How To Deal With Illegal Immigrants?

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* If white Europeans are to survive in the coming centuries, as a distinctive ethny and not just as inclusion in someone else’s genome, then they must start electing unabashedly nationalist parties right NOW. Any delay, at this critical juncture would be fatal.

* The only way for survival in the future will be a world of border controls, barbed-wire walls and other such measures to prevent the fecund third worlders from bum-rushing their way in. It seems to have started already. Allowing them in within the gates would be a fatal mistake. I’m not very sanguine about the average American coming to realize this since many if not most have internalized the PC propaganda that’s been fed to them all these years. After all, the Clintons themselves applauded the coming nonwhite majority. Talking to your average American is usually a frustrating experience.

* The Saudis used to grow a lot of wheat. They announced the other day that next year’s crop will be the last. They’ve exhausted the aquifer that supplied the water to both Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Saudi Arabia can get by but Yemen’s 25 million people, even if there was no war, are going to be looking for gas stations and ghetto store locations in America… if the Palestinians or Pakistanis haven’t gotten there first!

Iran is drying up too. It was always an arid place but when you quintuple the population over 50 years you exhaust your water resources fast. Makes me wonder why Obama didn’t ask them where they are going to get the water to cool those nuclear power plants they are building?

Sub Saharan Africa probably has the land and water resources to support a couple of billion people but whether it has the organizational and engineering skill to build large scale irrigation systems is doubtful. It will have to be done for them assuming they allow it and can agree on some regional cooperation to move water to where it is needed.

* History tells us a few things about human migration. One is that the local population initially resists the newcomers vigorously, but that they soon tire and then seek an accommodation. If the math does not reward these efforts, in other words more migrants keep coming, the pendulum swings wildly the other way and it becomes a bloodbath.

For most of human history, technology did not add much to these fights. The German tribes flowing into Roman lands could overcome technological deficiencies with sheer numbers. This reality remained true in warfare, for the most part, until about 100 years ago when technology swung the other way.

Suddenly, superior technology could overcome massive superiority in numbers. The forts defending Liege were only overcome when the Germans could outmatch the Belgian technology with better German technology in the form of the Krupp 42-cm howitzer. Fifty years later, the Soviets were able to ring tens of millions of people through the use of technology in the form of walls, guns and intelligence networks.

How does half a million people fend off four billion? Walls will not be enough, that’s for sure.

* These astonishing graphs never seem to cause the extremely active and very well funded network of NGOs dedicted to open borders and the absolute right to movement one iota of doubt.

I am a little surprised this did not get more play:

http://news.sky.com/story/1551853/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-migrants

Not unexpected but it is a reminder that the relentless pressure from the you-must-share-all-your-worldly-goods-or-you-are-a-racist crowd has been ratcheding up in intensity in recent years.

These how-to enter and organise booklets apparently come from this:

http://www.w2eu.info

Which seems to be run by Bernd Kasparek, who also is active in anti-facist circles, ready to label anyone who ojects to ethnic replacement a racist.

And this in turn seems to emanate from: http://bordermonitoring.eu, a Germany-based outfit.

Several sites say this is partly George Soro’s work, as does the Hungarian prime minister. There may be more information in German which I do not read.

But dipping into the world of open borders campaign literature is to stumble into a giant bear trap of Orwellian control techniques, including labelling all resistance as ThoughtCrime.

Indeed the sort of ideological trap that caught a certain muddle-headed German leader.

* Those numbers are pretty meaningless once we free ourselves of the notion that there is any moral obligation to allow unlimited immigration. African countries will NEVER have the military power to invade Europe, so if Europe really wants to end the African invasion, which of course is currently (but not necessarily going to remain) a nonmilitary invasion, it won’t be difficult although it will be bloody… at least for Africans.

Middle Easterners are far more intelligent than Africans but ultimately Europe will always be ahead of the Middle East militarily too, at least for the foreseeable future. What Europe has to fear is terrorist attacks from Muslims inside Europe, and at this point there are already far too many Muslims to be able to expel them without civil war. The best Europe can hope for is mass assimilation of its Muslims and an end to further Muslim immigration. Of course we all know that is extraordinarily unlikely.

* Blacks are second only to Jews in terms of moral prestige, authority, dominance, and privilege in the West, if they’re not equal already, and may indeed surpass them in the future. There are already signs of this as blacks have made inroads as we’ve gone further away from WWII and as anti-Israel politics has become more prominent. It seems plausible that the West could continue promoting black interests in Europe and out of it in the rest of the world.

* How much do condoms cost? How hard are they to get? These Africans have smartphones, satellite TVs and a host of other trimmings of the modern world. Why would they be lacking condoms?

Africans and others readily adopt things from the Western world like tech, clothing and media that they find agreeable. If they found using condoms were agreeable, wouldn’t they already be using them in high numbers?

Keep in mind the white Christians that might tell them birth control is wrong are also the ones who tell them that extra-marital sex is wrong. If they listen to the white Christians on the former, why not the latter? I doubt white Christians are the cause of their family planning problem. As Steve has pointed out before, they have evolved in a land plagued by diseases like malaria, and thus have tended to have many children to ensure some survive. Modern medicines and surplus food have now messed with this survival strategy.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on How To Deal With Illegal Immigrants?

Steven Pinker: “Replicability Crisis in Psych DOESN’T Apply to IQ: Huge N’s, Replicable Results. But People Hate the Message.”

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Steve Sailer:

Steven Pinker’s tweet makes the same point about the Replicability Crisis in psychology that I made recently: IQ research is almost boringly replicable.

Pinker’s link directs us to the big International Society for Intelligence Research conference going on through Sunday in New Mexico. From the program, here are conference highlights:

Dr. James Thompson has been blogging at Psychological Comments about the conference, with many posts on new studies.

By the way, a survey was undertaken at the 2013 ISIR conference to rate 26 different journalistic outlets on reliability on IQ-related topics. I think the results deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

For a basic introduction, here’s my 2007 IQ Frequently Asked Questions list.

Posted in IQ | Comments Off on Steven Pinker: “Replicability Crisis in Psych DOESN’T Apply to IQ: Huge N’s, Replicable Results. But People Hate the Message.”

The Unabomber Had Some Sharp Insights About Leftists

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

The Washington Post published his manifesto 20 years ago. Here is part of it:

When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types…. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.”….

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on The Unabomber Had Some Sharp Insights About Leftists

The Jewish Drive To Marginalize Ann Coulter

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

Lee Smith, senior editor at the neo-con Weekly Standard writes:

Ann Coulter’s ‘F—ing Jews’ Comment and The Degradation of American Political Discourse

Ann Coulter went off the rails Wednesday night during the Republican presidential primary debate. Apparently angry that several of the candidates kept referring to Israel, Coulter tweeted: “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

The response on social media was mixed. Some defended Coulter’s remarks—“America has interests that aren’t Israel’s interests,” one Coulter supporter tweeted under the hashtag #IStandWithAnn—while others sharply criticized her. It seems that for many, the issue wasn’t the idea she was apparently trying to convey—that the candidates seemed perhaps overly focused on Israel —but rather the particularly ugly and vicious modifier she attached to “Jews.” It seemed to indicate either some sort of meltdown, or a very dark and angry corner of her mind.

Coulter has made questionable statements about Jews previously, in particular during a 2007 interview when she said that Christians “just want Jews to be perfected.” In fact, lots of Christian denominations have renounced replacement theology, or the belief that the followers of Christ have replaced the Jews as God’s chosen people. Thus, many Christians see the Jews not as a pool of potential converts but rather, in the words of Pope John Paul II, as “elder brothers.”

…American society, like all modern societies, is governed by a set of conventions and models established and enforced by its public elites, including policymakers and journalists, who identify those things that are to be prized and those that are to be detested. This is what coin of the realm means. If an issue is not denounced and identified as hateful and instead proves useful then it may enter the mainstream of political discourse and risk becoming an organizing tool.

So who are these public elites who determine what we say in public without getting shunned? Who are the elites who run the media who set the Overton Window?

Steve Sailer wrote in 2006: "Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad — for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms."

Sailer wrote:

To quantify the statement that "Jews are a small group, but influential in their areas of concentration," in 2009, the Atlantic Monthly came up with a list of the top 50 opinion pundits: half are of Jewish background.

Over 1/3rd of the 2009 Forbes 400 are of Jewish background, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency's reporter who covers Jewish philanthropy.

Joel Stein of the LA Times found in 2007 that people of Jewish background hold a large majority of the most powerful positions in Hollywood.

This is not to say that influential Jews are at all united in what they favor. On the other hand, it is more or less true that Jews hold something of a veto over what topics are considered appropriate for discussion in the press, Jewish influence itself being the most obvious example of a topic that is off the table in polite society.

John Derbyshire wrote: "I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT—not ever again—be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently."

Posted in Ann Coulter, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on The Jewish Drive To Marginalize Ann Coulter

Frost On Friday 1969 – Interview with Enoch Powell

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

Some choice Youtube comments:

* Would you like to backdown? No.

Would you like to backdown? No, not really no.

Would you like to denounce your past colleagues? No.

Would you like to renounce political heresy? No, back off!

Totally biased, marxist interview.

* Frost (in 1969) tries to ridicule Powell’s figures that, on present trends (i.e. trends of 1969) there would be around 8% to 10% of the population in Britain of immigrant origin by around the year 2000. Well, that’s precisely what has happened.

* The progressive left wing dominated mainstream media have brainwashed the people of Britain into total submission over the last two decades. We are slowly approaching the point of no return & should the people fail to wake up & vote it out at the ballot box then our children will have their freedom and culture erased.

* Frost got thrashed. Both during the interview, and retroactively throughout the decades that have since vindicated many of Powell’s suppositions.

* Powell: Brilliant: What I would give for a leader like him today. As a White British heterosexual male I have experienced being treated differently to others just for that reason. I fear for my children 9+ 8, who are now members of an ethnic minority within their own age group, as White British Children now make up less than 50% of Britain’s primary school pupils. Why was this man so vilified, why was he not listened to, was this the beginning of the being right is no excuse, telling the truth is no defence.

* It may have been a better show if the audience member who challenged Powell toward the end and Frost had changed places throughout. As Powell points out, Frost does seem unclear about whether his task is to interview Powell, debate Powell, or make speeches. Certainly it’s desirable for an interviewer to challenge his subject, but Frost doesn’t seem to understand when to cease pressing a point, and consequently Powell bests him repeatedly. I doubt that would have happened if the interviewer had been, say, Mike Wallace.

* The British Establishment Media Networks still enlist their biased audiences just like the BBC do even today some things never change. Filthy dirty sniper tactics from Frost trying to set Enoch up on National TV with misquotes and lying about the dockers and Enoch this country owes you a huge debt of gratitude for being truthful and destroying the politically correct trash spewed out by the liberal establishment media. The media are still pedalling the same old politically correct garbage today.

* Frost later goes on to bait Powell on whether he believes that there are differences in intellectual potential… TWICE. Powell answered him TWICE. He didn’t fucking know nor care because it wasn’t relevant to the changing ethnicity/cultures etc of British identity. Powell wasn’t ducking an awkward question. Indeed, Frost only thought that he landed a few blows. Frost looked stupid in Powell’s presence.

Powell was lambasted because he spoke of the unspeakable. He was honest to his own detriment (political suicide). He was in a political, social and intellectual league of his own. Grossly misunderstood and misquoted.

Was Enoch Powell right?

Yes, in principle. But he underestimated the influx and subsequent progeny. But Enoch also suspected that this would be the case!

An honest politician that told it like it was. Certainly a man before his time… and ours!!!

* Each to his own and all that, but David Frost did have sex with a lot of black women, and his sexual inclinations might explain his approval of mass uncontrolled immigration.

MORE COMMENTS:

* This is a great interview. People unfamiliar with Powell outside of the “Rivers of Blood” speech whereupon he was painted as some hostile raving loon would be well served to view it.

Here is a serious, admirable man and politician. Measured, thoughtful, affable, appreciative of language and determined to ably represent his constituents.

Worthy of note is that Frost nearly went through his Birmingham speech line by line to nitpick over singular words used. This shows both how far downhill political reportage has come in that Frost expected an audience to sit through such an exercise as well as showing the adversarial milieu in which Powell found himself at the time. After all, Frost seems to have given him a far more even handed time than most journalists at the time.

Lastly it would be interesting to note the predictions of Powell’s constituents which he recounts in the interview in places like Wolverhampton (?) and which Frost scoffs at, and the actual condition of such places today.

* The prissiness of Frost and an audience member over language and “inflammatory” terms is interesting. It shows how an emphasis on “hate speech” pre-dates our era of political correctness. I think it was the idea that Hitler used words to cast a magic spell over the Germans that made people like Frost so terrified of words and phrases.

* What it shows is the power of the media to the point of the media as the fifth estate. The absolute disrespect Frost is allowed, cutting Powell off, wise cracks, jabs and snide remarks, purposefully misconstruing his words, throwing out insinuations and associations. Whenever Powell made a point, Frost could throw out a joke and his audience of minions would laugh as if on cue. As Solzhenitsyn asked at Harvard, who elects them and whose interest do they serve?

* Why was Robert Frost a big deal? Because he worked for a company that had one of a handful of broadcasting licences and the towers and cameras to exploit that licence. That’s a pretty shabby claim to authority when you think about it.

PETER OSBORNE WRITES IN 2012:

With not one word changed, Powell’s speeches on Lords reform, some delivered half a century ago, could be delivered today. This is because his analysis was not dependent on day-to-day events and a transient national mood. His approach was based on first principles, extraordinary learning and a rigorous understanding of the British constitution.
It was this intellectual clarity which caused him to oppose British entry to what was then known as the Common Market. At the start of 1971, during the final stage of negotiations, Powell took himself round Europe speaking in Turin (in Italian), Frankfurt (in German) and Lyon (in French). As he remarked: “There is no more ignorant vulgarity than to treat language as an impediment to intercourse, which education, habit, travel, trade, abolish and then remove.” He used these speeches to warn his French, Italian and German audiences that the British tradition of national sovereignty and parliamentary democracy was incompatible with European economic and political union.
He warned: “A common currency means common government; the one is meaningless and impossible without the other.” This remark defines today’s European predicament. On foreign policy he was equally clear-sighted, arguing for a defence strategy based rigorously on the national interest. He was against the American invasion of Vietnam from the start: “The point is that the Americans do not live in south-east Asia, whereas the North Vietnamese and their neighbours do.” On the same principle it can be assumed that Powell would have opposed the Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya interventions.
He demanded equal treatment for enemy combatants, as his speech condemning the Conservative government cover-up of the Hola Camp massacre, in which Britain killed 11 Mau Mau rebels, shows. Powell condemned parliamentary colleagues who called the Mau Mau “sub-human”. The Labour politician Denis Healey called Powell’s contribution (delivered at 1.15 am) “the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard”, with “all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes”. His cold and lucid anger could equally well be applied to Guantanamo Bay and the other illegal detention facilities and torture centres around the world today.
But now we must come to Enoch Powell’s notorious speeches on immigration, which have defined his posthumous reputation and established his pariah status. He challenged the culture of denial that surrounded the subject even then, predicting that the immigrant community would rise much faster than official statistics suggested. His claims were denounced as alarmist and irresponsible, even by The Daily Telegraph. As Tom Bower shows in a well-researched and fair-minded essay, Powell’s projections turned out to be much nearer the truth than the official ones.
But he was wrong on every other point. The bloodshed he forecast has not occurred, while his language was dreadful. He described the fate of an elderly widow who “finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes out to the shops, she is followed by children, charming wide-eyed piccaninnies.” Journalists searched for this woman, but she could not be found. Questioned by David Frost on television, Powell acknowledged that he had never spoken to the woman, and could not even vouch for her existence.
The case for the defence goes like this: at the time immigration was surrounded by a culture of silence, and Powell was doing no more than bravely voicing the concerns (and using the language) of his constituents. He was no racist, as even opponents like Michael Foot acknowledged, and as his stance over the Hola Camp suggests. And let’s not forget that Powell, who had a brilliant war, risked his life for five years in the fight against fascism. But I am certain that the Conservative Party was right to drive him out for his remarks, which had the malign effect that no mainstream politician dared raise the issue of immigration for a generation.
For some, this single episode has been enough to damn his memory, and that can be understood. But Enoch Powell was a man of extraordinary integrity. He walked alone. To quote the late Daily Telegraph commentator TE Utley, doing his best to stand up for Powell in the wake of the notorious “rivers of blood” speech of April 1968: “He does not believe that politics is a hand-to-mouth affair, a succession of expedients to meet unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances.” He was never distracted by the tyranny of the present, and was one of the last politicians prepared to resign or to refuse office on a point of principle or out of loyalty to friends.
Mr Duncan Smith writes that “it is Powell’s belief in the importance of the democratic nation state as the source of political power and his fight to ensure the British people did not leave their sovereignty to supranational institutions which carry the greatest weight”. It is this conflict between the European Union and the nation state, clarified so brilliantly by Powell more than 40 years ago, which continues to animate British politics. Do not be surprised if in due course Mr Duncan Smith were to follow the example of Enoch Powell and resign over the Coalition’s stance on Europe.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Frost On Friday 1969 – Interview with Enoch Powell

The Sassoon Family Fortune Originated From Selling Opium To The Chinese

Posted on September 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

The greatest drug kingpin in history was an Orthodox Jew who attributed his business success to his careful observance of Jewish law.

According to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry on David Sassoon: “his business, which included a monopoly of the opium-trade, extended as far as Yokohama, Nagasaki, and other cities in Japan. Sassoon attributed his great success to the employment of his sons as his agents and to his strict observance of the law of tithe.”

A member of the Sassoon family emails me: “Luke, I read your article on the SASSOON’s. Your words are trouble and lead to nothing except rousing Antisemitism especially in the Arab world. You can look at any of the great moguls from past centuries and point a finger at the way they earned their fortunes. That goes for Ford and Edison and Vanderbilt and the rest. Why do you focus on the SASSOON’s. Is it only because of their Jewish roots?”

I would say that exempting Jews from the public criticism that others get is a bad idea for Jews (people behave badly when they are exempt from criticism) and for non-Jews (who will resent this Jewish exemption from criticism). Everybody behaves better when they are open to accurate criticism.

Posted in Drugs | Comments Off on The Sassoon Family Fortune Originated From Selling Opium To The Chinese

These Stars Will Totally Do Your Bar Mitzvah

Posted on September 18, 2015 by Luke Ford

Link: In April 2015, the “Starships” rapper set the bar for bar mitzvahs sky high, when she performed at 13-year-old Matt Murstein’s coming of age party at The Pierre Hotel in Manhattan’s Upper East Side. [Nikki] Minaj performed a private set of seven songs, snapped pictures with the teens on Matt’s step and repeat, and even doled out a little life advice to the crowd. Matt’s dad, Andrew Murstein, is the founder and president of Medallion Financial Corp.

Nicki Minaj bar mitzvah instas

* In 2008, Snoop Dogg told Esquire magazine, “I performed at a bar mitzvah. And I’m telling you, man, these little [expletive], they were singing my [expletive], they was cussin’, they were singing the dirty version. I’m talking about 12- and 13-year-old little white kids singin’ this real gangsta [expletive]. Man. I was shocked. I just gave them the mic and let them [expletive] go.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on These Stars Will Totally Do Your Bar Mitzvah

ADL Condemns Ann Coulter

Posted on September 18, 2015 by Luke Ford

Why would anybody think Jews control the media?

From the Washington Times: Ann Coulter is being vilified on social media after she accused GOP presidential candidates of pandering to “f–ing Jews” during Thursday night’s CNN debate.

“Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: ‘What will AMERICA look like after you are president,’” the annoyed pundit tweeted to her 664,000 followers. “How many f–ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

“Maybe it’s to suck up to the Evangelicals,” she posited.

“All GOPs = prolife, pro-Reagan, pro-Israel. Pandering on all 3 tonight was EPIC,” Ms. Coultersaid.

Ms. Coulter defended her profane tweet, adding, “I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night.”

The comments didn’t go over well on social media. Conservative radio host Mark Levin called her a “jackass.” New York Post columnist John Podhoretz told her directly, “Shame on you.” New York Times bestselling author Joel C. Rosenberg called her comments “ugly” and “reprehensible.”

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) also released a statement condemning Ms. Coulter. The group’s national director, Jonathan A. Greenblatt, issued the following statement Thursday morning:

“While most of America has rightly tuned out Ann Coulter’s hyperbolic and hateful rhetoric, her irresponsible tweets during the Republican presidential candidate’s debate are truly a new low and must be called out. Ms. Coulter is pandering to the basest of her base. Her messages challenging the candidates’ support for Israel were offensive, ugly, spiteful and borderline anti-Semitic. Her tweets give fodder to those who buy into the anti-Semitic notions that Jews ‘control’ the U.S. government, wield disproportionate power in politics, and are more loyal to Israel than to their own country. All decent Americans should reject Ms. Coulter’s rhetoric as simply beyond the pale.”

Posted in Ann Coulter, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on ADL Condemns Ann Coulter

Simon Wiesenthal Center Denounces Ann Coulter’s Anti-Semitic Presidential Debate Tweet

Posted on September 18, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Wiesenthal.com:

“Ann Coulter asks, ‘How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?’ and then blithely dodges Fox News’ direct challenge of her gratuitous anti-Semitic slur.”

“Disgusting,” charged Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish Human Rights NGO, reacting to Coulter’s Tweet during last night’s Republican debate.

“And if a simple, “I am sorry” is beyond the reach of the vocabulary of this noted wordsmith, then perhaps she has unearned her spot among top tier political pundits,” Cooper concluded.

The holy rabbi does not lower himself to explain what was disgusting about her tweet.

Posted in Ann Coulter | Comments Off on Simon Wiesenthal Center Denounces Ann Coulter’s Anti-Semitic Presidential Debate Tweet

Is Ann Coulter Anti-Semitic?

Posted on September 18, 2015 by Luke Ford

John Derbyshire writes: A side story from Wednesday night’s GOP candidates’ debate—covered more thoroughly in the full Radio Derb posted today—was the fuss about Ann Coulter getting exasperated with all the candidates’ asseverations of solidarity with Israel and tweeting, “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

The beep that Radio Derb listeners will hear, by the way, is Ann’s, not mine. Her actual tweet said “f-hyphen-hyphen-hyphen-i-n-g.”

This caused a lot of shrieking and swooning, especially of course from ethnocentric Jews. Actor Seth Rogen told Ann that, quote, “You are a horrible f—ing idiot.” John Podhoretz harrumphed back on Twitter.

Novelist and former British Member of Parliament Louise Mensch, who is Jewish by marriage, predicted that the offending tweet would end Ann’s career.

I seriously doubt that. Those of us who love Ann—and to judge by her book sales, our numbers are legion—love her for the same reason people love Donald Trump: she breaks the mold of conventional political rhetoric.

Trump does the same. The more he does it, and the more the Establishment pundits say “That’ll finish him for sure!” the higher his poll numbers go. I predict the same for Ann’s book sales.

And the mold of conventional political rhetoric has needed breaking. For more than a generation now—for thirty or forty years—politicians have observed the PC proprieties, walking on eggshells around anything that might give offense to anyone, pandering to favored groups and influential donors. The result has been that important issues don’t get discussed in the political arena—immigration policy being the outstanding example.

From the point of view of those of us who are fed up with that style of political diction —half mealy-mouthed schoolmarm prissiness, half unctuous fawning—Ann’s Wednesday tweet was a scream of protest against the latter: against unctuous fawning on what GOP candidates seem to think is a key voting segment.

Why do they think that? Estimates of the proportion of self-identifying Jews in the U.S.A. range from two to four percent, depending on whom you ask; and not all of them are fans of Israel. Why so many shout-outs from GOP candidates to such a tiny demographic? That’s a politer form of Ann’s question.

What’s the answer to Ann’s question? The answer is of course that Ashkenazi Jews punch way above their demographic weight in media and intellectual circles, and in big-money political donations, because their high average intelligence brings them success in the relevant fields.

That’s a fact of life in the U.S.A. I don’t myself think it’s a particularly deplorable one. Whether it is or not, it surely doesn’t justify the shameless and blatant pandering that Ann was targeting.

That pandering just fortifies the impression that our candidates, when they speak, are speaking to wealthy donors and influential commentators, not to us dull-witted, no-account proles: precisely the impression that is driving Donald Trump’s success.

Ann’s tweet was of course well-received by anti-Semites, opening her up to charges of guilt by association. Is she herself an anti-Semite?

adiosamericaA good place to go seeking an answer to that question would be Ann’s recent book, ¡Adios, America!

The book has 12 index references to Israel. Some are duplicates, references to the same passage under different headings. Here is a very brief summary of the eight referenced passages.

  1. The U.S.A. should be just as wary of changing our nation’s ethnic structure as Israelis are of changing Israel’s.
  2. Israel is among the nations with the lowest rate of sex trafficking.
  3. Israel has a robust policy against illegal immigration. Quote: “I admire Israel’s policy and wish we could adopt it,” end quote.
  4. Israel’s border fence works really well. U.S. politicians who scoff at the efficacy of border fences should direct their remarks to Israel.
  5. More praise for Israel’s firm policy against illegal immigrants.
  6. Quote: “Jews forthrightly ask: Is it good for the Jews? Why can’t Americans ask: Is it good for Americans?” End quote. There follows a comparison of our troubles with Mexico versus Israel’s with Palestine. This section ends with, quote: “Could we move Israel to our southern border? They know how to defend a country.”
  7. She pooh-poohs the lie that diversity is a strength, and raises counterexamples all over the world, including, “Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.”
  8. The anomaly of the New York Times giving over an editorial to boosting money transfers from the U.S.A. to Mexico when there was plenty of more important stuff going on in the world. There follows a paragraph listing that stuff, amongst it “Israeli airstrikes on Palestinians.”

That’s all Ann has to say about Israel in her book—not exactly a catalog of frothing Jew-hatred. The main impression you get about Ann’s attitude to Israel is that she admires their politicians for doing what ours will not do: defending their national sovereignty and keeping their ethnic balance intact. See Ann Coulter Calls Fury Over Jewish-Debate Tweet “Fake Outrage”: “I’m Pro-Israel”, by Paul Bond, Hollywood Reporter, September 17, 2015.

And as Ann has been pointing out in response to the fuss over her tweet, mass Hispanic immigration, which GOP candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have also been pandering to, is simply terrible for the Jews. [Ann Coulter Defends ‘F–king Jews’ Rant, By Jay Michaelson, Daily Beast, September 18, 2015 ] Hispanics have high levels of anti-Semitism. Where do you think all the old Nazis retired to? [In Argentine Haven for Fugitive Nazis, April Means Chocolate Eggs and Hitler Parties, By Meredith Hoffman, Tablet, April 29, 2014]

That’s not even to mention the mass immigration of Muslims into the U.S.A., which is giving anti-Semitism the kind of boost that mass immigration of rabbits would give to sales of lettuce.

Ann lays into that in her book very vigorously, under headings like Muslim Rape Culture and Muslim Terrorist Farmworkers.

If Ann’s down on the Jews, why isn’t she welcoming all these Jew-haters we’re bringing in?

Posted in Ann Coulter | Comments Off on Is Ann Coulter Anti-Semitic?