February 20, 2015 Why Did Stalin Become Anti-Semitic? Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Why Did Stalin Become Anti-Semitic?

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

In this lecture, Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff says: “We come to the synagogue [in Moscow in 1980] and there is a famous picture of Golda Meir when she was the Israeli ambassador to Russia after the founding of the state [of Israel]. She had announced that on Rosh Hashanah, she would come to this shul and 50,000 Jews turned out and Stalin went crazy. It influenced his thinking afterward. His hatred that the Jews still retain an identity, that they are not like all other communist people.”

Perhaps Stalin wasn’t nuts. Perhaps he saw that many Russian Jews had more loyalty to the Jewish state than they had to the Soviet Union and this rationally disturbed him.

All of the American nuclear scientists who turn over to Stalin the secrets of how to build a nuclear bomb were also Jewish. Perhaps there were some rational reasons why Gentiles in the U.S. Military became suspicious of Jews?

When Gentile leaders of Gentile countries start to suspect that their Jewish citizens don’t have the same loyalty to the state that non-Jews have, perhaps they’re not totally crazy and perhaps it is in their self-interest to address this. If American Jews today face a tougher security clearance test than WASPs, perhaps there is a good reason for this?

Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff announces in his talk that he has the highest security clearance in Israel. He never stints in self-praise.

He says about the Jews of Russia: “But these are Jews. These are our brothers. These are our sisters. This is whole we’re going to build the state of Israel.”

Some Jews see their fellow non-Jewish citizens as their brothers and sisters, while other Jews see Jews around the world as their brothers and sisters.

Jews will swell with pride listening to the rabbi’s adventures in Russia while many non-Jews will conclude that Jews need extra scrutiny.

Rabbi: “The hardest thing for the Jewish people is to learn to salute.”

Posted in Jews, R. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, Russia | Comments Off

A Pragmatic vs an Absolute Commitment to Truth

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

In this lecture, Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff says: “My wife was on a bus in Jerusalem and struck up a conversation with a woman writing in Arabic, who says, I owe my life to the Jewish Agency. The Mossad set up an ‘uncle’ in Turkey, and this ‘uncle’ invited his Iranian ‘relatives’ to visit him in Turkey. The minute they came to Turkey, this tall good looking man with blonde hair immediately shows us identity [papers], took us to a beautiful hotel. Three days later, they woke us up and put us on a plane to Israel. I owe everything to Israel.”

The rabbi tears up as he relates this story.

If he wants to be empathic to the goyim and logically consistent, he should point out that non-Jews might sometimes do well to take extra care with Jews due to their Semitic gifts for deception.

I grew up a Seventh-Day Adventist. I think many, if not most of the observant Adventists I grew up with, could not countenance the deception in this story. They would not practice it. They can not praise it. Adventists tend to have an absolute prohibition against lying. They may violate it because they are weak, but ideologically, few knowledgeable Adventists will say it is OK to lie for good purposes. I think many WASPs are this way. In my experience, WASPs are the most likely group to tell the truth and to avoid deception.

For Jews and Judaism, truth often has an instrumental value. If by telling a lie you can save a Jewish life, you tell a lie. It’s not even a dilemma.

I agree with this. I would lie to save a life.

I think most people will agree that the Jewish daring in the rabbi’s story was a good thing employed to good ends, but a people daring and devious enough to conduct such operations will inevitably use their smarts for less noble ends at times. Some Jews will say untruths to simply get what they want. I guess that’s why the term “Jew” is synonymous in some quarters with dishonesty.

Who do you think will cheat more? A WASP or a Jew?

Dennis Prager says that at Brooklyn College, his fellow teachers regarded Jewish students as more likely to cheat than non-Jewish students.

My Orthodox friends say that Orthodox Jews are more likely to cheat than non-Orthodox Jews.

As someone who grew up a WASP and converted to Judaism, I would expect more cheating among Jews than among Adventists. Growing up an Adventist, I never heard anyone boasting about cheating on their taxes and cheating on their customs forms, etc. Some Adventists did cheat, but they never boasted about it. It was not something they would generally feel comfortable in relating to a wide group of people. In Jewish life, it is not uncommon to hear Jews boast about how they cheated on their taxes, in business, etc.

Am I arguing that Adventists are superior to Jews in all respects? Not at all. Different groups have different traits. Different peoples have different gifts. For most crimes, for example, Jews have much lower rates of infraction than non-Jews but it seems like on Wall Street, Jews commit a disproportionate number of misdeeds. In the Michael Milken – Ivan Boesky crime wave of the 1980s, 90% of the players were Jewish. Boesky spend a lot of time hanging out at the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Richard Lynn writes in his book, The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement :

Many studies have shown that crime is predominantly committed by the less intelligent. Probably the main reasons for this are that the more intelligent have a better understanding of the costs of crime, and since they generally have better jobs and higher social status, the cost of crime is usually greater for them. It is therefore interesting to note that Jews have tended to have lower crime rates than Gentiles.
During the early 20th century, the Jewish physician Martin Englander (1902, pp. 11-12) contended that Jews are on average more intelligent that Gentiles and have larger heads, though inferior
physique. During World War I, the suggestion that Jews are more intelligent than Gentiles appeared to be confirmed with the publication of a study by Ottokar Nemeck (1916) in which he analyzed the scholastic records of 1,549 15-18-year-old school students. He reported that Jewish students were on average superior in all academic subjects, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, languages, history, and geography.
Jewish children scored much higher than the other three groups on verbal ability, about the same as the Chinese on reasoning and numerical abilities, but below the Chinese on spatial ability. It appears, therefore, that the European Jews have particularly strong verbal ability and somewhat less strong reasoning and numerical abilities, but their spatial ability is not nearly so good, not only compared with Oriental Jews but also with other racial groups, namely, Chinese, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans. This pattern of European Jewish abilities confirms the theory that these abilities evolved because they found a niche in Europe as money-lenders and tax farmers, for which verbal, reasoning, and numerical abilities were required, and were excluded from the craft occupations for which spatial ability is required…
We have seen that there is a gradient of intelligence in the four ethnic populations in Israel. Intelligence is highest in the European Jews (IQ=io6), lower in the Orientals (IQ=90), lower still in the Arabs (IQ=84), and lowest in the Ethiopian Jews (IQ= 69). These IQ differences predict and largely explain the differences in educational attainment, earnings, and socioeconomic status…
Row 1 shows that Jews were 50 percent of top American intellectuals identified as those who published in the top twenty intellectual journals. Rows 2 and 3 show that Jews were 56 percent of top social scientists and 61 percent of those in the humanities…
The Persecution Hypothesis provides a reasonable explanation of why the Ashkenazim have acquired higher IQs than the Sephardim, Mizrahim, and Ethiopian Jews: the Sephardim, Mizrahim, and Ethiopian Jews were not persecuted as much as the Ashkenazim. During their sojourn in Spain and Portugal, and their five centuries in the Ottoman Empire, the Sephardic Jews were well treated. As we have seen in the chapter on the Balkans, “the fate of the Jews in the hands of Islam had on the whole been far more tolerable than in other parts of Europe” (Silvera, 1995, p. 56); and in the Ottoman Empire, the reign of Sultan Murad II (1421-1451) “began a period of prosperity that lasted for two centuries and which is unequalled in their history in any other country.” Jews had influential positions at court; they engaged in unrestricted trade and commerce; they dressed and lived as they pleased; and they traveled at their pleasure in all parts of the country.
“There are only two values in which Jews are significantly different from others. These are honesty, which Jews desire in their children less than do others, and judgment, which Jews desire in their children more than do others.” (RE: General Social Surveys)
There are eight values in which Jews are significantly different from others. Jews attach less importance to cleanliness, honesty, manners and obedience, but they attach more importance to considerateness, interest in how and why things happen, judgment and responsibility. (Fuller details of this study are given in Lynn and Kanazawa (2008).)
The results of all these studies suggest that Jews have stronger motivation for achievement than Gentiles. The high achievements of the Jews can be understood in terms of the formula IQ x Motivation x Opportunity = Achievement. It is the multiplicative interaction of IQ with motivation and opportunity that explains the huge overrepresentation of the Ashkenazim in all indices of high achievement. A Jewish advantage of around o.4d to o.5d in motivation interacting multiplicatively with a o.67d (10 IQ points) advantage in IQ is sufficient to explain the huge Jewish advantage in achievement. Notice also that if any of the terms in the equation is zero, there can be no achievement. This was the case with Jews before their emancipation in the 19th century. They must have possessed their high IQ and motivation because these will have evolved over centuries, but they generally achieved little because they were denied the opportunity, except in a few places like Britain and the Netherlands.
Once the Jews were emancipated, all three components of the equation for achievement were present and the Jews rapidly outperformed Gentiles in all areas. The high Jewish motivation for achievement, together with high intelligence, most likely has a genetic basis, brought about through having been selected for by eugenic customs, persecution, and discrimination.
…the high IQ of the Jews raises three awkward problems: (1) the high IQ of the Jews must have a genetic basis; (2) Jewish eugenic customs have contributed to the high Jewish IQ, and hence eugenic practices are effective in raising the intelligence of a people; and (3) a minority ethnic group with a high IQ succeeds despite discrimination.
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that a significant factor in these Jewish achievements is their high IQ and that this must have a substantial genetic basis.
Jews have everywhere experienced anti-Semitism and discrimination, yet they have invariably done better in earnings, socioeconomic status, and intellectual achievement than Europeans. The only possible inference that can be drawn is that an ethnic group with a high IQ succeeds despite discrimination. This, in turn, discredits the theory that Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians have failed to achieve equality with Whites because of discrimination. Those such as Sandra Scarr (1995), who maintain that racial discrimination is an important cause of Blacks’ low IQ, have a problem explaining the high IQ of the Jews. Why Jews have succeeded where Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American Indians have failed poses a problem that many social scientists find hard to explain, and thus prefer not to address. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is another of the reasons why a discreet veil of silence has been drawn over the high Jewish IQ.

Posted in Adventist, IQ, Israel, Jews | Comments Off

Did Christianity Invent Liberalism?

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

So, it’s helpful to add a third culture to the big question of the day about Christianity and Islam:
– In Culture A, X happened, but in Cultures B and C, X didn’t happen? Why?
Fortunately for our analytical purposes, there was a third culture C in Western Eurasia during this time period which had many of the presumed prerequisites to invent liberal modernity, such as literacy, wealth, and globalist connections, and yet failed: Judaism.
Only in the second half of the 18th Century did a few German Jews, such as composer Felix Mendelssohn’s grandfather Moses, start to notice that the gentiles were no longer such impoverished ignoramuses, and that Jews could, for once, learn from the gentiles, and thus launched the Jewish Enlightenment in imitation of the host culture’s long ongoing Enlightenment.
In contrast to the Islamic world’s continuing failures, we can be sure that Judaism’s failures were due to nurture rather than nature, in that within a few generations, many Jews had rapidly adjusted to the new culture and were at the forefront of global modernity (e.g., Einstein).
So, the failure of Jews to achieve anything near liberal modernity without imitating enlightened German gentiles reflects flaws (from the perspective of liberal modernity) in Jewish culture that could provide enlightening perspectives on the current Christian v. Muslim cultures discussion.
But, of course, the failures of Jewish culture are not a topic open to discussion in the 21st Century, at least not among gentiles. The only explanation allowed for gentile thinkers to even consider is gentile anti-Semitic discrimination.

Posted in Christianity, Islam, Jews, Judaism | Comments Off

Why a Jewess almost married Nacho but didn’t

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

From NYMag.com:

“Growing up, I saw marriage as stressed-out, sexually frustrated people worrying about bat mitzvahs,” says Victoria, 31, from a “comfortable” New Jersey suburb. “Part of the attraction to Nacho was that it’d be impossible for us to be that.”
Nacho, 25, started working in agave fields in his Mexican hometown at age 6. “I grew up really simple,” Nacho, a farm worker, says. “I was the oldest, so I had to support my family. When I was a child I thought I’d have a wife at home to cook for me, but Victoria is the opposite of that.”
They met working on a farm. Both say that they fell for each other right away. As they waited for his visa, she visited him in Mexico. “Our base level of comfort is so different,” Victoria says. “He slept on a mattress in the kitchen. There was black mold everywhere. But I believed our love could get around it.” After they decided to get married, their differences seemed bigger. “We have different ideas about everything from how to talk to a little boy who’s crying to whether to save money,” Victoria says. Nacho concurs, “I live in the moment. She worries. The first problem was her asking about the future, talking about children.”
Now they’re separated but friends. “Working on the visa, the importance of everything outside the goodness of our fantastical love became more glaring,” Victoria says. “I know I have privilege. My kids don’t need new clothes, but I don’t want them to struggle, to have so much uncertainty. It was hard to have all this stuff come up and not just hate myself. I’d judge myself and think, ‘Are you saying he’s not good enough because he was born poor and Mexican?’ It’s sad. I know I have all these expectations, so I have a lot more room to be uncomfortable. He doesn’t get nervous. He’s survived a lot, so he knows he’s going to be okay.”

High IQ people tend to think more about the future while blacks and Mexicans tend to live more in the present moment.

Steve Sailer notes:

While upwardly mobile Mexican-Americans marry blonde Anglos, downwardly mobile white men wed Mexicans. Now, there is no doubt plenty to be said for getting hitched to a Mexican lady. They probably tend to make better mothers, homemakers, and cooks than the leggy blonde careerists who, however, are so much more in demand in Southern California. But sadly, there is a big social cost to Anglo-Hispanic marriages—which raises severe doubts about America’s ability to assimilate Latino immigrants. As pro-immigration/pro-assimilation researcher Gregory Rodriguez admits, “Surprisingly, in most homes headed by an Anglo/Latino couple, Spanish becomes the household language.”

Thus, those L.A. blue-collar whites who don’t flee to Utah will tend to assimilate genetically and culturally into Latino culture.

Posted in Jews, Latino, Mexicans | Comments Off

Writing Acknowledgments

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

David Shenk writes in the New York Times:

“A few inquiries remain unanswered. I would still be delighted to hear from: David Cesarani, Liane Dirks (on Polityka), Guido Knopp (on sources), Jörg Müllner (on the sound editing of the tapes) and Time Inc.” — Bettina Stangneth, writing in the acknowledgments section of “Eichmann Before Jerusalem.”
An author interrupting her own published thank-yous in order to call out uncooperative sources? I like it. I couldn’t muster the chutzpah to do that myself, but I notice that it draws me in, makes me even more eager to read Bettina Stangneth’s book. I have a small writer’s crush on any serious intellectual who works so hard to satisfy all the major conventions — and then flouts a small one for the hell of it.

This is how I began my book Yesterday’s News Tomorrow: Inside American Jewish Journalism:

What They Said
“Yesterday’s news tomorrow.” —Yori Yanover’s description of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency
“If you publish this, I will fuck you for the rest of your life.” —Malcolm Hoenlein to journalist Walter Ruby

“I guess it’s new for a journalist to go in and treat a congregation journalistically.” —Stephen Fried, The New Rabbi

“If you believed in a God and a Final Judgment, would you have written the book the same way?” —Rabbi Bradley Sharvit Artson, rosh yeshiva of the University of Judaism, to Stephen Fried

“Dear Mr. Ford; I did review your Web site, and ﬁnd it imbalanced and toxic, particularly toward rabbis and Conservative Judaism. I am not willing to participate in your panel.” —Rabbi Artson

“Dear Mr.Ford: I do not wish to be included in your book. If there is anything negative about me or my family in your book you will hear from my attorney.” —Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman, former president of the Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion

“Dear Mr. Ford: I appreciate your interest, but I’d just prefer to pass on this.” —Seth Lipsky, former editor of the Forward

“I am annoyed at your annoyance, your presumption to tell me what I’m qualiﬁed to talk about when you don’t even know me, your insinuations that I refuse to be ‘transparent and accountable,’ along with your slam on my trusted and most-valued colleague, Larry Stammer. He is not a ‘crappy reporter,’ as you put it.” —Teresa Watanabe,The Los Angeles Times

“You don’t want Jewish journalism. You want an orgasm.” —Tom Tugend, Jewish Journal

“I am the moderator of the AJPA listserv and I will be sending out an email to all the editors later today to tell them of my unprofessional and discourteous experience with you.” —Benyamin Cohen, Jewsweek.com

“I don’t understand what you are doing here. Who’s your publisher?” —Rabbi Shmuley Boteach,Kosher Sex

“Don’t write about me!” —Amy Klein, managing editor of theJewish Journal

“We’re all kind of mediocre.” —E.J. Kessler, deputy managing editor of theForward

“Larry [Cohler] was essentially driven out. He found out that Gary [Rosenblatt] was without balls. Larry may sometimes be without brains but he is never without balls. Gary tends to be tame and timid.” —Dr. Michael Berenbaum, former director of the United States Holocaust Research Institute

“Of course Gary lacks balls. He’s the editor of a Federation paper. If you want to keep these kinds of jobs, especially long-term, lacking balls is a requirement.” —Allison Kaplan Sommer, journalist

“The Jews who look to Jewish journalism tend to want to be anesthetized.” —J.J. Goldberg, editor of theForward

“I’m not sure the Jewish community wants a compelling paper.” —Marc S. Klein, editor of j. the Jewish news weekly of Northern California

“Jewish men who are accused of kicking women are not popular.” —Dwight Owen Schweitzer, editor and publisher of the Jewish Star Times

“You want to be involved with Israel because it is a sexier, crookeder, funnier, nastier, more backstabbing, more backbiting, crazier, more psychotic place than Hollywood.” —Larry Yudelson, journalist

“I don’t plant bombs but ideas.” —Rabbi Avi Shafran, spokesman for Agudath Israel

“The main problem with Jewish journalism is one organization runs almost the entire show. Almost an entire ethnic media is subservient to one organization.” —Steven I. Weiss, journalist

“As for the ‘Kahanist rag’ comment—obviously a retort made by a retard.” —Jason Maoz, editor of The Jewish Press

In my Preface, I wrote: I tried and failed to get interviews with the following persons: Joseph Aaron, rabbi David Ackerman, rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, Peter Beinart, David Biale, Wolfe Blitzer, Aaron Cohen, Vincent Coppola, rabbi Elliot Dorff, rabbi Hillel Goldberg, Jeffrey Goldberg, Eric Greenberg, Lawrence Grossman, Sue Grossman, Yossi Klein Halevi, Aron Hirt-Manheimer, Malcolm Hoenlein, Lisa Hostein, Phil Jacobs, Gershon Jacobson, Mark Joffe, Debbie Kalb, Marvin Kalb, Amy Klein, Neal Kozodoy, Jerome Lippman, Seth Lipsky, Arthur Maguida, rabbi Joel Meyers, David Myers, rabbi Perry Netter, Martin Peretz, Naomi Pfefferman, rabbi Perry Rank, Ira Rifkin, Jay Rosen, Jonathan Rosen, rabbi Jay Rosenbaum, Hershel Shanks, Ira Stoll, Teresa Strasser, rabbi Brian Walt, rabbi Arthur Waskow, Teresa Watanabe, Julie Weiner, Lauren Winner, Leon Wieseltier, rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman, and Nancy Zuckerbrod.

Posted in Books, Journalism | Comments Off

‘Khirbet Khizeh,’ by S. Yizhar

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

It’s fine to have empathy for your adversary, but in the end, in some situations, either they go or you die.

When the United States was founded, Tory sympathizers shipped out because they knew what was good for them.

Dexter Filkins writes:

Nearly 70 years ago, an intelligence officer with the newly formed state of Israel moved with a group of soldiers into a Palestinian village whose women, children and old people were rounded up, herded into trucks and sent across the border. The village was demolished to make way for the new Jewish state. The deportation was a small piece of the Palestinian exodus — some of it at gunpoint, some of it not — that accompanied the upheavals of the birth of Israel in 1947 and 1948.
We don’t know the name of the village that the intelligence officer, Yizhar Smilansky, moved into that day, or exactly what he saw. But the events he witnessed so haunted Smilansky that he wrote a novella about his experience and gave it the same name as the fictional place where he set his story: “Khirbet Khizeh.” The book, published in Hebrew in 1949 under the pen name S. Yizhar, became a landmark of Israeli literature, sparking debate over successive generations about the events that attended the formation of the Jewish state; it has been part of the curriculum of Israel’s schools. Remarkably, “Khirbet Khizeh” was translated into English only in 2008, and it wasn’t published in Britain until 2011; it has now been brought to the United States for the first time by Farrar, Straus & Giroux. (Smilansky died in 2006.)

Posted in Israel | Comments Off

The Neoreactionary Movement

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

I had a chat with a young secular Jewish woman about the continuum from race realism (most people, though especially Jews, act with race realism by choosing to live, work, socialize and worship with their own kind but most people won’t speak publicly with race realism) to Dark Enlightenment (a teeny bit Jewish) to White Nationalism (99% anti-Jewish) on the far end.

Perhaps I have a need to always be checking out things weird and disturbing.

Luke: You could be our pinup girl.

Hot Jewish Chick: Christ. Nah. They won’t even want me cause I’m too jewish. I’m heading away from WN anyway and leaning much more towards NRx. It’s been going this way for a while

Luke: What is NRx?

HJC: Neoreaction. You’re not up on all the hip acronyms???

Luke: Are people willing to die for NR?

HJC: Hahah no!! Why?? I don’t think so

Luke: OK, so it has no power or possibility. Only movements that people will die for can take power.

According to Rational Wiki:

The neoreactionary movement, or just neoreaction (apparently abbreviated NRx), or the dark enlightenment, is a loosely-defined cluster of Internet-based political thinkers who wish to return human society to forms of government older than liberal democracy.[1] They generally present their views as a revival of the traditions of Western civilization, or a return to a natural order of things.
Neoreactionaries are the latest in a long line of intellectuals who somehow think that their chosen authoritarian thugs wouldn’t put them up against the wall. Possibly using sheer volume of words as a bulletproof shield.[2] Or that they are somehow too competent, virtuous and useful to end up one of the serfs.
Many neoreactionaries were former libertarians; founder Mencius Moldbug describes his own journey as “from Mises to Carlyle” via Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a “libertarian” who pushed feudalism as his desired end state.[3] It’s ideal for soi-disant libertarians who realise they don’t actually like freedom for others all that much.
The movement is largely insignificant and mostly an object of curiosity (one must hope it remains this way), though it has attracted some racists of the pseudo-intellectual variety.

MARK YURAY WRITES:

Neoreaction, contrary to vitriolic accusations leveled against it, has not stayed suspiciously silent on the Jewish Question. Nick B. Steves wrote a three-part series on the issue. He concluded:
The Jews qua Jews are so uniquely destabilizing that no Jew could ever be trusted with any amount of power. They should be banned from our organization (presuming we had one) and probably forcibly relocated to a homeland of their own.
Do you smell latkes? I don’t. Jim has done a lot of his own commentary on Jews and cultural Marxism, Jews and anti-Semitism, Jews and Puritans, and Jewish misbehavior. Nick Land has staked his position. 28Sherman displayed a keen awareness of all things Jewish and political just yesterday. Neoreactionaries, steeped as they are in politically incorrect, anti-Semitic, old history books, are far more than acquainted with questions of Jews and Judaism. The perceived silence of neoreactionaries on this topic is not borne of conspiracy or cowardice, but conclusion.
The most perfunctory appraisal of the situation reveals that the Jews were and are a religiously and genetically distinct minority among Christian Europeans. Diversity plus proximity equals conflict. Each and every nefarious action attributed to Jews throughout history in the West can be traced to the ubiquitous and ever-present hostility that exists between different ethno-religious groups (or thedes or phyles). This hostility is a law of the Universe, a dictate of Gnon’s. Evil Jewish Bolshevism, depraved Jewish pornography, destructive Jewish capitalism, chauvinistic Jewish Zionism — all can be easily and sensibly interpreted as various manifestations of natural conflict between hostile groups i.e. Jews and Christian Europeans, Jews and Muslims, etc. There is little reason to zero in on the Jews and obsess about them as uniquely heinous among all the world’s peoples. The only thing unique about them is their continued survival despite the scale and length of their run-ins with foreign gentile civilizations, but this differentiates them by degree, not type — Jews are not at all the only hostile minority on the planet, and not at all the only one that’s survived to 2015. Various expressions of anti-Semitism throughout history, such as the Holocaust or the Russian pogroms, can also be sensibly interpreted using this paradigm of ethnic conflict. The manifestations of ethnic conflict may be complex, but the underlying causes are always the same: diversity and proximity. It is not difficult to figure out and most neoreactionaries have done so, and thus shut up about it.
The answer to the Jewish question, as Mr. Steves concluded, is quite simple: segregation and separation. This solution is not unique to the Jews, but is the standard tried-and-true, traditional method of solving the problem of the violence at the nexus of diversity and proximity. Note that unlike progressives, neoreactionaries do not believe one can abolish the laws of nature and turn diversity into a strength, least of all using the State. Diversity engenders animosity and eventually violence, and is thus a weakness. The only solution to diversity is unity. Separate and segregate. This axiom is true when considering Jews and Europeans, and it is true when considering any other two distinct groups.
Satisfied with the question of the Jews, neoreactionaries notice that the rot in Western civilization frequently attributed solely to the Jews had in fact existed long before subversive Jews did (see: Jim). Neoreactionaries notice that there exists an entire science of civilization with its own laws and principles. They notice that the architecture of contemporary civilization is slowly disintegrating. They notice saboteurs and invaders. Ahead they notice a barren grave with their names on it, and they notice grotesque monstrosities rising from Hades and beckoning to them with meticulously tailored malformed claws: “Check your privilege.” Neoreactionaries notice all this and judge it terribly unworthy. It is just a matter of opinion whether the next step is letting the edifice of civilization collapse, building a new civilization in the ruins, or attempting to stay the badly quivering columns.

Posted in Dark Enlightenment, Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off

How Flexible Is Jewish Law?

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Ari Kahn tells Rabbi Jeremy Gimpel:

Rabbi Kahn: “I’m not a Cohen. Neither of this would have had leadership positions in the [Temple]. So how would that leave us feeling? Off to the side. Why should the Cohen do all the work, leaving us as spectators?”

Rabbi Gimpel sounds frantic throughout the program, trying to make his points through sheer number of words, trying to overwhelm his guest.

Julia writes to me on FB: “You sound a bit like an outsider! I want to welcome you to the family!! Relax, Jews are the way of life, that is it.. We are not religious we are just all crazy!!”

Posted in R. Ari Kahn, Torah | Comments Off

Perhaps She Loves HaShem?

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

The new trend on Tinder is for the hookers to post inspirational sayings on their profiles. I just matched with a 22yo ho (I assume she’s a pro, who knows she might be a Reform rabbi) named Kaelani whose profile reads: “Knowledge without religion will no more sanctify than painted fire will burn, or the sight of water cleanse.” Perhaps she loves Torah?

Katerine, 19yo, says: “Turn you inside out and lick you like a crisp packet.”

Man, norms have changed since I was 19.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off

Another Reason Why I Don’t Drink

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Luke Ford

NEWS: TULSA – A night out drinking and an argument with his girlfriend nearly cost a Tulsa man his penis.

Officers responded to a Tulsa hospital early Thursday morning where a man claimed his girlfriend attacked him while he slept.

Amber Ellis was arrested for maiming and assault with a dangerous weapon.

According to the police report, the victim said he and his girlfriend were out drinking and began arguing while walking home “about how needy she had become.”

Posted in Crime | Comments Off