August 10, 2015 Blog: An Old Recording Of Megyn Kelly Talking About Penises, Breasts, And How She Has Sex, Proves Trump Was Right Kelly Is Absolute Trash Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Blog: An Old Recording Of Megyn Kelly Talking About Penises, Breasts, And How She Has Sex, Proves Trump Was Right Kelly Is Absolute Trash

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat: Donald Trump was disinvited from a prime speaking role to an important gathering of conservative activists on Friday for his criticism of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly after a combustible debate performance. As for the vacant spot at the Red State gathering, Red State chief Erick Erickson has invited Kelly to replace Trump. Kelly replacing Trump was a fair judgment in Erickson’s view for saying “blood coming out of her … whatever”. The comment stirred up a hornets nest. Well, Shoebat.com found a five year old interview of Meghan Kelly when she was climbing up the ladder not minding to get on the Howard Stern Show to gain fame while allowing Stern to discuss with her every sort of smut including her private sex live which is supposed to be sacred. She laughs and is okay with Stern discussing penises, breasts, in a very trashy nonchalant way.

Stern is a sleaze bucket who utterly despises women. But Kelly claiming that she is for women’s rights, then allows this reprobate to use her in order to further her career as a journalist says that Kelly is the one who owes an apology. Apologize and lets all move on. Stern uses women as an object of ridicule. And what about her husband? What man would allow his daughter or wife to get on some public adult radio and have a sleaze bucket talk sex with them? This is not a private matter. Kelly made this public.

Now lets compare this with Trump’s remark:

Donald Trump was right, Meghan Kelly is a wretch and a vulgar low life. Donald Trump posted on his Twitter that the biggest loser was Meghan Kelly:

“@RubenMMoreno: @realDonaldTrump The biggest loser in the debate was @megynkelly. You can’t out trump Donald Trump. You will lose!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 7, 2015

Trump’s blood comment could have meant that blood was coming out of her ears, nose … whatever. Even if Trump was saying that Kelly must have been on her menstrual cycle, its a comment men usually use. Let the man who never used such comment cast the first stone.

Posted in Donald Trump, Sex | Comments Off

Is Obama Blaming The Jewish Lobby?

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

I am not a Middle East expert and I have no position on the proposed treaty with Iran.

Is there a Jewish lobby? It seems to me obvious that just as there is a black lobby, a business lobby, a Silicon Valley lobby, and a Christian lobby, there’s also a Jewish lobby and it is probably the most powerful lobby of all because Jews contribute about three-quarters of the money to the Democrats and about a quarter of the money to the Republicans.

Jews also exercise an influence in the media that is disproportionate to their numbers, an influence that some Jews such as Joel Stein have argued amounts to “Jewish control.”

So it seems to me that President Obama is rational to be concerned about the Jewish lobby. If Jews turn overwhelmingly against the treaty, it will make life difficult for the president.

Lee Smith writes:

Apparently, President Obama wasn’t paying attention because the one point he made sure to drive home in his speech the next day at American University in Washington, D.C. is that there are only two choices: the JCPOA or war. And the only nation in the world that does not think this is “such a strong deal” and “has expressed support” is the Israeli government. In short, if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.
A senior official at a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish organization involved in the Iran fight told me: “The President told concerned Jewish Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”
It’s unfortunate that the president of the United States seems to really believe that Israel and the American Jewish community was responsible for taking America to war in Iraq. But Obama is not an anti-Semite and it seems he doesn’t even really want to use anti-Jewish dog whistles, like he did last month on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. But the JCPOA is the cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy and he’s determined to win. AIPAC is leading the countercharge with a multi-million dollar campaign managed by a group called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran. According to The Washington Post, “The president suggested to AIPAC that ‘if you guys would back down, I would back down from some of the things I’m doing.’’’
Or, as one of the participants told me Obama said, “If you don’t like the claims that are being made, don’t run the advertisements.” In other words, lay off criticizing the Iran deal and I’ll lay off the Jew-baiting.
“Fifty-two years ago,” said Obama, “President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace.” Obama’s political tactics however point not to Kennedy’s Cold War but Nixon’s Southern strategy, which played on the racist fears of white southerners. If the purpose of the Obama Administration’s Jew-baiting is to silence potential critics of the JCPOA, it may also stoke a deeply ugly hatred that is no less dangerous to American society than racism.
Even if the JCPOA turns out to be worse than its critics charge—a deeply flawed inspection and verification regime, billions of immediate sanctions relief that could fuel Iran’s imperial terror throughout the Middle East, etc.—America will survive it, as will Israel. America’s center of gravity is not its position in the Persian Gulf. Rather, it’s our social cohesion. For all of our many flaws, our petty hatreds, our violence against one another: America works because of the fundamental trust Americans have in their neighbors—black and white and brown and yellow, Christian, Jewish and Muslim—throughout the fifty states. Why is the president putting that at risk? For the sake of comity with an anti-American, anti-Semitic obscurantist regime.

I have some thoughts on this article, starting with this quote:

The president complained about the lobbying, and said some of the same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran deal. He was told those characterizations are not accurate. Jewish lobbyists didn’t support the Iraq war.”

Jews were the least favorable of any ethnic or religious group towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and yet Jewish neo-conservatives pushed for the invasion. This tiny number of intellectual Jews wield disproportionate influence in the media and in shaping public opinion. And they were really really wrong about invading Iraq. And now these same Jewish neo-cons are opposing the deal with Iran.

Another participant who also asked to remain anonymous told me that some people expressed discomfort with “how the debate is being framed—framed as, ‘if you are a critic of the deal, you’re for war.’ The implication is that if it looks like the Jewish community is responsible for Congress voting down the deal, it will look like the Jewish community is leading us off to another war in the Middle East.”

The background to this discussion is that the United States is far more involved in the Middle East than its national interests dictate. On a rational basis, the United States has little if any national security interest in supporting Israel. So why does the United States support Israel so much? Whatever the reasons, it’s crazy.

I support Israel because I am a Jew and I have a strong interest in the Jewish state. I am also a citizen of the United States of America and I want America to make its foreign policy decisions solely on its national interests. I doubt America would have been attacked on 9/11 if not for its support of Israel.

As for this: “… if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.”

When people sell things, including international agreements, they tend to use stark language.

It’s not at all clear that most American Jews oppose this proposed agreement with Iran, though the most involved Jews in Jewish life do seem to be against it.

From Breitbart:

POLL: PLURALITY OF AMERICAN JEWS SUPPORT IRAN DEAL, 49%-31%
The results among American Jews contrast with polls among Israeli Jews, who are strongly against the Iran deal. A recent poll of Israeli Jews indicated that 78% believe the Iran deal endangers the country. A strong plurality of Israeli Jews favored a military strike against Iran, 47% to 35%. The rift, says Jewish Journal columnist Shmuel Rosner, is the “first damaging impact of a troubling agreement with Iran.”

Perhaps American Jews and Israeli Jews have somewhat different interests?

“The President told concerned Jewish Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”

Jews exercise disproportionate influence in America because Ashkenazi Jews average IQs are around 115, because Jews work hard, and network effectively. Therefore, when formidable Jews are against what you’re doing, you’re in for a difficult fight. President Obama finds himself in a tough place and he’s trying to make his case the best he can. If you look at the world from the perspective of what is good for the Jews, the way Obama is fighting his fight is not good for the Jews.

Jews have formidable resources but so does the President of the United States. It is typical of American presidents to make the case for treaties with unpalatable enemies that such deals will reduce the risk of war and that those who disagree with the treaty are increasing the risks of war. That’s not a sinister argument. That’s a normal argument.

Even if the JCPOA turns out to be worse than its critics charge—a deeply flawed inspection and verification regime, billions of immediate sanctions relief that could fuel Iran’s imperial terror throughout the Middle East, etc.—America will survive it, as will Israel. America’s center of gravity is not its position in the Persian Gulf. Rather, it’s our social cohesion. For all of our many flaws, our petty hatreds, our violence against one another: America works because of the fundamental trust Americans have in their neighbors—black and white and brown and yellow, Christian, Jewish and Muslim—throughout the fifty states. Why is the president putting that at risk? For the sake of comity with an anti-American, anti-Semitic obscurantist regime.

It’s not at all clear that Israel will survive.

America’s center of gravity is not its social cohesion — it’s the hard working whites who built and continue this country. Diversity is a curse to America just as it is to every country that suffers from it. There’s no evidence that Americans have much trust in their fellow citizens of different race. Non-blacks tend to hate blacks, blacks tend to dislike non-blacks, Mexicans dislike gringos, and so forth.

I think all groups, including Jews, are improved by accurate criticism and shaming. No people, including Jews, have only wonderful qualities, and sometimes you learn more about who you are by listening to your critics than by listening to your friends.

I agree with the response Tabletmag posted by Todd Gitlin and Matthew Duss:

The fact of the matter is that money, lobbying, and donor pressure all play a huge part in American politics. When the issue is the Gun Lobby, the Pharmaceutical Lobby, or the Defense Industry Lobby, such observations are unremarkable. Yet when the issue is Israel, the banal observation that wealthy lobbies have influence is somehow transformed into evidence of prejudice. Opponents of the Iran deal have boasted about the amount of money they would spend to defeat it. It’s absurd to suggest that noting this fact, as the president has done, should be off-limits, a form of “Jew-baiting.”
It’s also a fact that many of those criticizing the deal, though not all, were outspoken advocates of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Many have also advocated military action against Iran. Opponents of the deal may consider it inconvenient to be reminded of this, but hiding behind reckless, unsubstantiated accusations of anti-Semitism is both cowardly and insulting to the real victims of actual the anti-Semitism, that is, as both of us have repeatedly written, horribly alive in the world.
Discussions of money and its influence on politics, particularly with regard to issues of war and peace, are freighted with disturbing historical resonances. But to point out the influence of wealthy Jewish organizations and individuals is not to impute disloyalty. To ignore it, in fact, would be absurd. A policy debate over an issue as significant as that between the U.S., its P5+1 partners, and Iran is bound to get intense—and tense—and Tablet’s editorial did nothing to advance the discussion on the merits of the proposed nuclear deal.

Former American intelligence officers tend to loathe Israel because they saw on the job the Jewish state hijacking American interests.

Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi never seems to have a good word to say about American support for Israel and his latest column is no exception:

Make no mistake, the U.S. media and inside the beltway punditry boast about their professionalism and integrity but it all goes out the window when Israel is the topic. Many of those involved are themselves Jewish and identify as “strong Israel supporters” and for those who are not of the Tribe the understanding that criticism of Israel is a quick ticket out of town frequently prevails.
This twisting oneself into knots to deny what is clearly visible has been never as evident as during the past two weeks with the launch of the hate Iran agenda to derail President Barack Obama’s negotiated agreement relating to that country’s nuclear program. The public has been fed a steady diet of alarmist nonsense cranked out by journalists like Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer, depicting the Iranians as suicidal religious fanatics, liars and thieves, terrorists and, of course, Jew haters who also run around chanting “Death to America.” That the Obama agreement would take away from those Persian miscreants the ability to actually create a nuclear weapon has somehow been lost in the shuffle because if Israel and its domestic lobby want something then the path of least resistance is to go along with their demands.
The Republicans will block vote on the Iran deal to spite Obama but the process being engaged in by the Democrats who are sitting on the fence is far more excruciating to watch. They are being lobbied hard, sometimes directly by and even in Israel: “Some members of Congress are going on trips to Israel, with some arranged by the American Israel Education Foundation, a charitable organization affiliated with AIPAC, a deal foe.”
Most of the Congressmen being quoted in the media are Jewish and are openly stating their concern for Israel while the media is uncritically accepting that as a reasonable position. Rarely does the issue of any actual American interest come up. Nor is there much discussion of the reality in the Middle East, which is that a U.S. armed and funded Israel is the regional superpower, not Iran, and that if there is a nuclear threat locally it comes from Tel Aviv.
The Congressmen who are hesitating should remember who has elected them and who pays them. If they are squeamish about defending American interests they should resign and go home. The reality is that we owe the Israelis nothing and the constant process of bribing them and deferring to their alleged interests so they will behave is demeaning to us as a country and also self-defeating as they couldn’t give a tinker’s damn for the American people except insofar as it is possible to take our money and otherwise exploit us.
To be sure, Israel benefits enormously from its powerful fifth column inside the United States and there is already far too much deference by the federal government to what are manifestly Jewish issues. Though only 2% of the population, American Jews nevertheless wield enormous economic and political power which understandably translates into media access and influence over policies. That would be a given for how representational politics actually work under capitalism but there is something disturbing about how this plays out in practice. The Obama Administration has an Associate Director for Jewish Outreach in the White House Office of Public Engagement named Matt Nosanchuk but there is no designated outreach director to the nation’s 77 million Catholics. President Obama meets repeatedly with Jewish leaders, many of whom are hostile to his policies, but I have yet to read about him meeting with groups of Catholics or mainline Protestants. Many of them might well be supportive of what Obama is doing but there is no “outreach” office for them and no attempt to obtain their adherence to proposed programs.
The federal bureaucracy has for many years included numerous American Jews in the upper level positions relating to national security, Middle East policy and counter-terrorism. Most are responsible individuals who are serious about their commitment to impartial government service. But some are not so scrupulous. Dennis Ross, former Middle East negotiator, is not called “Israel’s lawyer” as a compliment. And there were also Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, all of whom were actively engaged in bringing about the disastrous invasion of Iraq, intended in part to benefit Israel.
And then there are the neoconservatives to include the State Department’s Victoria Nuland who somewhat inexplicably are advanced in their careers by Democrats as well as Republicans while having strong ties to Israel and its leaders. Does their religion or perceived ethnicity matter? It certainly does for those of them who, like the Jewish Congressmen unable to decide how to vote, cannot compartmentalize their own personal baggage when participating in the crafting of U.S. foreign policy.
Washington inexplicably gives a wealthy and militarily powerful Israel $3 billion annually for defense spending, a sum that it now wants to raise to nearly $5 billion as a bribe for good behavior, which will not in any event be forthcoming. Meanwhile, within the federal government there exist special bureaucracies and benefits that are little known to the public, created in response to narrowly construed Jewish interests. Apparently successful efforts made by Congresswomen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fund special health care benefits for Holocaust survivors constitute little more than a bid to create a two tiered system that provides extra financial support for a favored group. As near as I could determine, any European Jew who was not killed during the Second World War is considered a “Holocaust survivor.” Every American who has diligently paid into the Medicare trust fund should find the proposal for special benefits based on religion offensive in the extreme…
Washington’s Holocaust Museum, undeniably a political statement vis-à-vis Israel, was built using private contributions but the taxpayer covers its operating costs, $52 million in 2014, making it the most expensive museum in Washington. The State Department has a Special Adviser to the Secretary on Holocaust Issues as well as a Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues. The two offices are headed respectively by Stuart Eizenstat and Nicholas Dean. There is also a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, a position held by Ira Forman, a former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Political Director.
All three are senior Foreign Service Ambassador level positions with full staffs, first class travel expenses and additional funding. Foreign Service Executive Schedules top out at $203,700 plus benefits which is presumably what the trio are being paid…
Ironically, most American Jews support a deal with Iran, even if the self-described leaders of their community nearly unanimously do not. If I were a Jewish American listening to all the chatter I would find it highly offensive to be pandered to and treated as if I need to be constantly cajoled or even bribed to behave. There should be no “Jewish” policy towards Israel any more than I as an Italian American or my wife who is British born should favor special policies regarding Italy or the United Kingdom. Washington’s foreign policy ought to be bereft of “passionate attachment” to any other nation, intended instead to benefit the citizens of the United States. There is no question but that a negotiated agreement with Iran is good for Americans as it will both avoid another war and remove a proliferation threat. Contrary to the incoherent noises coming out of Benjamin Netanyahu’s office a deal would also be good for Israelis.

I read Philip Giraldi regularly. I appreciate his even-handed comment about Jewish bureaucrats: “Most are responsible individuals who are serious about their commitment to impartial government service.”

Posted in Barack Obama, Israel, Jews | Comments Off

What’s Ahead For Africa?

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Millions of hardy and very much still functional Kalashnikovs out there in Africa and millions and millions of young men seeing how much better things could be… what could possible go wrong? I foresee plenty of peace, kind of like one big continent-wide county fair or music festival, just one big happy farmer’s market. But I could be wrong.

* What Britain has yet to learn, but which the American South has known for quite some time, is that eventually the white voters do rebel against the party which becomes less and less subtle about opposing their interests. Whites in America are just beginning to turn away from the Democrats in droves, as that party is forced to embrace the absurd in support of its new demographic base.

Barack Obama has presided over a massive collapse in Democratic politicians nationwide, at every level – local, state, and national – especially white Democrats. The result is that there are fewer white Democrats to appeal to the white electorate, and white voters flee. It becomes a vicious circle.

And whites are still an overwhelming majority in Britain, and the population there is already figuring it out. In the US, people were much slower to come to the realization of how anti-white Democratic policies truly are.

* Immigration is about one thing: capturing as much as possible of the positive externalities that Whites create.

* A handful of Europeans–by which I mean only a million, a hundred thousand, ten thousand–using advanced technology could stop this onslaught and expel the invaders.

Soon enough the Europeans will remember that they still possess spines. The backlash that is coming is as predictable as the demise of feminism.

Posted in Africa | Comments Off

How Do Police Subdue Nasty Strong Men?

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* As I recall, Rodney King was Tasered twice, but still rushed one of the LAPD officers, which led to the baton strikes. He was lucky he was not shot multiple times.

The problem with less-lethal weapons is several f0ld:

1. Less-lethal does not mean non-lethal. Incorrect use or accident may still lead to serious injuries or death.

2. Less-lethal weapons are usually not as portable. Police officers already carry a heavy load, and there is not much room left for more equipment without sacrificing mobility and comfort.

3. Less-lethal weapons are costly.

4. Less-lethal weapons are at times unpredictable and unreliable, and increase risks for the officer and bystanders.

* Once back in the 1990s, a very large friend of mine who had been an Ivy League football lineman went into an out of control manic spell. It took about a half dozen Chicago cops to gang tackle him so he could be hauled off to the mental hospital. (He made a full recovery.) If somebody had started filming that incident about halfway through it would have looked like six cops beating up a poor innocent professional, like in “Back to Blood.” But I’m glad the cops were willing to roll around in the dirt with my friend rather than just stand back and shoot him.

I’d like to put a helmet on before I had to swarm somebody out of control. Of course, then you’d get your picture in the paper as one of those horrible “militarized” policemen.

* “Swarming” is a pretty good way to take into custody an unruly weapon-less suspect. But it requires several officers on scene, and then, of course, there is always the danger that the suspect may have an edged weapon on him, in which case there is going to be a lot of blood.

Civilians tend to fixate on guns, but edged weapons can do horrific damage to the human body, and modern body armor tends to be less effective against edged weapons then to gunfire (though great improvement has been made in the last 10-20 years in that aspect).

* In the abstract, yes, police should have better hand-to-hand skills, and yes hand to hand skills are valuable. the caveat is this:

As heavily armed as cops are nowadays, a mano-a-mano tussle will rapidly become a struggle for the policeman’s p-24, handcuffs, mace, tazer, and yes, gun.

Posted in Blacks, Crime, Politics | Comments Off

IN SEARCH OF HUMAN NATURE: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought By Carl N. Degler

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

Richard A. Shweder wrote in the New York Times in 1991:

Anyone who has lived long enough in the social sciences has seen the nature-nurture pendulum swing: from nature in the first decades of the century, to nurture in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, to nature once again in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.

“In Search of Human Nature” is a chronicle of the nature-nurture debate and a masterly intellectual history of the reverberation of Darwinian ideas in popular social thought and in the thoughts of social scientists. Carl N. Degler, an obvious admirer of contemporary sociobiological ideas and a distinguished historian at Stanford University, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for his book “Neither Black Nor White,” argues that the Darwinian concepts of instinct, heredity and biological explanations of behavior are back — this time without the racism, without the sexism, without the eugenics and without recourse to the legend of the inherent inferiority of the uncivilized and the poor. I suspect Mr. Degler is half right — biology is back.

Just last year an article in Science magazine pointed out the many similarities between identical twins raised in different homes and declared: “For almost every behavioral trait so far investigated, from reaction time to religiosity, an important fraction of the variation among people turns out to be associated with genetic variation.”

Equally revealing was “Three Cheers for Behavioral Genetics,” an address delivered in 1986 by Sandra Scarr, the president of the Behavioral Genetics Association. Though she began by speaking out eloquently against one of the disquieting undercurrents of our times — against the idea that when it comes to innate intelligence something is wrong with black children — she then went on to conclude that “social-class differences in IQ are largely genetic.” One of the basic messages of her address was that children of successful people may do better in life because they have better genes, and that those who believe anyone can be President do not think much of the office.

Another sign of the times appeared in the winter issue of the journal The Public Interest. There one finds an essay by Richard Herrnstein, a psychologist at Harvard University, in which he severely criticizes social scientists and policy makers for suppressing debate about the biological basis for racial differences and urges them to consider “the possibility that the different outcomes [ in intellectual achievement, criminality and health for blacks and whites ] are also the product of differing average endowments of people in the two races.”

Mr. Degler’s thesis is that such biological explanations of group differences were rampant in Western social thought from the time of Charles Darwin until the late 1920’s, when they were excommunicated from polite and scholarly discourse. Mr. Degler says that although Darwin himself viewed racial differences as insignificant, his ideas about the biological roots of human behavior led to social Darwinism. He believes Darwin inadvertently set loose the supernumerary imp of genic group differences by positing that savage peoples did not have the bodies to support civilization.

Between 1880 and 1925, Mr. Degler shows, any scientist could, credibly and without censure, write in scientific publications about the maternal instinct of women and the hunting instinct of men. Any well-educated person could stereotype men as “unfettered by any such sentiment as sympathy, and therefore wholly devoid of moral conceptions of any kind.” One could profess in public forums that when it came to the good things in life — intelligence, morality, character — blacks, yellows, Mediterranean or Eastern European whites had relatively bad genes. Sociological textbooks could declare that “the negro is not simply a black Anglo-Saxon deficient in school.” Essays in The American Journal of Sociology could proclaim that there is “no reason why races may not differ as much in moral and intellectual traits as obviously as they do in bodily traits” and that it is a mistake “to subject them to the same methods of government.”

Remember Al Campanis, the Los Angeles Dodger executive who was fired in 1987 after a notorious interview on Nightline in which he said, during a celebration of the racial integration of baseball, “I truly believe that they [ black major league baseball players ] may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or perhaps a general manager”? Such sentiments would scarcely have attracted attention 70 years ago.

But in the 1920’s, biological explanations for group differences became taboo. These ideas were banished, Mr. Degler suggests, largely for ideological and political reasons. A coalition of Roosevelt liberals, newly arrived European immigrants and northward-bound migrating blacks favored equal opportunity for the disadvantaged, as did scholars who sympathized with downtrodden groups and who were willing to assume that differences between groups in intellectual achievement, behavior, talent and interest were mainly the result of social and educational discrimination.

Posted in Blacks, Genetics, Race | Comments Off

The Coup Is Coming II

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

A few months ago, I wrote that the coup is coming.

Here are comments to Steve Sailer:

* It is rapidly becoming clearer that the Constitutional system of checks and balances has broken down, leaving the President free to do largely as he or she pleases. I’ve sometimes wondered whether what might already have happened if the US military’s officer corps had remained mostly white Southerners. A future coup might well materialize among special operations forces, although I think they would need the cooperation of certain sections of NSA. Putting more blacks into special operations makes sense from a coup avoidance point of view, not from any desire to enhance effectiveness.

* I don’t think a coup is very probable but if it were to happen I doubt the ringleaders would disclose what they really thought if it meant compromising their position.

A more realistic coup is a counter long march through the institutions, but not the military per se.

Posted in Blacks, Military | Comments Off

Racial Reality And The New Orleans Nightmare

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

By Steve Sailer on September 3, 2005 at 12:00am

It was the Perfect Storm.
No, not Hurricane Katrina. That could have been much worse. Back in the 1990s, my friend Rob Brennan wrote an unpublished novel called Category 5 about a ferocious hurricane that strikes New Orleans at the worst possible angle. Katrina, in contrast, was a Category 4 hurricane and hit New Orleans only a glancing blow.
No, the perfect storm was actually the combination of social and governmental incompetence at local, state, and federal levels—and unmentionable racial reality.
Republican Presidents are supposed to provide adult supervision for crooked Democratic urban machines. But the White House is now occupied by George W. Bush, a politician so irresponsible, so uninterested in proficiency and honesty among his minions that late last year he tried to appoint as Secretary of Homeland Security the egregious Bernie Kerik.
Mr. Bush shows no evidence of holding his appointees accountable, so long as they remain loyal to him personally. Just as he has never vetoed a bill, he almost never fires anyone for poor performance.
VDARE.com readers are familiar with the contempt with which Mr. Bush treats his sworn duties to uphold the laws against illegal immigration. Now the whole country is starting to catch on to his disregard for his duties in his pursuit of image over effectiveness.
His invade-the-world-invite-the-world policies have left America unprepared for predictable domestic troubles, as Paul Craig Roberts recently pointed out here.
The ineptitude displayed by the Louisiana state government is also unsurprising. The state is unique in having a Latin political tradition (it uses the Code Napoleon rather than the English common law, even though Napoleon didn’t release his code until the year after he sold Louisiana to Thomas Jefferson), a culture in which the Argentinean demagogue Juan Peron would have felt at home.
The unofficial state motto is “Laissez les bons temps rouler” or “Let the good times roll.” Compare that to New Hampshire’s official motto of “Live free or die,” which display a rather different understanding of freedom. Louisiana’s reigning philosophy is freedom from responsibility.
It’s a general rule that the tastier the indigenous cuisine, the lousier the government. Its culture has provided America with jazz, A Street Car Named Desire, and the great American comic novel of the 20th Century, A Confederacy of Dunces. New Orleans is a nice place to visit. But you wouldn’t want to raise your kids there.
All this is now common parlance, more or less. What you won’t hear, except from me, is that “Let the good times roll” is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.
New Orleans itself is two-thirds black. It has had nothing but black mayors since 1978. All four of them are from the light-skinned “creole of color” elite, including the notorious Marc H. Morial, now head of the National Urban League. The city government is corrupt and lackadaisical. While the police department has perhaps rebounded from the depths it reached a decade ago when an officer was condemned to death for having a mother of three rubbed out by drug gangstas in his employ, nobody should be surprised that last week numerous officers ran away, and some even freelanced as looters.
In a racially diverse democracy like New Orleans, voting for good government takes a backseat to voting for your tribe’s representatives in the eternal ethnic tussle over slices of the pie. As the ultra-competent but not terribly democratic founder of the state of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew, noted in a recent interview:
“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
For instance, after blacks took control of New Orleans, they required new police recruits to live in the city itself as a way to exclude white cops. Dean M. Shapiro writes for Court TV’s “Crime Library”:
“The department was being depleted of experienced officers and the numbers within the ranks were decreasing as crime stats were rising at an alarming rate… In order to beef up the rapidly dwindling numbers of NOPD, the department was forced to lower its acceptance standards. Recruits with criminal records, DWIs, unfavorable employment records and dishonorable discharges from the Armed Forces were allowed to enter the Police Academy, whereas they had previously been excluded… Their records were expunged and, on completion of their training, they were issued badges, guns and patrol cars and turned loose on the street… These new officers were expected to suddenly straighten up and begin enforcing the laws they had not-so-long-ago been breaking. They were expected to arrest those suspected of crimes, even if those accused had once been their street buddies. But this was an unrealistic expectation.”
The state’s Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Evacuation and Sheltering Plan made all the right noises about evacuating residents without cars by school bus. But state and local authorities apparently failed to execute, as the famous picture of about 200 New Orleans school buses neatly lined up in a flooded parking lot shows.
It also should have been expected that a large fraction of New Orleans’s lower class blacks would not evacuate before a disaster. Many are too poor to own a car, or too untrustworthy to get a ride with neighbors, or too shortsighted to worry.
Judging from their economic and educational statistics, New Orleans’ blacks are not even an above-average group of African-Americans, such as you find in Atlanta or Seattle, but more like Miami’s or Milwaukee’s. About half are below the poverty line. With the national black average IQ around 85, New Orleans’ mean black IQ would probably be in the lower 80s or upper 70s.
And of course nobody, despite what they may say, is all that much startled that, when the city’s whites and more prosperous and/or foresightful blacks left, New Orleans quickly turned into its demographic analog, Haiti—where 2004’s Tropical Storm Jeanne unleashed similar mayhem and chaos.
Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola of New Orleans who represents political prisoners in Haiti, stayed behind with his wife, who is a nurse. He noted:
“I had always hoped that Haiti would become more like New Orleans, but what’s happened is New Orleans has become more like Haiti here recently.”
In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks. For example, the per capita imprisonment rate for Asian-Americans is about 1/30th that of African-Americans.
Nor is it surprising that the black refugees at the Superdome and the convention center failed to get themselves organized to make conditions more livable. Poor black people seldom cooperate well with each other because they don’t trust other blacks much, for the perfectly rational reason that they commit large numbers of crimes against each other.
Indeed, as Francis Fukuyama’s best book, Trust, makes clear, in most of the world—outside Japan and the more British-Germanic-Nordic parts of Europe and their overseas offspring like America—people seldom trust fellow citizens beyond their extended families enough to voluntarily come together to solve community problems. Force is generally needed to get them to work with each other. Which is why “civic society” is relatively rare.
(Why Mr. Bush wants to import vast numbers of additional immigrants from cultures where unrelated residents have no tradition of self-organizing as free individuals is a mystery for another day.)
But if all these disasters in New Orleans should have been expected, why did nobody at any level of government act as if they expected them?
Because to anticipate the problems would require noticing that racial differences are relevant. And that can ruin one’s career.
Governmental bodies naturally decay rapidly in competence, especially when free discussion of unpleasant realities is suppressed.
New Orleans should remind us that we still live in a harsh world. The make-believe that passes for public discourse, even at the elite level, simply isn’t adequate for protecting American citizens.

Posted in Blacks, Race | Comments Off

Bernie Sanders & Howard Dean

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Why did the media turn against Dean so violently in early 2004?

This article talks a lot about Dean’s personal volatility. Maybe …

But I’d say: most of the Establishment had more or less acquiesced in the decision to invade Iraq. The Vermont upstart’s message that President Bush should be fired for being wrong seemed to strike a lot of people with good jobs as setting an uncomfortable precedent. They’d worked a long time to get where they are and didn’t appreciate the central idea of the Dean insurgency: that important people should be held accountable.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* A leftist must never challenge a schvartze! That’s the law. And Bernie obeyed the law. But what, you say, if the schvartze is bat s**t crazy? Makes no difference. A schvartze can do no wrong. Bernie knows. Bernie obeyed. Good doggie.

* I voted for Bush in 2000 because he lied by saying he believed in “a more humble foreign policy” and being opposed to nation building and by not revealing until several years later (thanks MSM for not asking probing questions) that he disagreed with two decisions of his father: (1) withdrawing from Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out and (2) not going to Baghdad in 1991. (That later revelation confirmed to me that he was a very stupid man.) I opposed the Iraq War before it began and did not vote for Bush in 2004. The signs were there before the 2004 election that all was not going according to plan. Donald Trump stated at the debate the other night that he came out publicly against the Iraq War in July 2004. I guess the American public was just not paying attention because their dissatisfaction with the war did not manifest itself until one or two years later. I’m certainly glad that I confine my betting to the stock market (oops, I meant to say “investing”–disregard the prior word) because I would have bet against Bush winning reelection in 2004.

* Our rulers are dead afraid of any groundswell of popular political sentiment getting focused into a particular candidate and given voice. This is one reason Trump and Ron Paul have been so viciously attacked. Displays of populist passion don’t present a paradox with political assassination; they explain it.

It’s always 1933-1945.

* So sick and tired of Michael Brown as “unarmed black teenager.” He was armed with 300 pounds. By any measure that’s disparate force, equaling “being armed”, and should be dealt with via lead in 115-grain increments until effective. Same is true of “unarmed black teenager” Travon Martin, armed with 75 pounds of cement which he slammed against GZ’s head via mashing it against the sidewalk. And Sam Dubose, armed with a junker auto by which he meant to kill the cop and, had he sped away, would have killed anyone who got in his way. And where’s MADD on this one? The U of C cop should be their poster boy for keeping a drunk driver off the road, albeit permanently.

* Hillary doesn’t seem to have anyone inside her campaign who is capable of saying NO to her.

I believe this became apparent in 2008. Her campaign was poorly run. Also, she had the liability of Bill contributing some gaffes, which I think were intentional on his part. I don’t believe he likes the idea of Hillary eclipsing him and will do plenty of passive-aggressive stuff to trip her up. Bob Dole did much the same to his wife, Libby, when she ran for the Republican nomination in 2000.

Should be entertaining. Just when Trump runs out of gas, Bill will fill the news with a few new bimbo eruptions. “The Energizer” hasn’t even given a TV interview yet!

* I think a lot of people voted for Bush in ’04 because they knew the war was going poorly, and that he would try to salvage it, while the Dems would have been happy to turn Baghdad into 1975 Saigon, to bring the U.S. (and the GOP) down a peg.

In the end, of course, W.’s surge led to a pyrrhic non-victory, and the GOP was still knocked down a peg. No humiliating run to the helicopters while an abandoned ally/proxy fell, but a strategic defeat for the U.S. anyway, as it strengthened Iran, and a political defeat for the GOP, which got drubbed in the ’06 midterms, and lost its foreign policy/defense edge it had held since Reagan.

* One word I’ve heard over the decades that the elites dislike more than anything else and that word is: Populism. It’s considered a evil thing in their view.

They are absolutely scared of another Huey Long coming on the scene who can negate their power(along with the loud but numerically tiny SJW types) by sheer force of popularity among the voters. Say the way Trump is doing right now and to a lesser degree Bernie is doing.

Nullify money and fear of the SJW in the political equation and you have a politician that isn’t beholden to the usual suspects of ruination. Short of a assassins bullet the elites can’t do squat. They fear that.

The other aspect is the elites are terrified of a energized and pissed off population of whites that they’ve been systematically screwing over for decades. It’s a bomb waiting for the right trigger.

* As Lawrence Auster pointed out (to Bruce Bawer), a man who thinks a Mohammedan (or African) can become a European is suffering from the same mental disease as one who believes a man can become another man’s husband.

* I’m always struck, when I see the 1950s pictures, at how slender the blacks were. So was everyone, but the since the obesity epidemic, US blacks have become massive.

@SteveSailer: “The Vermont upstart’s message that President Bush should be fired for being wrong seemed to strike a lot of people with good jobs as setting an uncomfortable precedent.”

And that is what is so refreshing about Trump. Let the Republican Party hacks experience a “you’re fired!” moment, like the rest of America has. I’m really enjoying his act immensely even if I don’t think he will ever be President. The question is how is he going to live down, or with, everything he has said, after this is all over?

* BLM probably has orders to lay off her [Hillary]. Also, even if anyone tried, any Clinton event is going to be very organized and structured, with vetted participants and concentric rings of cooperative, enthusiastic supporters surrounding her. Finally, as a last line of defense, I believe she still has Secret Service protection. People lunging for the podium the way they did for Sanders would have been body blocked off the stage and swarmed.
I have never been near Presidential level VIPs, but a friend of mine told me about a photo-op visit by Bill Clinton to an aerospace company he worked at at the time. He said that everyone who was in the crowd that was going to be near the President was pre-selected, had their ID checked, and went through a metal detector. The Praetorians then gave everyone a briefing just before the visit telling them not to move towards the President, and to look enthusiastic and keep their hands in open sight. For example, anyone putting their hand in their pocket would be subject to being abruptly plucked out of the crowd.

Posted in Blacks, Politics | Comments Off

What Do Russians & Democrats Have In Common?

Posted on August 10, 2015 by Luke Ford

What does Russian TV and America TV have in common?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* … stoking minority & immigrant anger is Standard Operating Procedure for the USSR stooge news outlet RT, which I occasionally watch for the same perspective our media gives. I’d like to say RT gives a different perspective than say Faux news or MSNBC, unfortunately, its more of the same with the constant attempts to rile up minorities.

Objectively watch for yourself for an hour or two: “rile up minorities” is on their daily “to do list”, (on fox it’s a constant whine about them- which angers minorities toward conservatives for some strange reason) …

The Democratic party platform has the same platform of the Old USSR (as if that 70 year social experiment criminal mafia train wreck collapse never happened).

“Wreck America as fast as possible through any means”

* Dominicans booing the Mayor of NYC because of his support for Haitians in the Dominican Republic.

* What the Russians don’t seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin’s Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven’t done enough.

Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain’t 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

* I’ve seen pro-Kremlin media in Russia praise Trump. The Kremlin will support any opposition movement in the US for the same reason that it supports Marine Le Pen in France. If someone with Pat Buchanan’s views mounted a credible campaign for the White House again, RT’s coverage of race in America would flip by 180 degrees.

The Russian liberal opposition is entirely paid for by the US State Department (the neocons) and Sorosite NGOs. Responding in kind would be a dream come true for the Kremlin.

* RT’s job is to point out the deficiencies of American society along with covering various news stories. It’s not totally objective and neither are any other news sources; viewers have to read between the lines. That RT and the NYT might converge on certain issues is probably just coincidental, in this case since both are only willing to recognize nurture and reject any hint of nature then of course all coverage of black dysfunction is going to be similar. RT is worth watching, along with some of the other foreign news outlets, as long as one keeps in mind what they’re trying to do.

* Comments on Reddit are running heavily against BlackLivesMatter. This is a useful barometer of informed, left-leaning, white opinion.

An example of the comments at Reddit:

“Isn’t this the place where the officer was vindicated by evidence, to include autopsies performed by people appointed by Mr. Brown’s family? And where “witnesses” were caught lying about what they witnessed?

Yup. There are many cases where police shootings are unjustified but I can’t for the life of me figure out how people think this one was.

The media ran with a narrative and refused to back down as the facts came out. They played it as a national tragedy and by God they were sticking to it!”

The BLM women at Bernie’s rally are being seen as a summary of BLM insanity by the Reddit crowd:

“It’s just sickening. The #BLM movement forced Bernie off stage and demanded a 4 1/2 minute moment of silence for Michael Brown. Of all people?! He is the martyr? Really?! Someone that, on video, had just committed a robbery 1! He then charged an officer and was justifiably shot and killed by an officer, as proven by the non-indictment of the officer involved. I just don’t get it. Then his supporters start shooting and looting in honor of the anniversary of his death?! There’s a reason people quickly dismiss the whole #BlackLivesMatter thing. If they don’t give a shit about killing one another; how do they expect people to respect the message they claim to project?”

The video of the Sanders rally is a superbly concise summary of BLM insanity.

* I think it more likely that he [Putin] is trying to undermine America’s owners’ attempts to meddle in his country. After all, the political instability right on his border is worrying and that large slide in oil prices does not help Russia very much and efforts to prevent the South Stream gas pipeline were pretty successful.

* As someone who actually pays the taxes that pay the police, I would very much enjoy more patrols in my neighborhood. More people would go out strolling at night, more people would let their kids out to play.

Believe it or not, I’m not at all worried that a policeman will gun down my son.

* “Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?”

Well, I think that William Lind would say that it’s a form of low-intensity Fourth Generation War by which irregular combatants drive foreigners (i.e., whites), including the foreign army (i.e., police) from their territory, while exacting economic costs upon the enemy, including ransom monies (i.e., welfare, affirmative action, etc.).

Posted in America, Blacks, Russia | Comments Off

Why The Lack Of Diversity In America’s Special Forces?

Posted on August 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Mainly white guys. Very few black guys.

So I’m watching S3E2 of Ray Donovan. It’s about a pissed off Navy Seal. And he’s a black guy. And he talks about this book he read.

I love how Jewish TV smashes stereotypes.

Steve Sailer notes: “Because everybody knows African-Americans tend to be multilingual cosmopolitans so fascinated by other cultures around the world that they barely take any interest in their own. Black Twitter, for example, is constantly abuzz with detailed anthropological discussions of Central Asian cultures.”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I find it ironic that when Obama needed his keynote accomplishment of his first term, he turned to the whitest part of the military to do it for him.

* The statistical innumeracy of these journalists is grating. Everyone, not just the military wants these talented blacks but the talent they are after, the talented hundredth or one thousandth, everyone else wants too. Why should they want to get shot at and work hard for relatively lower pay?

Hollywood has a lot to answer for with their depictions of blacks as elite hackers and physicians in every movie these days. There must be a market for movies with more realistic casting.

* Affirmative action for promotions is terribly off-putting. The up-or-out system is harsh enough without the brass putting race ahead of skills and accomplishments. And being assigned to nursemaid blacks just so they can be unfairly promoted ahead of you is as demeaning as being told to train your H1B replacement.

* What this article doesn’t go into is that the SF community is only the right side of a gradient. The Green Berets have fewer blacks than regular infantry, who have fewer than the artillery, who have fewer than the mechanics…all the way down to the cooks (who I believe still have the lowest entry requirements). Incidentally, this means that support companies are often “rowdier” in the legal sense than the actual killers, for all the familiar reasons. The controlling factor here isn’t necessarily test scores (AFQT/GT score) but “pointyness”. However I have noticed that intelligent blacks seem to favor the Signal Corps over Military Intelligence. I think the cultural introversion you alluded to is a factor here, although I wouldn’t rule out path-dependence playing a role (this is the politically correct answer, which doesn’t mean there’s nothing to it. It probably explains why blacks prefer the Army to other services).

* I went to West Point. When I graduated, and for pretty much forever, everybody was ranked from first to last based on a certain formula incorporating school grades, physical fitness, and observed military aptitude, then picked their job post-graduation in that order. If you were at the end, you either did something unpleasant or struck a deal to sign over more years in exchange for avoiding the Chemical Corps.

There are rumblings that soon they will start including an interview or some other “holistic” method of assigning jobs. The Naval Academy already does this, and as best as I can tell the process is mostly hated because of its tendency to assign people to the submarine service against their will. Anyway, I can recognize a thumb being put on the scale as well as any other iSteve reader. Apparently, the problem is that not only are blacks likely to rank lower in the list (duh) but even controlling for that they often prefer to choose non-combat jobs. The place is clearly dragging its feet on implementing this–the counterarguments are obvious–but they’re probably only one ambitious general away from implementing it anyway.

* For a long time in the 20th Century, New Yorkers believed that upstate American Indians held so many high paying jobs working skyscraper construction because they weren’t afraid of heights. Finally one Indian spilled the beans: Nah, it’s as terrifying for us as for anybody else, but the pay is good so we shut up about it.

* This low rate of black participation among the combat arms and special operations forces is not surprising. I noticed it when I was in the army. I recall back in 1991 when Jesse Jackson and others were trying to shake down the USG over the Gulf War by saying we were about to spend mega money on a war where blacks would be doing most of the dying, or at the very least in numbers disproportionate to their share of the population. Yet USG was not willing to spend sufficient money on jobs for the black community. I remember arguing with white SJWs at the time trying to explain to them that the bulk of the black soldiers were in support roles and were not at risk of being killed.

Now the complaint is there aren’t enough blacks in the combat arms or special ops forces. This is getting silly. Blacks complain when they are supposedly overrepresented and complain when they are underrepresented. It all depends upon how the nation views the military at the time.

For example, WW2 was the so-called good war fought by the greatest generation. But blacks were generally kept out of combat units. But since those combat units are celebrated to this day, they complain that they weren’t allowed to fight. Never mind feeling sorry for the whites who HAD no choice.

Vietnam turned out to be highly unpopular. So blacks complained they served in disproportionate numbers in the infantry. But this was only 20 years after they complained about not being allowed to serve in such roles in WW2.

Now the military is popular again and people are making movies about the SEAL sniper and we’ve had several Medal of Honor winners who are seemingly all from the combat arms and are all white. So blacks are complaining because they are getting no MoHs, or being the made the subject of a cool sniper film.

Whites serve not for the fame, but because they want to serve. Blacks should do the same and not worry about how popular the military is or is not at the time. And the military should not have to cater to them. If they want to join the combat arms and special ops for the right reasons, they will. If not, so be it.

* These things have less to do with getting blacks in and more to do with getting whites out. The same thing’s going on in engineering. Everyone knows the space program and computers were almost solely due to white men, and that drives certain people crazy. So they push minorities and girls into technology whether they want to do it or not. They don’t care whether women are actually achieving anything, or even whether they’re happy, they just need some to show on their websites and news releases, so that people stop thinking of technology as being the overwhelmingly white and Asian male accomplishment it surely still is. NASA gives dozens of contracts to firms based on demographically correct ownership, but white men are still doing most of the work. Call it brownwashing or pinkwashing.

* Special forces draws heavily from populations that use firearms a lot and get around where there aren’t many roads. That includes a lot of Indians. The perfect special forces recruit would be an athletic, smart kid who spent his summers zooming around on a dirt bike plinking coyotes. Sounds like normal recreational activities on the rez. The kids who avoid drinking and sniffing inhalants, play on the tribal basketball/football team and score in the top 10% in class are probably shoe-ins for that kind of military work.

* Indian stereotype: serious; observant; doesn’t smile or laugh; doesn’t run his mouth (actually, doesn’t seem to even like talking)
* Black stereotype: usually not uptight, except in reaction to slights real or imagined; puts on headphones during long speeches or listing of instructions/rules; fond of firing “warning shots” to defuse/escalate a confrontation

* I wonder if anyone who is fretting about “diversity” realizes how destructive that concept is to any kind of concept of “esprit de corps” in a military outfit. I knew a lot of black Marines and I knew a number of guys in the Marines or Navy who were — now that I look back on it — probably gay, but you didn’t talk about those things, you were part of a group, and you had to accomplish the mission (whatever that was) together.

The last thing we need is Affirmative Action in the armed services, whether it pertains to blacks, women, gays, trans, what have you. It’s just incredibly destructive to morale and it destroys any concept of group cohesion. And without that kind of concept, you will not succeed.

Native Americans? My experience is that people strive to live up to their stereotypes. I’ve known Jews who were not particularly bright or business savvy but who as a matter of personal pride worked to acquire some competence there. Same with black guys and physical matters. Same with Native Americans when it came to things like marksmanship, orienteering, scouting, etc. They were supposed to be good at those things, so even if they weren’t they worked at it until they were.

* A friend of mine said when he went through Ranger School (twice, he got recycled) all the black guys washed out because of difficulty related to swimming. He also said that all the white guys were predominantly from the rural south.

* I was in Army Special Forces. Here are some of the reasons I think blacks are underrepresented.

1. They don’t swim very well. This is a must pass requirement for special operators. Special Forces are expected to be able to operate in the water. If they can’t, they’ll drown. When I went through the selection program, I noticed that many of the blacks failed the swim test. The Special Forces leadership actually did a convincing study on how black women’s hair was a big part of the “problem.” Black women have weaves that don’t do well in the water, so they never take their kids to the pool, so black kids don’t learn to swim.

2. Many black soldiers and officers avoid combat arms. As it was previously mentioned, most blacks join the army for a career, not for adventure. (I remember in ROTC that the commander encouraged blacks to consider combat arms because they were getting criticized about the unbalanced numbers.) Working in logistics or personnel is better preparation for a civilian career than slitting throats. Most Special Operations recruit from within the military, not from the civilian population. Now you don’t have to be combat arms to volunteer for Special Operations, but those with combat arms experience are more likely to volunteer for spec-ops, and more likely to make it through selection where there’s a lot of ruck marching, land navigation, sleeping outdoors, small unit tactics, and general field craft. I remember one black candidate, a cook, who quit because he was tired of eating just MREs.

3. Lower IQ. We had to take an IQ test in selection. I’m sure it was there for a reason. I did notice that obviously stupid people tended to quit or were not selected. If you can’t look at a map and match it to the terrain around you, you won’t be able to navigate very well and you’ll get lost all the time. We just can’t have our operators wandering around aimlessly in Afghanistan.

I’m certain that racism didn’t play a big role. Most of the activities in selection and in the qualification coarse are cut and dry objective criteria. You either got lost or you didn’t. You either finished the ruck march on time or you didn’t. You can swim or you can’t. There was a subjective portion because all candidates’ files went before the selection board who made the final decision on who stayed and who went home, but many of these people were themselves minorities, and all of them were under some pressure to increase the number of minorities in the ranks.

One question I’ve always had was why there were so few Asians in Special Operations. The media only seems to be concerned when blacks are underrepresented.

* We are constantly being told “black lives matter” and serving in the Special Forces is the most dangerous thing you can do in the military. But now they’re complaining that not enough of those precious black bodies are being put in harm’s way? Dafuq! Make up your minds.

* Tom Wolfe wrote about the officer ranks being something of a hereditary caste in 1979′s “The Right Stuff.” Many things in America have become more caste-like since then, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it were more so now.

* Considering the US Military has been the tool of DC and NY, and has been a force for social change, and a key pillar of movement conservatism, I can say that anything that complicates their mission is a good thing.

So bring on the trannies, bring on diversity initiatives for fighting units, turn up the sensitivity training.

People get goose bumps thinking about those white alpha types. But just remember who they serve, and who they continue to serve. Contra the fevered imagination of patriot types, these guys will never turn against the system. It gives them a chance to go play at Captain America with cool toys and a nice pension for the lifers or perks (tangible or intangible) for the short-termers who “served” “their” country. Oh they might grumble a bit, but in the end, like the Evangelicals, they are worse than useless.

* I love the diversity scam — we are inherently, substantively different because of our demographics, except that equality somehow demands there be no differences in demographic outcomes because we are also inherently, substantively the same.

We are apparently distinctions without a difference.

We can treat people differently based on their race because they are inherently different and inherently the same all at once. We are “samedifferent” so the government and institutions are always ready to discriminate to either obtain “diversity” or to “close the gap”.

And by the way, no need to test individuals to find out if individual blacks have that “black” diversity or if any particular woman has “female diversity” — they all do! These are the racial and gender stereotypes that progressives and instituions believe with religious devotion.

* Back in the 70s I was in an all-black battalion on Ft.Bragg. The special forces trainees needed mock guerillas to organize and fight, so a bunch of us were dragooned from our drug and wine-infested barracks to run around in the woods for three weeks in our civilian clothes. The black guys showed up in orange disco pants and platform shoes. They were not happy campers living out in the swamp in that attire. The white guys had a blast however and were dejected when it all came to an end. I remember one Southern cracker who caught a large snake and roasted it for us over a campfire. Good times.

But now the special forces needs Diversity!

What this initiative is all about is to prepare our Diversity Army to engage in African civil wars that will further enlarge the pipeline of African immigrants to the US. The vicious conflicts we conduct there will also provide a showcase for women’s careers. Much cucktography will grace our popular press with imagery of ascendant female military leaders nurturing crowds of ebony African kids while smudged with war makeup and showing signs of office PTSD.

* I live in the African capital of Chicago. That area where you have the greatest preponderance of African immigrants. You can spot them and distinguish from a native born American negro.

The African is darker in skin color, does not dress in the outrageous manner, and does not walk in an outrageous manner with the strut and swagger, that side to side motion. The African appears as normal persons.

Also the black African DOES NOT POSSESS THAT CHIP ON SHOULDER ATTITUDE.

* Mark Thompson, Yahoo! News, February 24, 2012:

In nature, most seals are black, with relatively few white ones. The Navy’s SEALs have exactly the opposite problem—they’re overwhelmingly white, with hardly any blacks. So they’re trying to do something about it.

It’s a fundamental challenge in a democracy with an all-volunteer force: recruits may be drawn from all segments of society, but elite military units—and none is more elite these days than the SEALs, following their dispatch of Osama bin Laden last May—tend to draw from small pools of talent. For the SEALs, that includes athletic young men who are smart and good in the water. For whatever reason, that has led to an overwhelmingly white SEAL force.

Say the SEALs:

Gaps exist in minority representation in both officer and enlisted ranks for Special Warfare operators. Diverse officers represent only ten percent of the officer pool (for example, African Americans represent less than 2% of SEAL officers). Diverse enlisted SEALs account for less than twenty percent of the total SEAL enlisted population. Naval Special Warfare is committed to fielding a force that represents the demographics of the nation it serves. This contract initiative seeks effective strategies to introduce high potential candidates from diverse backgrounds to the opportunities available in Naval Special Warfare.

The SEALs are considering hiring help to attract thousands of “minority males in the 16—24 year-old target age range” to become SEALs. “This contract will create a mechanism to enhance Naval Special Warfare’s ability to conduct outreach, raise awareness, mentor, and increase self-selection to a career as a SEAL within minority communities,” a recently-posted draft contract solicitation says.

The Navy isn’t seeking only black SEALs: “Challenges for minority recruitment also exist in the Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander (API), Native American, and Arab American populations among others,” the announcement notes. “Given shifting demographics, these gaps in representation need to be corrected to ensure continued access. There are sustainment, societal, educational, and operational drawbacks to failing to correct this disparity.”

{snip}

On the cover of the latest issue of Newsweek are 10 SEALs. All of them appear to be Caucasian. That’s the reality.

But when you go to the SEALs’ recruiting website, there are only two SEALs. Both of them appear to be African-American. That’s the desire.

{snip}

The SEALs are seeking a contractor to generate SEAL-related contacts with at least “a thousand (1000) minority males aged 16-24 per metropolitan region” over a 12-month period. {snip}

{snip}

The Contractor will be required to develop and sustain an appropriate level of mentorship for HPCs identified during the specific events and regional campaigns conducted under this contract . . . Since the waterborne feature of SEAL training is often the most formidable obstacle for many prospective candidates, especially among minorities with little swimming experience, the swim training program is usually the most challenging of the mentoring components and the largest.

* I would like to see more white players in the NFL and the NBA. I would like to see NASCAR stop kowtowing to blacks. I would like to see an end to “Black Run America” (BRA). The list goes on but I’m sure you see my point.
The SEAL’s are an elite fighting force, a lot of good people try and fail and there is no shame in that. When your life depends on the man next to you; there is no room for affirmative action types.

* I can speak from direct experience in regards to the importance of being able to trust your fellow Marine, Soldier, etc. As a former member of a elite fighting unit I witnessed numerous unqualified, incompetent Africans being pushed through various training regimens. Failure was the norm. The fact of the matter is, a significant portion of the black population in the USA is dysfunctional. No amount of swimming lessons will change that.

The portion of the Black males that are not completely lost have easier avenues to pursue a better life. For a black male, simply going through the motions will enhance their career prospects as a civilian. Whereas a European American male (who lacks connections) has to go above and beyond to find success. A Euro American man has to to be twice as good as a white woman or Black guy to obtain a equal level of respect.

Therefore, the only way they will be able to see a significant rise in African male participation in the Special forces is to lower the standards. In fact I would say the standards would have to be lowered so much as to disqualify said unit from even being special forces any longer.

Anyhow, on a sidenote, from a personal point of view. There is not much left for the European American male to defend. We are discriminated against legally through Affirmative action legislation . We are demonized in Academia for Being European and male. We are portrayed as sick, weak, feeble minded, criminals by the news and entertainment industry in the United States. No my Euro American brothers, the nation of the United States deserves nothing from us as men. Not our love, not our labor, and most definitely not our loyalty. I am 360 degrees against any able bodied, physically and mentally healthy European American male from serving the United States of America in any capacity. The time we consider ourselves “American” before we consider ourselves European must end. We should consider ourselves Euro first, and American a distant second. (If at all).

* That is the way it was in the ARMY at Fort Benning. Blacks got a free ride to higher rank. The free ride convinced them they had the ability to lead men into battle. If they made a mistake, it was never their fault. They looked for any white person to blame.

I was a Life Guard at Fort Benning for the Rangers. There were very few black Rangers because blacks could not swim: They sank. Navy Seals are not suppose to sink. I wonder how they are going to solve that problem.

* The Navy is on board with race-replacing the Native Born White American Majority. When Native Born White Americans become a racial minority, they will be surrounded by a rapidly expanding and heavily armed nonwhite majority. If the “US” Navy has its way, the “US” Navy would be majority Iranian,Iraqi and Afghani…the three nations currently under assault by the US”. ” Military. It really seems as though the goal of “US” foreign policy is to reduce the Native Born White American Christian Majority to a rapidly dwindling racial minority within the borders of “America”. “US” foreign policy goes hand-in hand with “US” immigration policy…that the Native Born White American Majority ends up being race-replaced in the end only goes to demonstrate the noble and benign intentions of the utterly treasonous “US” Military…treason is the reason folks.

9/11 would never have occured if the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed…and if there had been a National Origins Immigration Policy in place that completely excluded muslims…that is to say, no muslims in America…Kolmogorov’s 0-1 law kicks in…and no 9/11..probability 0 event. 9/11 was carried out by young muslim men who migrated to America..some of them were actually living in Florida legally where they established an “American” Muslim geneline…can you believe it..muslim terrorists living and breeding in drought stricken Florida. Not only that, a legal immigrant Muslim was allowed to become a Major in the “US” Army where he went on to slaughter Native Born White American Youth at Fort Hood in Texas getting ready to deploy to Iraq …and then there was the Pakistani “American” hedge fund manager-established a Pakistani “American” geneline on “US” soil-who attempted to blow-up Time Square. And Now the “US” Navy wants to flood the Navy SEALS with young Muslim Males?

Cut the “US” Military budget by 90 percent..it has become the mortal enemy of the Native Born White American Majority.

The whole point of having borders and a Military to protect these borders is so that a demographic group can have its destiny and fate in its own hands rather than having its destiny and fate in the hands of a hostile foreign demographic group…this is borders 101. Now the “US” Military wants to wipe away America’s borders with the intent of having the current Native Born White American Majority’s fate and destiny in the hands of hostile,heavily armed, and high fertility muslim foreigners. The Social Contract has been thrown into fire and destroyed. The “US” Military has no legitimacy anymore. By the way,how is it going to work with muslim marines and homosexual marines?

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off