countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan). Alternative reforms were innovated in France after the French Revolution and spread by force throughout Europe.

We really have few examples of countries doing successfully economically without borrowing heavily from these models. For instance, Chile is the really successful part of South America, and they have also done the most to mirror First World institutions through the imposition of reforms led by the Chicago boys. China is a potential counter-example, yet the lesson here remains ambiguous as long as the country remains as poor as El Salvador. Again — look at the enormous success of Chinese transplants in more Anglo environments like Singapore, Taiwan, or Hong Kong. That is presumably indicative of Chinese potential GDP; and by that standard China is doing abysmally. Its institutions are to blame. (Interestingly, though China reports itself a high-trust society, it is also home to few large brands. Those that come to mind — like Huawei — are frequently state-supported. By contrast, poorer India already has several well-known brands like Tata, Infosys, Wipro, etc.)

There’s not a lot we can do to fix this. Moving the Jewish or Palestinian population out of Israel en mass isn’t a feasible option. Yet transforming these into high-trust societies overnight isn’t an option either. Paul Romer has advocated establishing charter cities around the world which would set up top-notch institutional enclaves in poor areas, yet he has found few backers.

Chaim Amalek: “But this piece notes that South Korea too, is a low trust society. And yet the South Koreans have built up a number of gigantic, world-embracing corporations (e.g., Samsung). It seems that high trust societies are uncommon, and that they must be either overwhelmingly Nordic or Japanese and that’s it.”

Comments to Gene Expression:

* All of the above is fascinating to read (I’m Israeli but was born in America and lived there for more than 20 years).
About the trust issue here, this is really a zero-sum society. People go through life with the attitude that you have to lose in order for me to win. This is applied to everything – like driving on the highways and negotiations in business – in a way that dramatically lowers the quality of life here. It makes dealing with Israel difficult for outsiders who are viewed as “frayers” (suckers or marks) because they aren’t cutthroat. I can’t imagine how much foreign investment we’ve lost because of this.
The business mentality here is also remarkably unlike in western countries. In America, they say that the customer is “always right.” A typical Israeli approach to customer service is that the customer must be proven wrong. Attitudes like that cost everyone in the society a lot.
Besides the above, it’s not having friendly neighbors and the relatively high cost of trading with other parts of the world; it’s having to direct resources to absorbing and resettling Jewish immigrants from many poor countries like Ethiopia; it’s being at war and diverting such a large portion of GDP to defense; and it’s the stifling socialism of the founders’ generation that still lingers.

* I believe Israel’s relative wealth has shot up since massive reform and privatization 10-15 years ago. Give them time.
As for inter-country comparisons of elite groups, the smaller the elite community as a proportion of the general population, the richer they are. Cf. Indians in colonial East Africa compared with their relatives back home. Chinese in the US compared with Chinese in China. Jews in countries with small Jewish communities (Venezuela, Colombia) compared with those in the U.S. Within the US, the mass Jewish community in New York has much larger lower-middle and working-class populations than the smaller Jewish communities around the country.
In other words: how many doctors, lawyers, and real estate developers can a state or country possibly support?

* Several factors at play here:
1. American jews are mostly Ashkenazi. (probably the biggest factor).
2. Geographics – Israel is low on natural resources.
3. the Israeli-Arab conflict denies trade with a good part of the neighboring countries while international reputation probably hurts trading opportunities with the rest of the world.
3. infrastructure – Israel is a young country.

* Steve Sailer: The original Zionists didn’t intend for Israel to be a particularly rich country, they intended for it to be a normal country, with a lot of farmers, soldiers, and other low-paid people. They strove hard to change Jewish culture from being a middle-man minority culture to a less elite, less intellectual, and less capitalist one suitable for being a majority culture.
To some extent, they succeeded.

* Israel is a rich country on par with Europe. For a country at war for 60 years, where 8% of the GDP now (and up to 25% in the pst) goes to the army, where 10% of the population is ultra-orthodox Jews who do not work, 20% are Arabs whose women do not work and have low education, whit yor neighbors trying to kill you and going out of decades of semi-socialism – yes this is a huge achievement.
Per capita gdp ppp should be higher than France and Germany by 2015-2020. Not bad, no ?

* I was referring to PISA IQ – which is based on large population samples, and removes any obvious massaging of data – the results are as follows:
1 Hongkong 104
2 Finland 103
3 Korea (South) 103
4 Netherlands 102
5 Switzerland 102
6 Japan 102
7 Canada 101
8 Belgium 100
9 New Zealand 100
10 Australia 100
11 UnitedKingdom 99
12 Denmark 99
13 Sweden 98
14 Austria 98
15 Czech Republic 98
16 France 98
17 Iceland 98
18 Ireland 98
19 Germany 97
20 Norway 96
21 Slovakia 96
22 Hungary 95
23 Poland 94
24 Spain 94
25 United States 94
26 Latvia 93
27 Luxembourg 93
28 Russia 93
29 Italy 91
30 Portugal 91
31 Greece 89
32 Israel 88
33 Uruguay 86
34 Bulgaria 85
35 Thailand 85
36 Turkey 85
37 Chile 81
38 Mexico 81
39 Argentina 79
40 Indonesia 78
41 Tunisia 76
42 Brazil 75

* Israel is performing in the Greece/Portugal range instead of Ireland/UK exactly as one would expect. It is perhaps best thought of as a Southern Mediterranean country with a high-performing element, rather than a high-performing economy with a few problems.

* There’s a basic mistaken assumption here: Jews in Israel = Jews in America. Mizrachim are more numerous among Israeli Jewry, and are less intelligent than Ashkenazis. And, the Ashkenazis in Israel might not be as intelligent as those in America, due to selection effects, and the high birth rates of haredim.

Israel gets a lot of praise, but when you go there, it’s not all that impressive. You pay more for shittier things, and it feels like everyone is trying to swindle you. The strength of unions, which every American comments on, must have some effect as well.

* Regarding trust among Jews, I can only opine that it is not at all surprising for someone to suggest that Israel is low trust. I am the product of a mixed Jewish/Christian upbringing and there are significant issues of trust along the Jewish side of my family. During the last family get-together, my Jewish aunts openly discussed how much they thought could screw their brother in charges for the family beach house. When asked by my wife why they wouldn’t just give Andrew their portion of the home for a reasonable price, they replied “Honey, because we are Jewish.” Surely, just a single incident but hardly the first I have witnessed.

I have also worked with some of the most powerful Hasids in the USA and they too often discussed screwing someone over. Very strange indeed because they assumed it was just how business was done. Of course, they couldn’t be more wrong. Most successful enterprises rely upon actions that are less than charitable, but to build a large edifice in a low margin endeavor like manufacturing you cannot succeed if you people, to include your employees, think they might be screwed over. Everyday with the Hasids was an adventure and every day I saw the duplicity and/or indifference. Indifference is not limited to transactions, it is also includes how you run your internal processes and the process stability you value.

Maybe my experiences have abnormal, but I don’t see any evidence to support such a notion. From my family to the Hasids, every Jew was smart to brilliant, but that is not enough to create powerhouse manufacturing and R&D firms that will endure. Trading, finance and retail (barter) are all different animals compared to building a firm like 3M.

* My brother used to be a manager in the leather business in a Jewish area in Paris mostly involved in confection. He said he was dumbfounded by the inordinate amount of time and resources the Jews spent in trying to screw each other and over peanuts.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel, Jews | Comments Off on Can Jews Be Trusted?

The Scientific Revolution and Modern Bedikat Tola’im Trends

Posted on January 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Tzvi Adams writes: Many people today assume that leafy vegetables must be thoroughly washed and inspected before eating to ascertain that tiny insects such as aphids, spider mites and thrips are not present. Rabbi Moshe Vaye, in his encyclopedic Bedikat HaMazon KaHalacha (3 vol./Heb.), has educated the public to the fact that minuscule insects are common in nearly all greens and finds legal support for their prohibition from respected poskim from centuries ago to modern times. On the other hand, Rabbi Eitam Henkin’s Lechem Yehiyeh L’achla provides reasoning for a more lenient attitude. Using technical halachic argumentation, Henkin makes an excellent case for a more relaxed approach to bedikat tola’im. Perhaps the route to reaching the halachic truth is to step back and take a broad historical assessment of this topic. I argue that the rabbis of the Mishna, Talmud, and medieval era ignored these tiny insects and ate the greens without careful rinsing or inspection. This lenient halacha continued until the 17th century when some rabbis wrote of the existence of very small bugs in salad greens. I posit that this new trend in halacha was due not to a new phenomenon in nature but to new discoveries in science:
The Scientific Revolution of the 16th – 18th centuries which produced the compound microscope and improved magnifiers, the discovery of life at the micro-level, the study of entomology and biological pest control, made rabbis more alert for smaller creatures crawling on their food.
I will demonstrate that though many rabbis of the recent centuries clearly forbade even tiny lettuce bugs, many Jews ignored these warnings and continued to eat garden greens with no concern for the presence of small insects. This lenient practice changed only in the last several decades in the modern age of ‘chumra’tism.

Posted in Orthodoxy | Comments Off on The Scientific Revolution and Modern Bedikat Tola’im Trends

Spike Lee: “I Am Not an Anti-Semite”

Posted on January 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek: “This entire movement to “diversify” the Academy Awards is really a not much more than an attempt to de-Judaize Hollywood. Only white liberals are unable to confront this from either end, so there is this. YIDDEN BEWARE! AN ATTACK ON HOLLYWOOD’S WHITES IS AN ATTACK ON US! THE DEFENSE OF YIDDEN BEGINS WITH DEFENDING WHAT IS OURS: HOLLYWOOD AND WALL STREET!”

Steve Sailer writes:

With movie director Spike Lee much in the news for denouncing whiteness in the entertainment industry, my Taki’s Magazine column points out that Spike got in all sorts of trouble way back in 1990 for making too clear that his resentment of whites being in positions of power over black entertainers is especially focused on Jews.

Here’s a 1990 New York Times article that’s fairly explicit about what can and cannot be gotten away with:

Critic’s Notebook; Spike Lee’s Jews and the Passage From Benign Cliche Into Bigotry
CARYN JAMES
Published: August 16, 1990

In Spike Lee’s ”Do the Right Thing,” there is a scene he refers to in the published screenplay as ”The Racial Slur Montage.” One by one, a range of ethnic characters stare into the camera and spit out vicious, stereotypical descriptions of some other ethnic group. … The variety of types demonstrates that all bigotry is interchangable, all equally harmful.

There is nothing that reasonable in the stereotypical portrayal of two Jewish characters in Mr. Lee’s new film, ”Mo’ Better Blues,” the story of an obsessed and troubled black jazz musician.

Mo’ Better Blues from 1990 is probably my favorite Spike Lee movie. Here’s a pleasant musical interlude from the film:

Although, like most of Lee’s pictures, it’s chaotically plotted. (Spike has numerous talents, but plotting isn’t one of them.)

Denzel Washington plays a jazz musician (presumably inspired by Lee’s father), with the movie featuring lots of other star power, such as Wesley Snipes as a rival musician, and in a small but important role toward the end, a young Samuel L. Jackson. The film nominally takes place in the present, but looks like it is set in his father’s younger days. (That kind of ambiguity could be considered sloppy, but I like it.)

Because it’s a movie with an almost all-black cast, it has a conservative family values message.

However, the brothers John and Nicholas Turturro play two white club owners, and that wound up causing no end of trouble for Lee:

In creating the minor characters of Josh and Moe Flatbush, club owners who exploit the black musicians in the film, Mr. Lee has elicited charges of anti-Semitism from many critics, a charge the film maker disputes.
In his review in Newsweek, David Ansen called them ”Shylocks.” In Newsday, Mike McGrady said they are ”craven” caricatures. Garry Giddins in his review in The Village Voice labeled the roles ”undoubtedly anti-Semitic,” but went on to say, ”Don’t let that lapse keep you from seeing” the film. When I reviewed ”Mo’ Better Blues,” in The New York Times, I described the Flatbush brothers as ”money-grubbing, envious, ugly stereotypes with sharks’ smiles.”

The Anti-Defamation League said last week that the characterizations ”dredge up an age-old and highly dangerous form of anti-Semitic stereotyping,” and that the organization ”is disappointed that Spike Lee – whose success is largely due to his efforts to break down racial stereotypes and prejudice – has employed the same kind of tactics that he supposedly deplores.”

And so what began as Mr. Lee’s least overtly controversial film may become one of his most controversial nonetheless. The depiction of Jews in ”Mo’ Better Blues,” as well as remarks Mr. Lee has made in recent interviews, distills two questions: When does a fictional character become an offensive stereotype? How do an artist’s public remarks reverberate and shape an audience’s perception of a film? These questions are acute in the case of Mr. Lee, whose work always has a political undercurrent and whose career is rooted at the crossroads of art and publicity.

The difference between the intelligent analysis of bigotry among blacks and Italians in ”Do the Right Thing” and the disturbing Jewish stereotypes in ”Mo’ Better Blues” is more than the difference between an artistic success and a failure. It’s true that ”Mo’ Better Blues” is muddled in its conception of the musician-hero, who must lose his art to gain a family, and its portrayal of women is pathetically shallow. But Josh and Moe, mirror-images whose repetitions of each other’s opinions are meant to be comic, are not merely stylized or failed characterizations.

The Flatbush brothers (played by real-life brothers, John and Nicholas Turturro) are so loaded with despicable traits typically used to disparage Jews that they might have been invented by someone in the Racial Slur Montage. They become rich by gouging others; they are deceitful; when challenged they threaten to sue. In thick New York-Jewish accents they accuse the underpaid black musicians of ”trying to take food from my children’s mouth.” And when the hero is seriously injured in a back-alley fight, Moe demands that the rest of the band go back onstage. Josh objects, in a tone that has little to do with human sympathy and much to do with the businesslike recognition that the star cannot go on. These caricatures are wildly out of synch with the film’s other roles. …

But the Flatbush brothers are the film’s villains, their greed inseparable from their Jewish identity. And because there are no other Jews to offset them, they become tokens of an entire ethnic group. In ”Do the Right Thing,” the Italian characters are fully defined and represent a fair range of qualities, from Danny Aiello’s ambiguous pizza-parlor owner to his two sons, one an unbiased peacemaker and the other a trouble-making bigot played by John Turturro. In that broader context, Mr. Turturro portrays an individual who is Italian and who has offensive ideas – a clearly conceived role far from his simplistic stereotype of Moe. …

Mr. Lee, among others, has cited the black chauffeur played by Morgan Freeman in ”Driving Miss Daisy” as a demeaning throwback. The charge carries a great deal of validity. The chauffeur, Hoke, exudes an older generation’s sense of ”knowing his place” socially: it is far beneath that of his imperious employer, Miss Daisy, who is Jewish but indistinguishable from any Southern, Protestant white lady. Both characters, however, have sympathetic features that rescue them from being insulting stereotypes. Hoke has a strong sense of self-worth; Miss Daisy’s hidden emotions surface when her synagogue is bombed. They are simplistic throwbacks, but they were not conceived in one-dimensional or malicious terms.

… Whether the Flatbush brothers were born of artistic carelessness or intentional malice, they leap off the screen as such strongly offensive types that they have taken on meaning beyond the film itself. They have moved into the realm of public controversy, where Mr. Lee’s personal opinions come into play.

In a great flurry of interviews given before and after the release of the film, in newspapers and on morning, afternoon and prime-time talk shows, Mr. Lee has denied being anti-Semitic yet sent a contrary message about Jewish control of black artists.

Mr. Lee told Daily Variety that his father, the bass player Bill Lee, ”worked for a majority of jazz club owners who were Jewish; this is not an indictment of them.” He went on, ”When I wrote the film, I wanted to put in how black artists had to fight against being exploited.” But because the exploiters in ”Mo’ Better Blues” are stereotypical Jews, Mr. Lee does make an ethnic indictment. (He also ignores the fact that Jewish club-owners like Max Gordon and Barney Josephson were important promoters of black jazz performers).

In the same interview, Mr. Lee said: ”I am not anti-Semitic. Do you think Lew Wasserman, Sidney Sheinberg or Tom Pollock would allow it in my picture?” He was naming the heads of the parent company, MCA, and Universal Studios, which made the film. And when asked on ABC’s ”Prime Time” whether his films can express any message at all as long as they make money – a wide-open question that did not refer to ”Mo’ Better Blues” – Mr. Lee answered, ”I couldn’t make an anti-Semitic film.” Asked why not, he said that Jews run Hollywood, and ”that’s a fact.” In such statements, Mr. Lee is taking on an issue that heated up last month when a panelist at the N.A.A.C.P.’s annual conference charged that ”Jewish racism” is holding back blacks in the film industry.

Watching ”Mo’ Better Blues” with these comments in mind, viewers are likely to find that Mr. Lee’s sense of Jewish control informs the Flatbushes far more than his disclaimers about good intentions. The characters seem even more loaded with the weight of his public opinions, even less forgivable as misguided artistic failures.

Mr. Lee’s use of his public presence has sometimes been greatly effective; on- and offscreen, he has done a great deal to combat the racism that undoubtedly still exists in Hollywood. But in his remarks about Jews he seems on an inflammatory course. And ”Mo’ Better Blues” suggests that attitude has done his art no good.

Poor Spike had to reply in the columns of the NYT with an op-ed with the self-defeating headline:

I Am Not an Anti-Semite

by Spike Lee

August 22, 1990

In 2012, Spike looked back on this turning point in his career in a profile by Ariel Levy for New York:

“B’nai Brith and the Anti- Defamation League, they were on my ass,” he says. “You don’t know what it is for someone to get on your ass until B’nai Brith and Anti- Defamation League …”

Eventually Lee placated his persecutors by writing an op-ed piece for the Times, but the whole thing still makes him mad when he thinks about it. And the truth is, he’s not sorry about portraying Mo and Josh Flatbush as Jewish bloodsuckers, feeding off the talents of black musicians. “Here’s the thing, though: It’s more than being a stereotype,” says Lee. “In the history of American music, there have not been Jewish people exploiting black musicians? In the history of music? How is that being stereotypical? For me, that’s like saying, like the NBA is predominantly black. Now, if that makes me anti- Semitic …” For a minute, he actually engages and sort of laughs. “I’m not writing any more op-ed pieces,” he says. “I did it once. I’m not doing it again. Seriously. I’m not doing it again.”

My Taki’s column, “The Oscar Grouches,” puts all this in wider perspective.

COMMENTS:

* Wait a minute.

If one were to meet a couple of bad Jews, it would be wrong or ‘antisemitic’ to assume that ALL Jews are like that.

Fair enough.

So, how does it make sense to assume that Spike Flea believes that ALL Jews are bad because two Jewish characters in his film are negative?

So, if I make a movie with two nasty Japanese characters, it means I hate all Japanese?

If anything, the Jewish critics are the real bigots because they wouldn’t have raised a fuss if the two baddies in Mo Worse Jews were Polish, Irish, Italian, Chinese, or etc.

This stirs up some memories.
In my city school in 6th grade, there was one Jewish kid named Ted. Rest were black, white, Asian, and etc. Around that time, the Viet Boat kids were coming in.
And one had a name Chieu but he pronounced it as ‘Joo’.
One day, I did a cartoon where everyone’s killing and destroying one another, and I titled it “Jew’s World”. I really meant “Chieu’s World” but since he pronounced his name as ‘Joo’ or ‘Jew’, I just used ‘Jew’. Since Vietnam was associated with war and violence, my cartoon was all about people killing and blowing each other up in the most horrible way. Anyway, Ted sees my cartoon and gets all angry and starts fuming.
So, I tell him it’s not about his people. It’s about Chieu’s people. “Jew’s World” is really “Chieu’s World”. And then Ted was all smiles and thought the images were pretty funny. It no longer mattered that it was ‘offensive’.

We see the same pattern in all this bitching about Spike Flea.

Worse, didn’t Hollywood give us so many movies with bad Russians, bad Arabs, bad Asians, bad blondie ‘aryans’, etc?

* Spike learned well that attention must be paid.

* Spike Lee has always had a lot of animus against Italian-Americans. You can see that in “Do the Right Thing”, “Jungle Fever”, “Summer of Sam”, and “Miracle at St. Anna.” For some reason, that’s not brought up much.

Sort of how like Rev Jeremiah Wright said that Italians have “garlic noses”, but it was his comments about Jews and Israel that got him (and Obama) in trouble.

* I don’t care about some woman I’ll never meet sleeping with someone not like me. Thiugh Jungle Fever is a leading indicator f anti White behavior. Why would I since it doesn’t affect me?

I ***do*** care very much when White women move the culture so I am not hired, or given a raise, or fired simply because I am a White man. Anti Whitism was unthinkable in Jewish run Hollywood, back when Jews made Yankee Doodle Dandy and Holiday Inn and Miracle on 34th Street. So too in the 20s when Zane Grey and Dashiell Hammet pulps often contained unironically “mighty White of ya.”

There is a reason Tancredo, and Brimelow, and Sailer, and Coulter, and Sessions all failed to move public opinion on immigration/immavasion. Brimelow in articular has been failing, for almost thirty years. Why?

Because he failed to account for the female support for immavaders. Period. Trump moved the window because he’s been the funny Alpha male boss on tv for thirty years. That simple. Alphas can do nearly anything they want.

Bill Gates can buy or sell Trump. But its not money. Look at their respective wives. Alphadom is charisma, presence, persuasion.

And in six months a reality tv star with Alpha status dud more than Tancredo did in thirty years. But hey charge right into those machine guns. Pretend they are not there and they will go away.

* Spike Lee also including unflattering and stereotypical brief Jewish roles in Summer of Sam and The 25th Hour. Has he ever had a positive, or moderately human Jewish role in any of his films?

* Spike isn’t bad at dialog, but his plots are poor. That seems like a soluble problem, but he largely hasn’t solved it.

* The funny thing about Spike Lee and Jews is that he fits some Jewish stereotypes himself, being a short mouthy highly verbal quarrelsome art-house director. You could compare him to a black Woody Allen, although I think Woody Allen is a better auteur/director.

To some degree stereotypes of American Jews and stereotypes of New Yorkers align very closely; some characteristics we associate with being Jewish in America come from being a New Yorker and on occasion vice versa. Donald Trump is of course not Jewish but in his brash, aggressive personal he comes off as more ‘ethnic’ and ‘Jewish’ than e.g. someone like Ben Bernanke, who is a calm, quiet, polite Jew from the deep south.

* Some of Spike’s beef with Jews comes from his being similarly bourgeois. He’s a third generation college graduate.

* I think Lee uses Italians as stand-ins for Jews. He knows he can say negative things about Italians that he could never say about Jews.

* He shows Jews pretty much the same same way he shows whites. This is why he is called an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite is someone who refuses to believe that Jews are better than whites.

* John Turturro can play loathsome Jew “Bernie Birnbaum” in the Coen Brothers’ MILLER’S CROSSING without anyone having to mass-apologize via an op-ed because…..oh, I dunno….let’s say “Holocaust”. Because Holocaust.

Mystifyingly, however, the Coens can lovingly depict nearly every white middle-American gentile in all of their films as either vacuously tasteless boobs or jolly, affable psychopaths (capable of any atrocity in the twinkle of an eye), without feeling the need to explain themselves to the nation at large.

* My favorite of Spike Lee’s movies is 1992 Malcolm X.

Last year, Chris Hedges claimed that when it comes to understanding White racism against Black, Malcolm X was much smarter than Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Malcolm X, unlike Martin Luther King Jr., did not believe America had a conscience. For him there was no great tension between the lofty ideals of the nation—which he said were a sham—and the failure to deliver justice to blacks. He, perhaps better than King, understood the inner workings of empire. He had no hope that those who managed empire would ever get in touch with their better selves to build a country free of exploitation and injustice,” Chris Hedges says at Truthdig on February 1, 2015.

Chris Hedges says that Malcolm was against Capitalism (Usury). He quotes Malcolm X: “It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck,” Malcolm said. “Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it’s more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody’s blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, then capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It’s only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely.”

However, for obvious reasons, Chris Hedges avoid to mention that for the above two reasons, Malcolm X was hated by the Organized Jewry. Rev. King on the other hand, was, and still is, loved by the Organized Jewry.

* Dylan’s “Dear Landlord” is a complaint to his manager, Albert Grossman. It’s fair to say that Dylan and Lee share some sentiments.

* The unvarnished truth is that exploiting black musicians is a long tradition. For years, most of the venues featuring blacks outside of the black-run juke joints and the chitlin circuit were mob connected, Jewish run, or both. Most of the small record labels that featured black musicians were also Jewish run. Herman Lubinsky (Savoy) and Bob Weinstock (Prestige) left a trail of resentment from black musicians over their business practices. We can be thankful for their role in distributing some great music that might have otherwise have never been recorded, while acknowledging that they were shysters. Portraying tightwad, grasping, coercive Jewish club owners was merely portraying a facet of reality that it is not politically correct to acknowledge. Spike Lee owed no apology.

My feelings about Spike Lee are kind of like my feelings about Miles Davis. Great artists, raised in comfort and privilege, with an obnoxious and inauthentic tendency to leverage star power to mouth off in a posture of racial resentment.

Posted in America, Anti-Semitism, Blacks | Comments Off on Spike Lee: “I Am Not an Anti-Semite”