December 14, 2015 Immigrant Nation Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Immigrant Nation

Posted on December 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

* If the premise is ‘America is a nation of immigrants’, then America is no longer America unless it keeps taking in more immigrants. And it means immigrants are ‘more American’ than those with deep roots here. So, native-born Americans must reverse-assimilate to the world filled with potential immigrants.

It’s like if man is defined as a consumer, he must keep buying(even stuff he doesn’t need or can’t afford) to be a man.US, as currently defined, must keep consuming immigrants.

The elites prefer immigrants cuz the immigrants have no roots, claim, and memory in America that boost goy nationalism. Instead, the immigrants are merely grateful to the sector of America
(the globo-elites) that facilitated their easy entry.

Also, the immigrants’ children, being raised on PC, are useful as agents who spread America-style ‘culture and values’ back to their home countries. A kind of neo-imperialism.

Look at Mexico. Its ‘values’ are becoming more globo-Americanized with stuff like ‘gay marriage’ in urban areas.

In a way, the ‘anti-American’ and pro-minority aspects of PC fool the children of immigrants into believing that the New American culture and ‘values’ are on their side and empowers them against ‘racist’ whites. After all, ‘leftist’ Obama is president, a development that suddenly made so many nations pro-American even though Obama is merely a servant of Jewish-homo oligarchs who seek to weaken the national sovereignty of every nation but Israel.

In truth, PC is really designed to aid globo-minoritarian-elitism in every nation but Israel.
What does American-style PC do in Russia, Iran, Mexico, Vietnam, etc?

It promotes homos allied with the globo-US empire.

* The only policies with a realistic chance of achieving goals are ones that are highly visible to the public, like banning all immigration from Country X, Y and Z.

* John Derbyshire has long advocated a coherent “population policy.” He’s right, of course. But a country as factionalized and fractured as the United States is by race, class, religion, etc., is probably incapable of agreeing on anything so reasonable. My personal prediction is either tyranny and/or de facto if not de jure partition.

* Steve is too humble to say so directly but he is ultimately the source of Trump’s ideas on immigration that have turned the presidential campaign upside down. Just as certainly as Donald Trump is articulating the ideas from Ann Coulter’s book, the ideas in her book come from Steve Sailer. Ann Coulter has always talked about how bad liberals are, etc. but in the past she said little about immigration beyond the old Republican platitudes about illegal immigrants are breaking the law and immigration is O.K. as long as the law is followed, etc. Everything about immigrants turning America into a third world hellhole, etc. are Steve’s ideas expressed in Coulter’s venomous style.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

Staunch promoter of multiculturalism for Australia, says multiculturalism is bad for Israel

Posted on December 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Blog: Isi Leibler loves multiculturalism. Except he also really hates it.

Isi Leiber on Australia: “There is a need to sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part and parcel of.”

Isi Leibler on Israel: “Multiculturalism has no place in Israel.”

Isi Leiber is an internationally known Jewish leader and former chairman of the board of directors of the World Jewish Congress and the former leader of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. He was major proponent of multiculturalism, open borders, and cultural Marxism in Australia. He moved to Israel in 1999 and still advocates multiculturalism for Australia while advocating nationalism and homogeneity in Israel at the same time.

In 2012 he wrote this article explicitly praising the decline of Australia homogeneity. He gloats that Australia is no longer “exclusively white and primarily of British origin.” Leiber praises the downfall of the “racist exclusionary” White Australia Policy.

However, Leiber is now living in Israel and showing shocking hypocrisy. He writes article for the Jerusalem Post about the horrors of multiculturalism in Israel. He recently wrote in the Jerusalem Post that “this is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews.” Leiber has also stated “multiculturalism has no place in Israel.”

Isi’s wife Naomi is the president of Emunah, a Jewish women’s organization. She says that “assimilation and intermarriage” are the “greatest threats to world Jewry.”

FROM ISI LEIBER’S 2012 ESSAY:

Australia’s Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, who will be visiting Israel this week, has a longstanding warm relationship with the Jewish community.
Carr boasts a distinguished political career, having served uninterruptedly for a record 10 years as premier of Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales, retiring in 2005. He was recently appointed foreign minister by Prime Minister Julia Gillard in March 2012.
Carr’s links with the Australian Jewish community date back many years. He was one of the founding members of Labor Friends of Israel and was also renowned for his support for the campaign for Soviet Jewry.
He is an admirer of left-wing Israeli writer Amos Oz and has on occasion been critical of various Israeli government policies, its settlement program in particular.
In 2003, he created a stir when he presented the Sydney Peace Prize to Hanan Ashrawi, the acerbic Palestinian critic of Israel. But notwithstanding this, Carr has been and unquestionably remains a genuine friend of Israel and the Jewish people and the government of Israel will undoubtedly treat him accordingly.
Australia’s positive relationship with Israel dates back to when Australian troops served in Palestine in the course of the two World Wars. To this day, veteran Israelis recount vignettes of the warm and uninhibited relationships with the Australians in stark contrast to the cold and frequently hostile British attitudes displayed throughout the mandatory period.
Since 1948, when Labor Party leader Dr. H. V. Evatt served as UN president, until today – with the solitary exception of prime minister Gough Whitlam, whose hostility against Israel during the Yom Kippur War is considered an aberration – successive governments on both sides of the political spectrum have consistently displayed friendship to Israel.
Australian governments also supported broader Jewish concerns. In 1962, Australia became the first country at the UN to raise the issue of Soviet state-sponsored anti-Semitism and called for the right of Jews to emigrate, with successive governments making significant global contributions towards ameliorating the plight of Soviet Jews.
The Australian Embassy in Moscow was regarded as a haven for refuseniks who they invited to receptions despite the tensions this created with the Soviet authorities.
The Australian government made major contributions to the global campaign to rescind the UN resolution bracketing Zionism with racism and also acted as intermediaries for Jewish leaders who sought to promote diplomatic relations between Israel and Asian countries.
Following the previous Liberal (conservative) government headed by John Howard, who emerged as Israel’s greatest champion amongst world statesmen, concerns that the new Labor government would distance itself from Israel proved to be totally unfounded.
In fact, aside from the small Green factions, Israel today enjoys genuine bipartisan support throughout the entire Australian parliament.
Until the late 1940s, Australia’s population was exclusively white and primarily of British origin. It was regarded as a backward colonial outpost notorious for its racist exclusionary White Australia Policy. Initially, there was considerable anti-Semitic based populist opposition to the entry of prewar Jewish refugees and postwar survivors.
Why should a country so geographically distant from the Middle East with a relatively small Jewish community (approximately 120,000), have adopted such a warm relationship with Jews and Israel? One of the principal factors was is that in the late 1940s, Australia underwent radical change. It scrapped the White Australia policy, rescinded its restrictive immigration policy and recruited migrants, initially from Europe but then extended to Asia, transforming itself into one the most open-minded multicultural countries in the world.
The genesis of the Jewish community dates back to the end of the 18th century when Jews were amongst the first convicts deported from England to Australia. It was a declining and rapidly assimilating community until the Second World War when it was reinvigorated by Jews fleeing Nazi persecution and survivors from the camps. Indeed, Australia’s Jewish community absorbed more Holocaust survivors proportionately than any other Jewish community, aside from Israel.
Jewish cultural and religious life developed dramatically. The immigrants created an extraordinary network of Jewish day schools ranging from Chabad to Reform and even Yiddishist, which catered for the majority of Jewish youngsters.
The “Lucky Country” was a special boon for Jewish immigrants, most of whom were penniless and shattered Holocaust survivors.
They worked hard and many prospered, with a notable number becoming the leading commercial and industrial giants in the nation.
Whilst a poor Jewish underclass still remains, on the equivalent of a Forbes rich list, Jewish former refugees comprise an extraordinarily high proportion of Australia’s most successful and wealthy businessmen. It is notable that in their public business profiles, many refer proudly to their Jewish and Zionist ties.
Since the 1980s, the Jewish community has been augmented by Russians and large numbers of South Africans, the latter financially independent and rapidly assuming important communal leadership roles.
Jews have also been appointed to prominent roles in public life. Gen. Sir John Monash was Australia’s military commander during World War I. Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir Zelman Cowan – the latter an active Zionist – served as governors general.
Until the 1960s, most Jews were inclined to support the Labor Party because the conservatives were then perceived as aloof, hostile and even anti-Semitic. Today, they divide their support between both parties.
The large proportion of Holocaust survivors encouraged a strong communal Zionist orientation.
The leadership invested enormous efforts towards promoting the case for Israel at the political level, not hesitating to protest and confront governments they considered were displaying bias or double standards against Israel in conforming to global politically correct approaches.
Despite the geographical distance, the Australia- Israel Chamber of Commerce is undoubtedly the most popular and efficient Chamber in the country. This all-encompassing Jewish passion for Israel was the critical factor leading to the current bipartisan pro- Israel orientation of the mainstream political parties.
Jewish leaders were equally aggressive in fighting against anti-Semitism and all forms of discrimination. To the pride of the community, some assumed key roles in the broader area of human rights. For example, my brother Mark Leibler, a long-standing Zionist and Jewish leader, was last year appointed as co-chairman of the prestigious “Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal Peoples.”
Needless to say, Australian Jewry today is confronted with similar challenges to other Diaspora communities. Assimilation and intermarriage whilst relatively low (25 percent), is growing. In addition, the cost of Jewish education is now prohibitive for all but the affluent and the vast majority of children in schools are subsidized by independent fundraising.
But Australian Jewry remains one of the strongest and probably most Zionist Jewish communities in the world. This is reflected in aliya statistics. There must be close to 15,000 Australian expatriates now living in Israel (10% of the entire community). They strengthen the ties with the Jewish state.
If Australian Jews represented the norm, the long-term survival prospects for Diaspora Jews would be much better than is the case.
Israel’s standing on the international arena would be much better if, in addition to Canada and the US, there were a few other governments displaying the same even-handedness as Australia.

Herald Sun

Australia’s biggest-selling daily newspaper
September 27, 2000:
Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler
By John Masanauskas
Melbourne – Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel.
“This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,” he told a Jerusalem newspaper.
Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that “we are all proud being part and parcel of.”
The founder of Jetset Travel moved to Israel two years ago as chairman of the World Jewish Congress. He recently published an essay arguing that Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, was under threat in Israel by “post-Zionists”.
“A post-Zionist is someone who actually looks positively towards the end of the Jewish people in ethnocentric terms, as a national group, and no longer sees the Jewish people as one united people,” he told the Jerusalem Post.
Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state.
But Mr. Leibler, 65, has the opposite view of multiculturalism in Australia.
During the Pauline Hanson debate in 1993, he warned that multiculturalism was under threat by extremists.
“There is a need to sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part and parcel of, and which is really under threat,” Mr. Leibler said.

Isi Leiber writes for the Jerusalem Post Dec. 2, 2015:

Sensitive to the despicable behavior by much of the world which denied haven to European Jews on the eve of the Holocaust, I react instinctively with compassion when I hear about the plight of refugees. I am personally sensitive to this issue, fortunate as an infant to have been provided with a haven in Australia on the very eve of World War II. Most of my family in Belgium was murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
But despite this, I am astonished at what I consider to be the dangerous and irrational gut response from bleeding- heart rabbis, Jewish leaders and organizations blindly calling on governments to absorb en masse the so-called “Syrian refugees” and trivializing the Holocaust by comparing them to the Jews of Nazi Europe.
The principal reason to deplore this approach is that the overwhelming majority originate from Muslim countries other than Syria, and an estimated 70 percent are men of military age. Thus it is evident that the majority of this “refugee” population is not traditional families seeking sanctuary, but men seeking economic enhancement. Furthermore, over 95% of these “refugees” are Sunnis, whom IS claims to represent and, unlike the Jews during the Holocaust, do not face genocide.
Major European countries already harboring a substantial Muslim fundamentalist population will be further weakened by the new “refugees” who, whether Shi’ite or Sunni, all share a common contempt for democracy, Western values, Christianity and above all are pathologically anti-Semitic. It would also be delusional to imagine that these migrants will be more effectively integrated than their predecessors who seek to create parallel societies within their host countries. In the absence of adequate screening, the “refugees” will undoubtedly continue to include jihadis, especially taking account of the Islamic State (IS) boasts that it has embedded thousands of fighters in the exodus.
They will augment and strengthen the swelling Muslim enclaves – 50 million already living in Europe – which seek to impose Sharia law. Bernard Lewis, the renowned Islamic scholar, has predicted that unless drastic steps are taken to stem this movement, the high birth rates of the migrant population will irreversibly transform the entire demography of the region and bring about a Muslim majority by the end of the century.
Setting aside the broad threat to Western civilization in Europe, it will be the Jews who will initially bear the brunt of Islamic fundamentalist hatred.
It is therefore utterly ironic that at a time when Jewish institutions and schools in Europe require military protection and many Jews are leaving the continent because of escalating anti-Semitism, we find Jews worldwide at the vanguard promoting a migration movement comprising primarily the bitterest anti-Semitic elements.
Even more incredible is the almost universal inclination by Jewish leaders to make analogies between the status of the current Middle East refugees and Jews during the Holocaust.
Former British chief rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks was one of the first to make this analogy and his lead was taken up by a broad plethora of other American and global Jewish leaders and organizations ranging from the Washington Holocaust Museum to the Anti-Defamation League to the American Jewish Committee, as well as Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbinical groups. They all conveyed a central message: Jews, above all other groups, must support the entry of refugees because of the pain Jews underwent when anti-Semites denied them haven from the Nazis.
One of the most shocking recent remarks came from British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, a highly regarded and dedicated Jewish leader. The London Jewish Chronicle reports that Mirvis, together with four other United Synagogue rabbis, visited a refugee camp on the Macedonian border. The chief rabbi and his colleagues were warned not to inflame the prevailing hostility against Jews and to “dress down” when they entered the camp and put on baseball caps to hide their kippot. Yet Mirvis was apparently so moved by the plight of the inmates that he felt obliged to draw comparisons to “what as Jewish people we have seen before. …I’ve been thinking about bunkers in Auschwitz where there was a very different end.” Ironically, Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister Asa Romson, after making a similar statement, apologized, stating that “it was wrong to make the comparison with Auschwitz.”
While reaching out and providing assistance to refugee families in distress is highly commendable, to make such analogies between these “refugees” and Jews facing Nazi genocide is abominable and trivializes the Holocaust.
Jews who obtained refuge from the Nazis integrated into their host societies and never sought to impose their Jewish values – in stark contrast to the tensions created in Europe over recent decades by Islamic immigrants seeking to impose Sharia law on their host societies.
In fact, the Jewish refugees and immigrants from Nazi persecution were all highly committed advocates for strengthening democracy and made major contributions to the economic and cultural enrichments of the countries that provided them haven.
Nor can one point to a single example of a second-generation Jew transformed into a terrorist by extremist rabbis as has been the case with many second-generation Muslims indoctrinated in European countries by extremist mullahs into becoming jihadis. The idea of Jews engaging in terrorism in Western countries is simply inconceivable.

Isi Leibler writes in 2010:

Until the 1950s, Australia was a far cry from the country of today. It was racist, bigoted ,anti-Semitic and notorious for its White Australia policy. However by absorbing migrants from all corners of the world, Australia evolved into a unique multicultural society, open-minded, liberal and tolerant. Yet, today, determined not to follow the disastrous example of Europe which provided free rein to minorities opposing the central tenets of democracy and freedom, many Australians realize that multiculturalism can only succeed if the participants share a commitment to the open society. Today, despite growing anti-Semitism, the standing of the Jews is similar to the US and the influence of Muslim migrants is limited.
Australian Jews are proud that since the birth of Israel, with only one exception, consecutive Australian governments have remained strongly supportive. The links go back to Australian soldiers who served in Palestine in both world wars and developed warm relations with Jews in the Yishuv in 1940-41.
Australia has also been highly supportive of major Jewish global endeavors such as the struggle to free Soviet Jewry. As far back as 1962, it became the first country to raise the issue of Soviet anti-Semitism and the refusal to grant Jews the right to make aliya at the UN. Former refuseniks will recall that the Australian embassy in Moscow was highly forthcoming in extending whatever help and support possible and even held receptions for them. In my visits to the Soviet Union, successive Australian prime ministers, despite incurring the rage of the Soviet authorities, instructed the Moscow embassy to provide me with transportation and support in meeting refuseniks.
The government also played a major role in the struggle to rescind the UN resolution bracketing Zionism with racism and assisted Australian Jewish leaders in their efforts to help pave the way for diplomatic relations between Israel and both India and China.
MUCH OF the credit for this can be attributed to a united Jewish leadership which was never reticent in raising its voice to confront governments displaying bias against the Jewish state or conforming to the anti-Israeli stance of the international community. There was also a longstanding tradition by the Jewish community to facilitate visits to Israel for a wide cross-section of parliamentarians. Likewise, the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce emerged as possibly the most effective and successful of all the chambers of commerce.
The Australia-Israel relationship was strengthened during the 11 years of the Howard government. Over the past year, just prior to the overthrow of prime minister Rudd by his own party, there were concerns that the policy had tilted against Israel because the government was canvassing support for election to the UN Security Council. Following a meeting with the national Jewish leadership, the situation appeared to have been resolved but was never tested because shortly afterward, Gillard displaced Rudd.
It would seem that today bipartisan support for Israel will be maintained. However, there are concerns. Gillard is regarded as being evenhanded and friendly, but the Labor Party was obliged to forge an alliance with the Greens whose attitude toward Israel is highly antagonistic. However, most of her new cabinet is pro-Israel, as is the powerful opposition.
Of course, all is not rosy. The younger generation, like its global counterparts, lacks the passion of its forbears who lived during the Holocaust and witnessed the struggle to establish the State of Israel. The cost of day school education has risen considerably, with many parents unwilling to match the sacrifices of their parents to ensure a Jewish education for their children. The level of intermarriage, while low compared to the US and most European countries, is growing.
There is also a discernible change in the political climate. Australian trade unions, traditionally bastions of support for Israel, now even endorse anti-Israeli boycotts. The churches, many of which were previously hostile, have intensified their anti-Israeli approach. Anti-Israeli activity at universities is escalating and encouraged by a number of Jewish academics. Anti-Zionist Jewish splinter groups have emerged although in contrast to the US, they are totally marginalized from the mainstream.

Posted in Australia, Diversity, Israel, Jews | Comments Off

What Is Alt-Right?

Posted on December 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comment: We need to go back to the debate between Culture(or Kultur) and Civilization in the 19th century.
Culture was about tribe, blood and soil, particularism, localism, heritage, sacredness, passion.
Civilization was about citizenship, rule of law, universalism, cosmopolitanism, progress, secularism, reason.
Culture was right, Civilization was left.
But it wasn’t that simple. Though the French Revolution was seen as the War for Civilization, there was much in the European monarchy that stood for civilizational principles. The Age of Reason began with the Monarchs and Aristocrats. And this was because monarchs and aristocrats didn’t feel a strong bond with their people or land. A French monarch or aristocrat was likely to feel a greater social bond with an Austrian or Russian king or aristocrat than with a French peasant, worker, or soldier. And Russian elites felt the same way.
The elites all spoke French. While simple French folks listened to French folk music and simple French folks listened to Russian folk music, the French and Russian aristocratic elites both listened to classical music that was seen as transcending narrow boundaries of culture and customs. Kings and noblemen saw themselves as above-the-mob, above-the-people, above-the-rabble. So, there was a degree of cosmopolitanism and universalism among the monarchs and aristocrats of Europe who mostly monopolized the privilege of education and the arts. Since the elites could learn stuff and enjoy art, they were more likely to be universalist and rationalist than the illiterate or barely literature masses who never ventured outside their local community all their lives.
But to the extent that the kings and aristocrats used their power to maintain privilege and power, they were seen as enemies of progress, reason, and universal justice, ideas/values that the French Revolution stood for.
So, the French Revolution was ‘leftist’. But, its effect was also rightist. With the fall of the king and aristocrats, the revolution was about the unity of the leaders and the led. The rulers and the ruled became one, an organic whole. French revolutionary elites didn’t identify with elites in other European nations. They identified with the French nation and French people. So, the idea of the nation-state is both left and right, both rational/legalistic and organic/identitarian.
Also, as the French Revolutionaries began to conquer other kingdoms/nations, the effect was both leftist and rightist. It was leftist in that many people welcomed the ideas of freedom and equality spread by the revolution. But the effect was also rightist because non-French nationals resented French troops conquering and occupying their lands, taking their food, and raping their women. Even as Germans may have welcomed the ideas of the Revolution, they also resisted French presence on German soil. Beethoven turned against Napoleon when his homeland was invaded.
It’s like many Russians were drawn to the French revolutionary principles but also willing to fight for the motherland against French invaders.
So, human nature is naturally both leftist and rightist, both universalist and particularist. With our power of reason and curiosity, we want to know more about the world and rise above provincialism. We want to learn from other people and share our ideas with other people But we still want something that is ours and ours alone. So, a true man cannot be simply leftist or rightist. He must seek the balance of the two. So, true ideology is not about purism of leftism or purism of rightism but about what balance of the two is ideal.
it’s like an alloy, a blend of metals. Surely, more of some metals is necessary but other metals are essential too.
Nationalism is bigger than tribalism, and therefore it is leftist in that sense. But it works best with a homogeneous population in a well-defined land, and therefore it is also rightist.
Anyway, the French Revolution eventually failed, and there was the return to aristocratic rule. But this was not the triumph of Kultur.
The struggle of Aristocrats vs revolutionaries was really a conflict between two visions of civilization.
The idea of Kultur took root with the rise of romanticism that inspired a powerful and passionate sense of connection to one’s soil, heritage, and myth. It’s no wonder that Wagner had such a huge impact on a new generation of Germans. It reconnected the Germans with their pagan roots. It dug deeper than respectable German aristocratic conservatism that was Christian and traditional.
And the study of the Greeks via the new science of archaeology and philology revived a sense of ancient mystical roots. it’s like why Byron died fighting for Greek independence. It wasn’t his love of modern day Greece but his passion for the ancient Greece of mythology and dreams. He felt as Odysseus returning to his spiritual home to rid the marauders.
So, the rise of Kultur rightism is really the product of romanticism that unleashed new energies and retrieved forgotten visions. It was impassioned, unpredictable, and creative. It wasn’t just about customs and tradition but visions and dreams. If the story Frankenstein was about reviving the dead back to the living, romanticism sought to revive much of the lost and buried roots of European culture. Since much of the evidence was lost forever, one had to use the archaeology of creativity, dreams, poetry, and music. Wagner’s vision of pagan Germania isn’t accurate, but it is all the more powerful cuz the recovery was a visionary project.
It was as if to say that the true source of German genius isn’t so much in material artifacts — artifacts dug from ruins — but in the heart and mind of every German who dares to unlock his soul and release its spiritual and creative energies, the stuff that Jung talked about.
The two great economic ideologies of the 20th century were both about civilization and necessarily so. Economics must be rational after all. Communism and capitalism were both rational systems. It put forth logical theories and made empirical-based arguments.
To be sure, there was an element of rightism and romanticism in both.
Marx bemoaned the loss of traditional economies that had an organic relation between the maker and consumer. A blacksmith of old was part of a community. He did all his work, and he was valued as a member of a community. But the modern factory worker was a mere cog in the machine. Man into machine. Marx thought communism could break the alienation between the worker and the economy by turning all workers in collective owners of property and means of production. Since they would be working for themselves, their alienation would vanish. He also thought that if all people shared work equally, they could also share in the leisure and take time out to appreciate art, books, and science. A prole could be a poet and a poet could learn to appreciate labor.
As for capitalism, it created the myth of the great captain of industry, the great inventor, the adventurer. A new prometheus later deified by Ayn Rand. The creator of the new world. Such a figure would be revolutionary and hardly conservative but to the extent that he stood for greatness and awesomeness, it would establish a new hierarchy and social order based on merit and talent.
Also, as capitalism would encourage work ethic, it would bind the rulers and ruled into a moral community. Under the aristocratic system, the peasants had to do backbreaking work while the aristocrats rode around in horses and wore funny wigs. When there weren’t any wars, aristocrats took it easy and grew decadent. In contrast, the capitalist bourgeoisie had to work with their minds, manage, invest, organize, and innovate. They stood for hard work too. And for awhile, the culture of work ethic bound the northern protestant elites with the protestant masses. And this work ethic repressed conspicuous displays of vain privilege and glamour among the rich, and this also had a binding effect on the elites and masses in capitalist Europe. A British capitalist or German capitalist was less likely to be show-offy and grandiose with wealth like the Russian or Latin elites.
Still, capitalism and communism were in the Civilization camp. And the fading aristocracy was also, more or less, in the Civilization camp.
Kultur was the domain of the Romanticist Right that preferred lively passion to crusty tradition and power of will to duty to service. It was the difference between warrior and soldier. Warrior is a hero, soldier is a unit.
And this was the role that the Romantic Right played between the cracks of rising capitalism, aging aristocraticism, and threatening communism.
Unfortunately, men like Mussolini and Hitler took the themes of the romantic right and turned them into totalitarian bureaucratic systems.
They also acted like gangsters. What had been organic and eccentric was made institutional and conformist. Nazi art is sterile and doesn’t inspire. Instead of encouraging the flowering of a millions wills, it commanded millions to submit mindlessly to the will of one man, Duce or Fuhrer. In the end, totalitarian fascism got reckless and led to the alliance of capitalism and communism to lay it to waste.
So, following WWII, the idea of Kultur was dead, and it was a battle of Civilizations in the Cold War that pitted materialist capitalism with rationalist communism.
But… another development took place that brought back elements of Kultur.
Jews, who hated the idea of Kultur cuz of Nazism, went for Zionism and formed a Kultur-based nation-state in Israel.
Also, the Third World movements made global conflict into one of ‘indigenous native cultures’ versus soulless capitalist-imperialists.
Initially, many Third World movements adopted communism as official ideology to combat capitalist-imperialism. But when Soviet and China rift happened, the idea of universal communism became untenable. And Soviet occupation stoked nationalist and particularist passions in Eastern Europe. And the US was willing to support arch-rightist elements like the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan in the war against Soviet Occupation. And with Zionism as the new ideology among Jews, many Jews who’d formerly been universalist communists, turned against the USSR and global communism.
As time passed, communism became less the means of resistance against the West by the Third World. Vietnamese used communism to fight the West, but the Iranians turned to Islamism.
Because Western imperialism and ‘racism’ came to be associated with capitalism and even communism(with Soviets being seen as ‘white’), even progressives began to question the ideals of universalism, rationalism, and etc. Were they merely fancy slogans used by the West to gain control and dominance over other peoples? “We are spreading enlightenment, therefore we have a right to rule over you. Our liberalism justifies our imperialism in the name of white man’s burden.”
US was created by white men who invoked freedom and democracy and liberty, but it wiped out the indigenous Indians and enslaved teh Negroes and used Chinese terribly to make choo choo tracks.
And then, the 60s came along with rock music that was heavily influenced by black music, and black culture wasn’t very rational but rhythmic. Revolution came to be more associated with rocking and rolling than with reason and responsibility.
Also, the introduction of drugs turned progressives from clear theories to new age fantasies, and progressives began to romanticize the mystical Hindus and American Indians as noble savages who’d lived in harmony with the land. You can hear that stuff in Neil Young songs. The cult of Kultur began to matter again, and some hippies took inspiration from German Romantic Right.
Also, Jews didn’t like the idea of the melting pot since it would mean abandoning Jewish identity and just becoming part of the goy majority America. So, Jews began to favor a kind of neo-particularism, at least meant for minorities.
And as the black movement progressed, blacks began to feel that blacks aren’t just white people with black skin but different in their souls and rhythms. Many traditional white progressives thought that racial difference was just a matter of skin color. And blacks had bought into this idea for a time. But blacks just couldn’t get in tune with whiteness. They wanted to boogie, oogie, jungle ugabuga, and act like Muhammad Ali. They couldn’t just stand around and sing ‘we shall overcome’.
As blacks insisted on their difference–soulful as well as physical–, this also dealt a blow to colorblind universal liberalism.
Also, with the rise of black crime, even white progressive moved away from integrating areas, and that made for racial consciousness on both sides.
Alt Right is essentially a white acceptance of multi-culturalism, with whiteness as one of the identities that need to be protected.
Originally, multi-culturalism said that whites don’t need an identity and protection since they got all the power and privilege–and the numbers. In contrast, non-whites are vulnerable since they don’t have power, privilege, and wealth–and the numbers. So, they need to stick to their cultural identity to survive and feel empowered.
The Alt Right says that whiteness to is being dispossessed and disenfranchised, therefore, its identity and interests must also be explicit.
So, in that sense, the Alt Right has gone ‘left’ and accepted the tenets of multi-culturalism.
BUT, multi-culturalism developed as the New Left’s partial adoption of rightist tenets, one of racial identity, cultural heritage, and etc(at least among non-whites).
Originally, the American Right was very race-conscious. It was like the Tom Buchanan character in THE GREAT GATSBY going on and on about the white race and the threats it faces. It was identitarian and race-ist.
In contrast, the American Left was anti-identitarian. It spoke of universality and unity of all races. Communists spoke of brotherhood of man and sisterhood of woman of all races and nations. It spoke for colorblindness and equality.
With the defeat of Nazism in WWII, even the American Right came around to the view of the American Left. Eisenhower, who was appalled by Nazi crimes, signed onto civil rights.
Colorblind defense of liberty was the theme of both the Right and the Left. And as communist USSR, the other superpower, was appealing to non-whites with the message of anti-racism, US felt it had no chance but to play the same game.
And in the 60s, colorblind ideology of the civil rights won big.
It should have been a happy ending for the Left, but it wasn’t.
The New Left, in its search for new heroes and causes, came to be obsessed with identity. Black power, brown power, yellow power, and etc. Also, the failure of blacks to make economic progress meant that race had to be taken into account for affirmative action and other race-conscious programs. Also, Jewish radicals like Susan Sontag were emphasizing whiteness as specially sick and diseased.
Also, as black athleticism came to symbolize black power, progress came to be associated with racial show of virility and strength.
So, the politics of identity took over the Left, and it was the Right that found itself insisting that US should be colorblind and meritocratic. Earlier, it had been the Right that was race conscious and the Left that called for colorblindness.
But now, it was the reverse. It was people like Buckley who said ‘we are all Americans who should be judged by content of character, not color of skin’, whereas the Left and non-whites were saying that people need to be considered according to color of skin since the legacy of ‘racism’ still affects so many people negatively and still gives white people ‘white privilege’, if only subtly.
This eventually led to multi-culturalism and the hyphenization of Americans: African-American, Asian-American, Mexican-American, Arab-American, and etc. Of course, whites were denied the right of hypenization, and the American Right accepted this rule and, if anything, begged non-whites to drop their hypenization and just become good ole fellow Americans.
But that didn’t work. Hyphenization remained and only grew stronger. Identitarianism became more radicalized among the non-whites and even extended to sexual deviants like homos and trannies.
Multi-culturalism won, and the Alt Right has decided to adopt hyphenization. So, whites should be European-Americans(than just generic Americans) who, like other groups, should struggle for their own identity and interests.
But then, this isn’t surprising since multi-culturalism was the result of the Left taking themes from the Right.
So, naturally, it’s come full circle, and the Alt Right is taking themes from the Left.
It’s like two snakes swallowing each other by the tail.
Today, the main threat to identity isn’t so much ideology as idolatry.
Globalism is spread less by intellectual ideas than by Hollywood movies, video games, pornified music culture of rap and techno(heavily interracist), fashion models, celebrities, comedy, youtube personalities, cult of black sports heroes, etc.
Look at Korea and Poland, two satellite nations of the globo-West.
K-pop is the dream of yellows looking like whites via plastic surgery and turning their hair blonde. Modern day Koreans are a bunch of pansies and wussies who will gladly sell their homeland to be ‘cool’. Poland is so into globalist pop culture that so many of its young now support homo marriage and march in favor of ‘diversity’.
Poland is an interesting case. For most of its history, it looked westward cuz the West was seen as more white while Russia was seen as ‘Asiatic’ and ‘Oriental despotic’. Russians were seen as part-Mongol. Polish Slavs wanted to win the approval and acceptance of Western Europeans who were seen as purer white and more advanced. Poles insisted they are Catholic and enlightened unlike those Orthodox Russian with who knows how much Mongol blood.
And this attitude is still alive among many Poles. They want to win approval from French and Brits, traditionally seen as whiter and purer Europeans than the barbaric mongoloid Russkies.
BUT, given current demographic trends, Russia will be more white in the future than Western Europe that will become Africanized and Arabized. Look at the French soccer team. Look at all those French and German women having kids with black men. Look at the total cuckization of UK. Sweden, which used to be the whitest part of Europe, will soon be darker than Southern Italy. It will become Morocco on Ice.
While people may not fight and die for an abstract idea like ‘freedom’, they will give up their homeland for pleasure and hedonism. And globalism certainly offers a lot of that. In the 19th century, so many Chinese were willing to give up China for another smoke of opium. American Indians were willing to give up the fight for around swig of whiskey. So many global youths will give up identity and nation for another orgy at a night club with twerking and binge-drinking. Idolatry is the real agent of globalism.
And among the respectable whites, they will remain silent and collaborate out of fear of being called ‘racist’, which has the sting of ‘devil worshiper’ in the Middle Ages. People will fight for homeland but they will also give up homeland for a piece of the pie. Look all throughout history, and collaboration has been par for the course. Look at all those cuckservatives who will surrender everything as long as they get a piece of the pie. People will fight for their homeland only if they are led to do so by those who are willing to take the first bullet.
PS. Nietzsche is another complicating factor in ideological and cultural struggles. Why is Nietzsche more resilient than Marx, Freud, and the rest? Because he got to the root of it all: the Power, what in STAR WARS is called the Force.
Everything is about power, the will to power, struggle for power. This can take the shape of Christianity, Islam, communism, capitalism, individualism, social justice, feminism, and etc. but it’s all about power in the end. So, the core of the struggle is essentially amoral and nihilistic. It’s about who has the power. Sure, ideology and religion can justify the power, and justification is good to have, but in the end, it’s about the power itself. Power without justification feels a lot better than justification without power. Of course, if you have the power, you can buy and control the justification. But then, to gain the power, you have to justify yourself. But you must not be fooled by the purity of that justification. You must use it as an excuse, a ploy, a game. It’s like a drug dealer shouldn’t get high on his own supply.
Notice how Jews have invoked capitalism, communism, socialism, free trade, equality, feminism, Zionism, ‘anti-racism’, etc, etc, etc. to justify themselves morally, but it all comes down to MORE POWER FOR JEWS.
So, it’s wrong to call the Left the ‘left’ anymore. Blacks just want power, and they don’t care how they get it. If capitalism works fine, if communism works, fine. Jews are Jewish-powerists, blacks are black powerists. It’s not about ideology but about power. Ideology is fluid but power is power. It’s like one can learn all sorts of martial arts, but one is really after the power to kick butt. The various martial arts are but a means to power.
It’s like Chinese communists learned the same thing. Black cat or white cat, what does it matter as long as it catches the mice of power?
Ideology is just a means of power, and no ideology is perfect or permanent. But our will to power and need for power is forever. Without power, you are nothing. History is the story of power.
Globalism and the End of History is not about the triumph of liberal democracy. It is about the oligarchic struggle for power by whatever means necessary and useful.
The more the ‘left’ came to be disillusioned with Marx, the more they came to be fascinated with Nietzsche who understood the struggle to be about the Power.
In a way, fascism was the most honest ideology of the 20th century since it was honest and brazen about what it wanted. Power was essential, and fascists were willing to use rightist and leftist means to gain more power.
But Hitler showed one can get addicted to one’s own supply of power-obsession. While one must seek power, one must not be addicted to power for addicts gotta have more and more even when grabbing for more is too much of gamble.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off

Haaretz’s ‘Nazi problem’

Posted on December 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

From YNET:

COLOGNE – Controversial deal: The decision to sell 25 percent of Haaretz Group’s shares to newspaper and book publisher DuMont Schauberg last week has come under scrutiny as a result of the German publisher’s ties with the Nazi regime.

The publishing group’s owner at the time, Kurt Neven DuMont – the current owner’s father – was reportedly a member of the Nazi party, while his newspapers advanced Nazi ideology. As a result, the publishing house was among the only private ones in Germany whose operations were never outlawed by Hitler.

The publisher’s official history makes no mention of historical facts that tie the family to the Nazi regime, even though Kurt Neven DuMont was a member of the Nazi party since 1937. In 1944, he received a prestigious decoration – the same kind also awarded to Gestapo Chief Heinrich Himmler – because he continued to publish newspapers despite heavy allied bombings.

Meanwhile, some historians and journalists claim that the publisher’s management has made an effort to prevent various publications regarding the company’s and owners’ problematic past.

‘No choice but to comply’

However, Israel’s former Ambassador to Germany Avi Primor has come to current owner Alfred Neven DuMont’s defense. In an article he wrote, Primor described the assistance he received from Neven DuMont in his dealings with Germany’s business and political elites and said the publishing group’s owner has supported various projects in Israel.

Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken responded to the reports, saying that he is aware that Kurt Neven DuMont was a member of the Nazi party. He noted that although the newspaper chain received orders from the Nazis, it had no choice but to comply with the dictates of a dictatorial regime.

“Alfred Neven DuMont (the current owner of the publishing house) has no Nazi past. He was 12 when the war broke out and almost 18 when it ended,” Schocken said. “His actions since he has become an adult speak for themselves. There’s no reason to impose on him, or the company he now leads, responsibility for a period before his time. This has nothing to do with finding out the historical truth, which is something that should always be done.”

Posted in Israel, Nazi | Comments Off

Roosh: 10 Things I Learned From Touring The American Midwest

Posted on December 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Roosh writes:

I did not see more than two gay couples in four days, and the gays I saw were not overtly flaming. It’s almost as if I was in a homosexual free zone.

People are incredibly nice

While I receive more eye contact in a place like Poland, I received many more smiles here. In Oklahoma City, in the dead of night without anyone else around, a woman walking her dogs said “Hello” to me, a gesture that I don’t experience anywhere else. The evil part of me couldn’t help but think that people this nice could be easily taken advantage of. Maybe we can convince them to do all sort of crazy things in the name of “equality” or their own “safety.”

Very high social trust with deep social networks

Now I know why I’m not a big hit among men in the Midwest: my cold approach game would get you quickly marked in your town and ostracized. The best strategy here is to have a lot of friends and date the women in your social circle. Without a social circle in the Midwest, you’re a bit screwed when it comes to landing the best women, who get snapped up soon in college or even high school. If a girl in the Midwest is single past the age of 25, she likely has serious issues that make her an unsuitable mate. She’ll relocate to DC or NYC to try for a Sex And The City lifestyle of experiencing a few rounds of alpha male cock before she has to go back home a broken woman, lamenting about her fun days in the big city.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Mark Zuckerberg-Backed Immigration Bill Would Allow Unlimited Muslim Immigration

Posted on December 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Know your enemy, and when you can, take revenge.

From Breitbart: In January of 2015, a handful of Senators quietly introduced new legislation in Congress that would allow for virtually unlimited Muslim immigration into the United States – lifting caps entirely on several categories of visas favored by immigrants from Muslim countries.

The Mark Zuckerberg-backed legislation, S.153, is called the Immigration Innovation Act (or I-Squared), and it has taken on new significance following the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino. Those attacks were only possible due to Muslim immigration: Syed Farook is reportedly the child of Pakistani immigrants, and his jihadi bride, Tashfeen Malik, was reportedly born in Pakistan.

The I-Squared bill is significant for a second reason. One of the Senators who introduced the bill is also running for President: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). And several of Rubio’s most prominent financial backers are among the bill’s boosters.

I-Squared would expand five major visa categories used by Muslim migrants: the F-1 foreign student visa, green cards for foreign students, green cards for their family members, the H-1B foreign worker visa, and the H-4 spousal visa.

THE F-1 VISA
Under current law, the F-1 student visa operates under the assumption that foreign students have no intention of abandoning their home countries. It is intended to operate similar to a foreign exchange program, where the students return home after their studies are concluded. Current statute reads that an F-1 visa holder is “an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning…” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i) [emphasis added]

The I-Squared bill turns that on its head by removing the presumption that F-1 visa applicants return to their home country—rendering admissible a larger pool of foreign applicants, who openly and explicitly have no intention of returning home following their studies. It then allows an unlimited number of foreign students to get lifetime green cards (Section 303). Because the F-1 visa is uncapped, these changes are revolutionary…

>According to an April 2015 Brookings Institution report, Seattle is one of the nation’s top ten metropolitan areas with the biggest share of H-1B workers. The Puget Sound Business Journal similarly notes: “The Washington state chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) estimates more than 30,000 Muslims live in the greater Seattle area.”

The Puget Sound Business Journal reports that Seattle’s local government and businesses have had to work to accommodate the growing influx of Muslims who observe sharia law. For instance, the Business Journal notes that Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s housing committee released recommendations earlier this year, which “would help followers of Sharia law buy houses.”

The Business Journal writes that the influx of sharia-adherent Muslims has been acutely felt throughout Seattle’s tech sector, such as at corporations like Microsoft. Microsoft—according to USCIS data analyzed by Computerworld’s Patrick Thibodeau—is the 12th largest user of the H-1B program, having brought in 1,048 foreign workers on H-1Bs in 2013. In a report highlighting how a “new Seattle company helps Muslim tech employees save for retirement,” the Journal writes:

It’s estimated that more than 1,000 Muslims in the Puget Sound region work for Microsoft… and for those who closely follow their faith, it can be difficult to participate in the company’s retirement plan. That’s because Sharia law forbids them from investing in funds with holdings in companies that peddle pornography, alcohol and other vices. It’s almost impossible for retirement funds to guarantee all their investments are free from those kinds of businesses. This has become an issue for workers at other tech companies, too.

Other reports have separately documented the struggle to integrate large flows of unassimilated Muslim migrants into Seattle and its surrounding area. According to the Population Research Bureau, there are 25,000 girls and women in Washington state at risk of suffering the anti-Western practice of Female Genital Mutilation. That number could increase dramatically under Rubio’s vision.

Microsoft has extensively pushed for expanding the H-1B program— and has lobbied for I-Squared. Moreover, Bill Gates is also a founding member of Zuckerberg’s immigration lobbying firm that has endorsed I-Squared—describing the bill as “our gold standard for high tech reform.” As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York has reported, last year Microsoft was lobbying to increase the H-1B guest worker program at the same it had announced plans to lay off 18,000 workers.

Microsoft has also been the second largest contributor to Marco Rubio’s campaign committee since 2011—having donated $33,100, according to Open Secrets.

Posted in Immigration, Islam | Comments Off

NPR: How Billionaire Techies Hope To Reshape The Immigration Debate

Posted on December 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Know your enemy and when you can, take revenge.

NPR: The immigration-reform advocacy group founded by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — FWD.us (pronounced “forward U.S.”) — and funded by fellow Silicon Valley entrepreneurs including Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer — is rolling out a plan for the 2016 election that will include “substantial” investments in battleground states.

This primary campaign season, the immigration conversation has been dominated by hard-line rhetoric about border walls, mass deportations and birthright citizenship, and now Donald Trump’s Muslim immigration ban. FWD.us says it’s trying to refocus the conversation on comprehensive immigration reform.

“We are making the case over the next year that immigration reform needs to be something that gets done right away under the next presidency,” said Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us. “That starts with making clear the awful and absurd policies of mass deportation that we’re hearing.”

FWD.us won’t be targeting a particular candidate. But with a focus on mass deportations, it’s clear one immediate target for these tech billionaires is a fellow billionaire — Donald Trump, and the immigration rhetoric his campaign has sparked this primary season.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

Salon: Was planning a march against violence against women an inherently racist undertaking?

Posted on December 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

From 1999:

There is one person on the planet whom I can honestly say I hate. This in spite of two and a half years of lovingkindness meditation. I’m not talking about the profound yet somehow abstract hatred you feel for a brutal dictator in a far-off land, nor the reluctant half-desire, half-loathing of an ex-lover. I’m talking about the peculiarly bitter, tenacious hatred you feel for a person who once caused you an acute and unforgettable humiliation before a tribunal of peers.

Oberlin College in the mid-’80s was fertile ground for humiliation.
“Identity” politics were gathering steam, and everyone was discovering his or her oppression. In the larger superstructure of both the college and society, minorities of all categories still struggled for basic parity. Our student social life, however, had become a sort of inverted universe: The more oppressed groups you belonged to, the higher your status. And the higher your status, the more license you had to publicly call people on their unconscious bigotry.

Generally, those of us whose sole claim to oppression was gender had only white males on whom to take out our anger (and I took mine out in spades). Occasionally, however, someone could gain status through the sheer force of moral indignation and be accepted as an honorary member of a more oppressed group than her own. These individuals were always the most virulently righteous when taking other members of their own societal subsection to task for their sexism, racism, classism or homophobia.

Don’t misunderstand me. I have no desire to belittle anyone’s anger at injustice by slapping it with the mocking label “politically
correct.” College is a violently politicizing time; the sudden awareness of your personal story as part of a broader societal mosaic can galvanize phenomenal growth, courage and action. And if some tender feelings get hurt along the way, I’m not convinced that’s always a bad thing, especially if those feelings have survived 18 years without close examination. Given all of that, why do I still hate her, after all this time?

“Laura” was a latter-day hippie when she arrived at Oberlin from a New England prep school in 1984. She played Woody Guthrie songs on her guitar, was openly bisexual and wore her muddy blonde hair hanging straight down her back. She seemed to frequent every political organization on campus, but was most visible in the Women’s Center, where she was the primary contact for Violence Against Women Awareness Week (VAWAW) and its crowning event, the
Take Back the Night March.

That same year, I arrived at Oberlin from Lawrence, Kan., with shaved legs and lipstick, wearing polka-dot leotard and mini-skirt combos, my wavy brown hair permed in a fluffy ‘fro. Like Laura, I was eager to get involved in the abundant political life of the Oberlin campus. Giddy with admiration for the feisty, articulate student activists, I focused my political energies on SANE/Freeze and Democratic Socialists of America. For a solid year I remained blithely oblivious to the Oberlin aesthetic, roundly confused when
the scruffy, defensive young men I worshipped wouldn’t give me the proverbial time of day.

By our senior year, Laura had become an ultra-hip leather dyke, or its vinyl equivalent (leather didn’t go over too well in our largely vegetarian school). Her hair, now platinum, was short and spiky, and her acoustic guitar had long since gone electric. She was no longer involved with the Women’s Center, but had become the most prominent white anti-racism activist on campus. I, meanwhile, had grown out my leg and underarm hair, gained 20 pounds, traded my polka dots for tie-dye, and become an outspoken bisexual.

I was now co-chair of the Women’s Center and a primary organizer of
Violence Against Women Awareness Week and the Take Back the Night march. I revered Laura, but whenever I tried to connect with her, she looked at me as though I were an unwelcome pop quiz. Still, I managed to invite her to appear in our VAWAW panel discussion on “Rape and Racism,” and to my delight, she accepted.

Posted in Academia, Blacks, Homosexuality, Rape | Comments Off

Marrying Your Way Up The Academic Ladder

Posted on December 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

BLOG: I read with great interest in today’s Careerist column about Harvard Law School granting tenure to Professor Jeannie Suk. Vivia Chen stated that she was surprised to learn that Professor Suk was the first Asian-American woman granted tenure at Harvard, and then looked briefly at the lack of diversity among female tenured professors at the school.

This is a fertile topic of conversation, but there was something that struck me as particularly interesting in the article. In the original post, Chen said:

“Call me naive, but I was genuinely shocked that this big, prestigious bastion of liberalism didn’t have a tenured woman of Asian descent until this year. (Harvard announced Suk’s tenure last fall.) The much smaller Yale Law School, which has 60 full-time faculty members to Harvard’s 100, has two–Amy Chua and Jean Koh Peters.”

(The article was corrected after this was written to state that Professor Koh Peters was actually a clinical professor, and thus not tenured, making Yale’s population of tenured Asian-American professors the same as Harvard’s: one.)

What caught my eye was the fact that by my unofficial count, these three women–Professors Suk, Koh Peters, and Chua–were all themselves married or related to other law professors. Professor Suk is married to Professor Noah Feldman, who came to Harvard as a tenured professor back in 2007 from NYU. Professor Chua, she of the Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother fame, is married to Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld, who Above the Law describes as “a Yale law professor, overachiever, and certified hottie, just like his wife.” Finally, Professor Koh Peters is the sister of former dean Harold Koh of Yale Law School (who is now the Legal Advisor to the Department of State).

Posted in Academia, Marriage | Comments Off

National Front Fails To Win In France

Posted on December 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Reading the French media as best I can, I get the sense the vacuum on the Right is sucking the Sarkozy’s party over toward the Le Pen side, which will force a crisis down the road. If the Left does not follow, then the schism in the ruling coalition will become a serious problem down the line. In other words, by averting one crisis they setup the next crisis.

This is the reverse of what we have seen in the US for as long as any of us have been alive. The pattern in the US has been for the Progressive wing of the ruling coalition to drag the center over to the left, drawing what we call the Right with it. As I’m fond of pointing out, I worked for Democrats in the 80′s who held all the same positions as Ted Cruz, who is the outer edge of the official Right these days.

Speaking of which, the wireless brings word that Cruz is reconsidering his unlimited green-card program, now slapping a minimum wage on H1B visas of $110K.

* Every third Frenchman is chained to two others who have decided they’d prefer to commit cultural and national suicide to doing anything “extreme.”

The French will eventually realize their mistake. Look to the American South, where political loyalties have been along racial lines. That is how it will soon be in an ever increasing number of jurisdictions.

* Really depressing. As in 2002, FN barely increased its vote share after minor parties were eliminated.

The closest thing to win was in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté:

Socialists 34.68
Republicans 32.89
National Front 32.44

In Nord, Marine went from 40.64 in round 1 to 42.64 in round 2. The Republican went from 24.97 to 57.77.

Florian’s share was only 0.01 higher than in round 1.

Marion had the highest FN share and most impressive improvement, from 40.55 to 45.22.

* Some will say FN is locked in an electoral ghetto and point to these results (generally no rise in support first vs. second round), but you’ve just had nearly 30% of the population voting for a “far right” party. The FN remains one crisis away from power.

Posted in France | Comments Off