Whenever rabbis say that horrific events happened because of X, Y, Z sins, they look stupid, they make Judaism look stupid, and they make Jews look horrible.
Diaspora rabbis are less likely to say such things because they live as a minority and are more sensitive to Gentile concerns.
The stronger your in-group identity, the more likely you are to fear, despise and hate outsiders. So Israeli rabbis are more likely to say these things without concern for Gentile sensibilities.
JPOST: A religious Zionist cleric from a Jewish settlement on the West Bank told mourners on Saturday during the funeral of an Israeli father and son gunned down by Palestinian terrorists that the attacks in Paris were deserved due to what Europeans “did to our people 70 years ago.”
The quote from Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of the Israeli settlement of Kiryat Arba, was first reported by the Walla! news agency.
“The wicked ones in blood-soaked Europe deserve it for what they did to our people 70 years ago,” Lior said.
The controversial rabbi once wrote an approbation for a book called The King’s Torah that was co-written in 2009 by radical settler figure Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, which permitted killing civilian non-Jews in times of war.
He was summoned by police for questioning on grounds of incitement to violence but refused to report for questioning, saying the Torah was not open to police investigation. He was subsequently arrested and brought for questioning but no charges were made.
Last year, Lior published a letter saying that Jewish law permits destroying the entire Gaza Strip to bring peace to the south of the country.
Lior said that he had received questions about whether Jewish law permits harming a civilian population not directly involved with the combatants.
He first cited the opinion of the Maharal of Prague, a renowned 16th-century rabbi, who wrote that a nation under attack can wage a fierce war against the assaulting nation, and that it is not obligated regarding the safety of people who are personally involved in hostilities.
“At a time of war, the nation under attack is allowed to punish the enemy population with measures it finds suitable, such as blocking supplies or electricity, as well as shelling the entire area according to the army minister’s judgment, and not to needlessly endanger soldiers but rather to take crushing deterring steps to exterminate the enemy,” Lior wrote.
Addressing the hostilities with Hamas, the rabbi continued to say that “in the case of Gaza, it would be permitted for the defense minister to even order the destruction of all of Gaza so that the South will no longer suffer and to prevent injury to our people, who have been suffering for so long from the enemies surrounding us.”
“Talk of humanitarianism and consideration are nothing when weighed against saving our brothers in the South and across the country and the restoration of quiet to our land,” he said.
From Pew Global: In the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, views of Jews are largely unfavorable. Nearly all in Jordan (97%), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) hold an unfavorable view. Similarly, 98% of Lebanese express an unfavorable opinion of Jews, including 98% among both Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as 97% of Lebanese Christians. By contrast, only 35% of Israeli Arabs express a negative opinion of Jews, while 56% voice a favorable opinion.
Negative views of Jews are also widespread in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed in Asia: More than seven-in-ten in Pakistan (78%) and Indonesia (74%) express unfavorable opinions. A majority in Turkey (73%) also hold a critical view.
Among Nigerians, overall views are split (44% favorable, 44% unfavorable), but opinions divide sharply along religious lines. Fully 60% of Nigerian Muslims have an unfavorable view of Jews, compared with only 28% of Christians.
First, it is important to recognize there is a risk that a small number of extremists might infiltrate refugee flows. Advocates for generous asylum policies — of which I am one — should acknowledge this. Addressing it calls for appropriate resources to be devoted to the challenge. Moreover, screening will never be 100% successful. It never is.
The broader question, however, is whether fear of a few evil men (or women) will lead us to sacrifice our basic moral commitment to fellow human beings fleeing war, oppression and deprivation. I, for one, am not prepared to grant ISIS a veto over refugee policy or humanitarian obligations.
I am equally confident that the overwhelming majority of refugees will, if given a chance, prove to be productive members of their new societies who are grateful for the asylum they have been granted. Almost all of the research on Western refugee absorption shows net, long-term positive effects.
Goodness knows that multicultural Montreal, for example, is a much better place for having accepted those fleeing war and instability in Lebanon, Haiti, Rwanda, DR Congo and many other places besides. There certainly wouldn’t be such an excellent choice of shawarma restaurants without them.
During World War II there was also a real risk that among those fleeing war and Nazi oppression there might be spies and fifth columnists. Indeed, some were.
COMMENTS:
* Montreal wasn’t always so multicultural. Canada took in only 8,000 Jewish immigrants/refugees during the Third Reich, a record worse than Chile (14,000), Japanese occupied Shanghai (25,000), Bolivia (12,000), Switzerland (16,000), Brazil (25,000) and Argentina (50,000), among others. The numbers come from Martin Gilbert’s data published in 1978. The Province of Quebec was staunchly opposed to Jewish immigration during Third Reich period. The province’s French language policies starting in the 1970’s led to a significant departure of Jews from the Montreal area from 1976 on.
Israel is strongly opposed to immigration by non-Jews, especially Muslims, including refugees from war torn Sudan. Given the bad relations between Israel and its Muslim neighbors, I can understand Israel’s position.
* The population that is threatening Jews in Europe is Muslim It is bad that leading rabbis in France, Holland and the UK have said that there is no Jewish future in these countries. Comparisons to the Holocaust refugees are not valid because Jewish refugees did not commit violent acts against the countries that welcomed them.
* Letting these people in to your country is suicide. only left wing Jews seem oblivious to this.
* Holocaust, holocaust, holocaust ……………….. for ever!
Always and for ever, turning every story to put light on your own issues, no matter how unrelated the topic is to make yourself the center of attention, an excuse, any excuse to invoke your holocaust, as if your are not directly responsible for the Arab holocaust that does not have memorial centers in major cities of the world. If the topic was mosquitoes, I can see you jumping in and start talking about how Jews were bitten by mosquitoes during the holocaust. Don’t you know when to stop? Look up the word ‘grace’.
* Yes, enough already with this Holocaust garbage — maybe it happened maybe it didn’t — we Gentiles are tired of hearing this over and over again !! Please stop — it’s not wonder why we Europeans don’t like you.. Be like all other people.
* We’re not obligated to allow known radical islamists who hate us and our culture continued residence in our western nations. Surveillance is not enough. Radical Islamists, once correctly identified, must be legally interned pending deportation.
* Google knows more about my personal life than I do. Every one of my phone calls are recorded by the phone company for homeland security/the Patriot Act. Everyone of my e-mails are recorded by. Western Government have the technology to know when the last time you scratched your sweetbreads.
The FBI took down all members of the KKK that were in positions of authority, and did it when they only had the use of illegal wire taps. I am sure you were against it.
* I want immigration stopped from Islamic countries. I want them to stop patting down marines at airports and letting the guys in kafffiyehs sail through. And if you make a lot of phone calls to Teheran or Tripoli it should be flagged. Let’s start there. Forget Europe. Europe is done. Merkel took care of that.
Posted inHolocaust, Immigration|Comments Off on Oh, wonderful, another “we can’t stop the flow Because Holocaust” essay
Steven writes: I have this dreadful feeling that a truly apocalyptic act of Islamic terrorism will occur in our lifetimes. A nuclear or biological attack that will kill thousands or hundreds of thousands. This is what ISIS and Al Qaeda want – a world-historical, civilization-ending confrontation. They will do everything they can to force it on the world. They want to destroy our corporate consumerist post-religious secular world order and replace it with holy war, and then world Islamic theocracy. Genocidal mass slaughter is what they want, and I fear they’ll eventually manage to pull it off one day. The thing is, I am fairly sure the majority of the world’s Muslims are good people who just want the same things in life as everybody else. But I fear they don’t have enough courage and enough sense of righteous outrage to definitively root out their jihadi co-religionists. When they see Islamic-inspired atrocities they do a lip-service condemnation but they still see “Islamophobia” and countering possible stigma from the actions of their religious brethren as more important than shutting down the jihadis. They seem easily cowed by displays of ruthless violence (as exemplified in the ISIS snuff videos) The good ones run away because their families are more important to them than ideologies. The bad ones fight, kill and happily die because they feel empowered by being the shock force of Allah. The Jihadis have everybody scared because they love death. Normal, good people love life, but the self-appointed warriors of Islam worship death, and because death is effortless and permanent and life is demanding and temporary, they could win.
Posted inIslam|Comments Off on The Worst Is To Come
Chaim Amalek: “Social control can win the day. Accused racists (and an accusation is as good as trial and conviction in this matter) should be shamed, stripped of health and other social benefits, and then rendered both unemployed and unemployable.”
Today, all of our students receive sensitivity training to help them better understand and respect each other. There is a new university Vice President for the University Community. There is a new academic department of Native American Students. Each college has a multicultural director reporting directly to the deans. Minority freshman enrollment went up by 8% and African American freshman enrollment went up by 10%.
We are still a work in progress, but we are determined to send a message to the rest of America that zero tolerance is the only way to stop the cancer of racism. Each of us has an individual responsibility to speak out every single time we encounter discrimination and racist remarks. We cannot remain silent. Often we say to ourselves, “Why can’t we all just love and respect each other?” We can—but it’s up to each one of us to take action.
Posted inRace|Comments Off on David Boren: ‘Zero Tolerance Is the Only Way to Stop the Cancer of Racism’
Republican political consultant Alex Castellanos said Trump is the candidate who most speaks to the moment on a visceral level. “We want a president equal to our fears, big scary fears about holding the world together and survival,” said Castellanos, who is not affiliated with Trump’s campaign. “All of this has just been accentuated in the last 24 hours, now even more so. Now that strong leader is even more imperative.”
Trump — who said recently that he would “bomb the s— out of” oil fields controlled by the Islamic State — opened his rally Saturday by leading the crowd of several thousand in a moment of silence in remembrance of the more than 120 people killed in the Paris attacks. Trump also erroneously asserted, as he has before, that Obama planned to allow 250,000 refugees into the United States.
“You have to be insane,” Trump said of resettling Syrian refugees. “Terrible.”
Trump said in late September that if he is elected, he will force all Syrian refugees to leave the United States. He has said that these refugees could be a terrorist army in disguise and that they cannot be trusted. Such comments have resonated with rally crowds nationwide and did so again in Texas on Saturday.
Why did the West create a mess in Syria, which is in turn flooding the West with Syrian immigrants? In part, because of the pressure of intellectuals such as Yossi Klein Halevi, who wrote in the Los Angeles Times April 15, 2003:
JERUSALEM — Though Syria was conspicuously omitted from President Bush’s “axis of evil,” the regime of Bashar Assad has now replaced Saddam Hussein as the Arab world’s leading supporter of terrorism and stockpiler of weapons of mass destruction.
Syria is the only Arab country that actively backed Hussein, reportedly encouraging suicide bombers to cross into Iraq, sheltering Iraqi war fugitives and possibly storing nonconventional weapons for Hussein.
By focusing on those provocations, the Bush administration is correcting a serious flaw in its war against terrorism. The region’s most vicious terrorist groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, maintain operational centers in Damascus. As one administration insider put it, any taxi driver in the Syrian capital knows the address of half a dozen terrorist groups.
Worse, Syria arms and protects the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. Until Sept. 11, Hezbollah held the world record in the number of Americans killed through terrorism. In two suicide bombings in the 1980s, Hezbollah murdered 260 American soldiers stationed in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. No terror organization maintains greater global reach than Hezbollah, whose cells and fund-raising network extend to six continents. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage recently noted that Hezbollah “may be the [terrorists’] A-team, while Al Qaeda may be actually the B-team.”
Syria’s support for Hezbollah endangers the entire Middle East. Since Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, Hezbollah has reportedly placed up to 10,000 Iranian-supplied missiles along the Israeli border. Those missiles, capable of reaching every town and industrial center in the Galilee, were delivered through the Syrian army, which controls Lebanon. If another regional Arab-Israeli war occurs, the probable trigger won’t be Palestinian terrorism but Hezbollah’s missiles.
Whereas Bashar’s father, the late Syrian dictator Hafez Assad, maintained tight control over Hezbollah and saw it as an expedient tool to be wielded with caution, Bashar has embraced Hezbollah’s romantic self-image as the Arab avant-garde. Hezbollah, he has said, is a “ray of light” for the Arab world. The “historic relations” between Syria and Hezbollah, he said shortly after the Israeli withdrawal, “will be much stronger and more effective than they were in the past.” That is one promise the young Assad has faithfully kept.
It wasn’t supposed to happen this way.
When Bashar Assad inherited his father’s regime three years ago, much was made in the international media about the new leader’s Western education and affinity for the Internet. Some even breathlessly reported that he was a Phil Collins fan. But Assad quickly proved that he was his father’s son by suppressing a reformist movement and arresting Syrian dissidents who had written an open letter to him demanding democracy.
With Hussein gone, Bashar Assad is now the Arab world’s leading rejectionist of peace with Israel. He recently asserted that Israel’s legitimacy would never be accepted by the Arab world.
Syria has opposed every Middle East breakthrough, from the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to the Oslo process. And now Syria is taking on the United States.
The mufti of Damascus, Syria’s highest-ranking religious leader, recently urged Muslims to attack American troops in Iraq. As a government employee in a police state, he would never have issued that call without Assad’s tacit approval.
After years of Syrian provocation, Washington is finally responding. The Bush administration is demanding that Syria surrender Hussein’s nonconventional weapons — if it has them — and stop providing asylum to his henchmen. The administration is also calling attention to Syria’s own stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and its support for terrorist groups.
But Washington needs to go further: It should demand that Syria end its occupation of Lebanon, permit Beirut to disarm Hezbollah and assert control over its own country.
An American invasion of Syria most likely will not be necessary to produce results. Unlike Hussein, Bashar Assad has shown that he can be pressured. When the Turks threatened to invade Damascus unless he handed over the Kurdish terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan, the Syrian leader quickly obliged.
If the United States is serious about uprooting terrorism, it cannot stop with its victory in Iraq. The jihadist war against the West has been actively nurtured by several key Middle East regimes.
Focusing the struggle on Damascus is the inevitable next step of the counteroffensive that began on Sept. 12, 2001.
Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third, putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest.
Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence. ‘Iraq is a problem … But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,’ the defence minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.
Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the ‘centre of world terror’, and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush administration should put the strong arm on Iran ‘the day after’ it conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’
The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran. ‘The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East … But the next great battle – not, we hope, a military battle – will be for Iran,’ William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May.
The administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear programme. But Washington has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing Congress to approve the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand existing sanctions. Israeli officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington’s attention on the issue.
One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.
It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown, Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.
Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat’s death and the election of the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas would cause Washington to press vigorously and even-handedly for a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader US interests. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the cause of democracy in the region.
But that is not going to happen – not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel’s case today, and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities. Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.
The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.
Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.
There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability.
Besides, the Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts – or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.
Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more even-handed.
There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term interests as well.
So don’t be shamed by traditional social conventions about avoiding making political points out of respect for the dead. Like it or not but the information age and the 24 hour news cycle have made this genteel habit obsolete and indeed, maladaptive.
Spread the anti-“Invite the World” propaganda far and wide (Liveleak version in case YouTube shuts it down).
Note as Whyvert points out that Marine Le Pen, leading the opinion polls and the one politician who might have materially reduced the chances of this happening, is currently on trial for Islamophobia. The globalist elites don’t play fair and neither should you.
(2) It’s probably not even gonna cost you much, if anything.
For instance, here is what Wikileaks – an impressively redpilled organization – Tweeted soon after the attacks.
At least 39 dead tonight in Paris terror atacks. 250k dead in Syria & Iraq. Both a direct result of US, UK, France feeding Sunni extremists.
Contrary to their numerous detractors in the comments, this is an entirely brave and entirely appropriate Tweet. It’s the exact time and place because nobody would pay any attention otherwise.
Moreover, I took note of their follower count when they made this Tweet. It was at 2.81 million. A few hours later, it was still at 2.81 million.
Note that this in spite of the SJWs having attacked Wikileaks for politicizing these terrorist attacks but not the the likes of establishment journalists like Ezra Klein. But apart from confirming SJWs as the mercenary attack dogs of the neocons that they are, this didn’t even have any substantial effect on Wikileaks’ follower numbers, which goes once more to show that the SJWs are more bark than bite.
(3) The globalist elites are pure unadultered evil so do not take anything they say at face value.
And now we come to the “Invade Whe world” part.
The Syrian Civil War was a primarily US sponsored project to weaponize their Islamist lackeys to break up Syria for make benefit of Israel. And ever since Sarkozy it should be borne in mind that France has become even more “American” than the Americans, as seen in Libya, and in the ferocity of their demands to oust Assad.
COMMENTS:
* We got blown up in Boston by Muslims we support in this city the same way France got blown up by the Muslims they support in Paris. There is no yet, it’s already happened and they’re still here plotting the next B/S stunt. They are out there preparing. And there isn’t a thing we can do about it because not only aren’t we getting Muslims out, we’re bring more in. Already the liberals are warning the racists like me not to point out the religion of peace as a factor even though the religion of peace claims credit. See, to liberals, it’s just that bad-boy 1% of Muslims causing all the trouble. If only we could just be tolerant they would love us.
We have to get used to the idea that until we surrender the country to them, we have to get blown up once in awhile. These are simple things. Paris will surrender, the French will leave Paris to Muslims one day. Muslims are willing to wipe us out, we are not willing to wipe them out. Strongman wins, checkmate and they aren’t interested in the feminist multiculturalism of the West except for how easy it makes their “work”. How’s that feminist multi-cultural thing working, are we ready to abandon that? Until we do, they’re going to rack up the “wins”.
We’re surrendering our culture and country to them. It’s not a Democrat thing it’s white guilt. The French? They don’t have to stomach to fight back any more than we do. If they did, they would have flushed Muslims out of their country. No, instead, there will be a migration out of Paris the same way there has been a migration of whites out of Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc. We abandon our cities, we don’t fight back. It’s a surrender. Pretty simple, actually. Different cultures take over the cities here from the culture that will take over Paris, London and the rest over there in Europe, but cultures aside, it’s the descendants of the same African continent. Simple Demographics and it has nothing to do with Democrats. It has to do with Culture vs. Culture. And ours is weaker than theirs. Until I see evidence to the contrary, this will not change. Perhaps Islam and Hispanics will wage war for supremacy, I don’t know. It won’t be whites and feminists, that’s certain
I see no hope, only a slightly different time line between the US and Europe, although if we import our enemy in greater numbers, we shorten the time line to surrender. But we aren’t going to wage war on our own soil. They are willing, we are not. Strong culture wins. Bye bye, lights out.
* This problem has been brewing for decades in the western cities as a result of mass immigration and the gradual creation of sharia compliant enclaves, takeover of schools, rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing etc – all covered up by the media.
It’s true the neocons have stirred the pot and also true that Hollande, Cameron etc will try and use these attacks as an excuse for a war against Assad but the West was slowly breeding a civil war before that.
The neocon solution: invade the world, invite the world, is the worst of all.
The liberal solution: invite the world, ends the same way, just slower.
The solution is don’t invite the world.
* How the Middle East disaster has started:
The US neocons had intentionally removed all clear heads with the knowledge about the Arab world from the position of influence, in order to implement the grandiose Middle East plan of total butchery. A sampling: Mr. Feith in his power of under-secretary of defense for policy in the US government, had been assiduously weeding our Arabists that could be an obstacle to the neocons’ project for the Middle Eastern countries:
“…career U.S. intelligence officer Patrick Lang recounted a job interview he had with neocon war architect Douglas Feith. Lang, who had previously run the Pentagon’s world-wide spying operations, “was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency.” So he was interviewed by Feith:
“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.
“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’
“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’
“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’
“That’s too bad,” Feith said.
“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said.”
If there were no Israel Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act and U.S. policy toward Damascus would have been more in line with the U.S. national interest.
Israeli leaders did not push the Bush Administration to put its crosshairs on Syria before March 2003, because they were too busy pushing for war against Iraq. But once Baghdad fell in mid‐April, Sharon and his lieutenants began urging Washington to target Damascus. On April 16, for example, Sharon and Shaul Mofaz, his defense minister, gave high profile interviews in different Israeli newspapers. Sharon, in Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put “very heavy” pressure on Syria. Mofaz told Ma’ariv that, “We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done through the Americans.” Sharon’s national security advisor, Ephraim Halevy, told a WINEP audience that it was now important for the United States to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post reported that Israel was “fueling the campaign” against Syria by feeding the United States intelligence reports about the actions of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments after Baghdad fell. Wolfowitz declared that “there has got to be regime change in Syria,” and Richard Perle told a journalist that “We could deliver a short message, a two‐ worded message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: ‘You’re next’.” In early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria “should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless, irresponsible and defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate.” On April 15, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled “Next, Turn the Screws on Syria,” while the next day Zev Chafets wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled “Terror‐Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too.” Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on April 21 that Syrian leader Assad was a serious threat to America.
Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel (D‐NY) had reintroduced the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act on April 12. It threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly endorsed by the Lobby—especially AIPAC—and “framed,” according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, “by some of Israel’s best friends in Congress.” It had been on the back burner for some time, largely because the Bush Administration had little enthusiasm for it, but the anti‐Syrian act passed overwhelmingly (398‐4) in the House; 89‐4 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on December 12, 2003.
Yet the Bush Administration was still divided about the wisdom of targeting Syria at this time. Although the neoconservatives were eager to pick a fight with Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed. And even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasized that he would go slowly in implementing it.
Bush’s ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian government had been providing the United States with important intelligence about al Qaeda since 9/11 and had also warned Washington about a planned terrorist attack in the Gulf. Syria had also given CIA interrogators access to Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers. Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardize these valuable connections, and thus undermine the larger war on terrorism.
Second, Syria was not on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (e.g., it had even voted for U.N. Resolution 1441), and it was no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with Syria would make the United States look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Finally, putting Syria on the American hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to pressure Syria, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first.
Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws to Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israel officials and pro‐Israel groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act and U.S. policy toward Damascus would have been more in line with the U.S. national interest.
* The “liveleak” video that was posted here was also up on Youtube on the 11th of November, it was already taken down by the 13th. I wish I had copied it to my hard drive as liveleak provides no way (that I can see) to download this video, which is a shame. Moral of the story; when you see something like this posted on Youtube, copy it to your hard drive immediately. That way, if you are so inclined, you can re-upload it to Youtube as soon as they take it down. BTW; this video got over 1 million views in the 3 days that it was up, which says a lot about why they took it down as fast as they noticed it.
* White men are completely demoralized. Look at the full Yuri Bezmenov interview (clip included in video above). This all began as a Soviet effort to demoralize the West. It worked. Our left is multicultural socialist and our right is cuckold fetishist. None will lift a finger to defend our most important asset, our women and children, from the invading Islamists and Africans. 65 years ago, in 1950, white western men would have burned the Islamist areas to the ground and expelled every last one of them. Today, they are beaten. Beaten by communist inspired feminism, queers, and negro lovers. They’ve been forbidden from speaking truth for at least forty years. Thus the “men” who should do the defending are all feminized twats who cry at a skinned knee or perceived microagression toward a thug illiterate negro. They have no idea what competition is, they’re all “winners,” and unable to defend themselves let alone their wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. In fact, they look to these women to defend them!
The white MAN has been dead for two generations. Where isolated pockets of his race remain, in rural and exurban areas, he is shooting his guns at trees, crashing his motorcycles, and avoiding contact with the society which hates him. It is over for him. That’s the irony, that the USSR won even as it collapsed in ruin.
* It’s been said that the reason why the West made greater progress than the Muslim World is because the West went through the Renaissance whereas the Muslim World didn’t. It’s been said that Islamic culture held back freedom of thought and discourse.
But here’s one big problem. The Byzantine Civilization. The Greek-led Byzantine civilization was Christian. Also, unlike Western Europe that lost the culture of antiquity due to Germanic Barbarian Invasions, Byzantine civilization survived and preserved its memory of the classical past.
Then, why did the Byzantines fail to make the kind of progress that Western Europe did? Why did Western Europe that came under barbarian rule eventually grow richer and stronger whereas the Byzantines, which preserved the classical heritage, grow weaker and weaker, eventually being invaded by Venetians and then by the Ottomans?
One great result of the Germanic barbarian invasions was that it stopped the Roman agenda of diversity-propagating all over Europe. The classical dream of the original EU as spearheaded by the Ancient Romans was to racially muddy all of Europe. Romans brought slaves and merchants and workers from all over the world—Africa and Near East—and sought to spread them all over Europe. Romans conquered much of Northern Europe and built roads that would have connected Cairo and Damascus to Paris and London(whatever they may have been called back then). Had the Roman Empire not been brought down, European race might have been muddied into something like North Africans long long ago.
But the white Germanic Barbarians destroyed the imperialistic Romans, and thus they racially saved Europe.
And that kept Western Europe white. Of course, there were incursions into Southern Italy and Spain/Portugal by the Moors and other swarthy folks later on. And Russians fell under Mongol yoke and Greeks came under Ottoman Rule.
But the heart of Western Europe remained white.
Another great thing for the white race was the arrival of Muhammad and the spread of Islam. As a result, Christianity came under the challenge of non-white Muslims. Mongol Tatars turned Islamic. And all of Near East and North African came under Muslim rule.
If all such non-white peoples had been converted to Christianity(and had Islam never appeared on the scene), it’s possible that the Catholic Church back then(as it tries to do today) might have sought to create a world empire defined by faith than by race.
If indeed faith in Jesus should be the prime allegiance for a people, then white Europeans should feel as brothers with yellow Christians, brown Christians, and black Christians. But thankfully, Muhammad came along and created a new faith that won the hearts and minds of non-whites all over.
So, Christianity became the defacto the white religion and Islam became defacto the swarthy/black religion. Of course, there were white Muslims and non-white Christians, but Europe became predominantly Christian whereas the Near East, Central Asia(ruled by Mongols and Turkmens), and North Africa became predominantly Muslim. The Islamization of the world outside Europe made white Europeans more race-conscious as Christianity became synonymous with defending(and later spreading) white civilization. But this would not have been the case if there had been no Islam and if all of North Africa and Near East had become Christian. It’s possible that the Catholic Church might have sided with non-white Catholics against European Protestants. After all, there were times when Europeans even allied with Muslims against fellow Christians. This would have been even more likely if the Middle East and North Africa had turned Christian.
Perhaps, one of the problems of the Byzantines was racial. Since they ruled over much of the Near East, they often rubbed shoulders with less intelligent non-whites. So, there may have been less intellectual firepower regardless of whether the people there were Christian or Muslim. After all, even secular Arab nations haven’t been able to achieve much in the 20th century. Arab IQ is simply lower, and the Byzantine empire ruled over too many not-too-bright people. So, the problem could have been racial than cultural/religious. In contrast, Western Europe had more high-IQ people. This isn’t to discount the power of culture which is important, but we shouldn’t discount the power of race and biology.
Another reason why the Byzantines might have faltered and declined is because their civilizational continuity led to loss of vigor, to boredom and apathy. Paradoxically, it may have grown weaker in the long run(when compared to Western Europe that fell to Germanic barbarians) because it remained intact as a civilization.
Sometimes, a thing has to be rediscovered to spark curiosity and imagination. The Renaissance had a powerful impact on the West cuz the old was made ‘new’ again. It was reinvigorated as something to fire up the imagination again.
It’s a tragedy to lose one’s heritage and past, but there is also the mythic excitement of rediscovering it again through chance and imagination. The Renaissance wasn’t just an imitation of the rediscovered past but an inspired act of using its fragments—as too much of it had been lost forever—to envision something even greater and grander and richer.
So, the lesson for the Alt Right shouldn’t just be heritage and tradition. It needs to be the power to re-imagine the past and its lessons in a spirit of renewed vigor. It’s like sticking with the GOP is like trying to keep the Byzantine civilization going. It has lost its vigor. It’s about the likes of George Will and Bill O’Reilly arguing over Reagan’s mental health. It’s like Soviets in the 80s still trying to keep up the holy myth of Lenin that had turned into a mummy.
It would be stupid and crazy for a people to reject their own heritage. But mere clinging to heritage leads to dissipation, boredom, and enervation. The past must be retold and re-imagined and reinvigorated to inspire new visions of the future.
This is why Jews win. They use Hollywood and other industries to re-imagine and re-create the past in their own inspired manner(that is good for their power but deadly to their enemies, the white race).
With a culture of reinvigoration, one’s culture and identity turn into museum pieces, into mummies.
* The regime change in Syria was a ‘Israeli Project’ from day one.
On July 4, 2011, a conference of Syrian anti-regime groups was held in Saint-Germain in France. The meeting was attended by 200 people representing none of the Syrian groups calling for reforms in Syria – the ‘Democratic change in Syria’. The meeting was organized by La Regle du Jeu (The Rule of the Game) magazine and website which is headed by Zionist Jew Bernard-Henri Levy. The other Zionist Jews who attended the meeting included Bernard Kouchner, former French foreign minister, Frederik Ansel, a member of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, Alex Goldfarb, former Knesset member and adviser to Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and Andre Glucksmann, an Islamophobe French writer.
After the destruction of Africa’s richest country and most secularist regime in Libya, Bernard-Henri Levy, told a meeting of French Jewish Lobby CRIF, that he convinced French president Nicolas Sarkozy to remove Qaddafi because had become a threat to the security of Israel.
* Leading members of the George W Bush administration along with Blair and the leading neocons/Israel firsters must be brought to justice. The names of the leading neocon figures are:
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis Scooter Libby, Michael Ledeen, The Kagan clan, including Victoria Nudelman, The Kristol clan, The Podhoretz clan, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, John Bolton, Jennifer Rubin, Joshua Muravchik, Michael Rubin, Daniel Pipes, Marc Grossman, James Woolsey, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich.
A Chabad friend who’s gone Modern Orthodox says the hardest part is all the women (who let themselves go after marriage) want to hug and kiss you. A traditional Jew does not touch women (outside of his wife and family).
Chabad women tend to take care with their appearance. They tend to work out and dress fashionably. Modern Orthodox women in Los Angeles, from what I’ve seen, tend to pack on the pounds once they’ve landed a husband and they give up all pretense of caring about their looks.
Christopher Donnellan How do they ‘work out’? By making babies every other year?
Adam Parfrey this post will encourage them to work out for your approval
Steven Ben-Off Abrams You can meet lots of young, eligible Orthodox women at the Weight Watchers meetings near Beverly and Fairfax
* A baal teshuva friend who was dating a couple of decades ago found the Chabad women more open, more interesting, and more kooky than the MO women.
Posted inChabad|Comments Off on Going Modern Orthodox
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Posted inIslam|Comments Off on Winston Churchill’s Brutal Takedown of Islam Means More Today than Ever
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
