February 16, 2015 I’ve Been Talking To A Singer About Kol Isha Luke Ford No sacred cows.

I’ve Been Talking To A Singer About Kol Isha

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Judaism prohibits men from listening to a woman sing in public.

A hottie asks me: “I wonder if guys look at me while I’m performing and think dirty thoughts.”

I replied, “The question is if they think anything else.”

Girl: “I have never been hit on at my shows except for by black guys.”

Perhaps the purity of your intentions shine through?

“I would never give up singing. If i couldn’t sing anymore I would be really really sad.”

The day you stop singing, it would be like the sun dying out.

“Even if it arouses you?”

Baruch Hashem, your singing does not arouse me.

“It’s interesting that it’s men who are thought to be aroused by women’s singing when there is really no such thing as male groupies whereas men who sing have tons and tons of female attention. I think men are much less likely to approach a woman who they heard sing in comparison to the throngs of young girls who chase male singers. So who is it that’s more easily turned on and less able to control themselves?”

Wait, there are thousands of men chasing Barbara Streisand.

Jewish laws of modesty are not about proving which sex is superior but about maintaining a certain sense of community and propriety.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

I Want To Be The Missing Link!

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

A kind-hearted goy says to me: “Here’s the thing; If these issues or topics can’t be discussed openly, or at least semi-civilly or rationally, and all conversation or dialogue about it is cut off or suppressed, that will really lead to very ugly anti-Semitism in the future. It is in the interests of Jews to come out of their shells and talk to inquisitive Goyim (like myself) about such things instead of screaming ‘nazi’ and running away, or retreating within the tribe.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews by Albert S. Lindemann III

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Professor Lindemann writes:

By the middle years of the nineteenth century, the term “race” came to be commonly and unapologetically used by nearly everyone… Most observers concluded that there was a link between body type and psyche; the common use, again by Jews and non-Jews, of the term the “Jewish race” is a prime example… [F]ew questioned that there was a Jewish race. Many spoke of it as an unusually clear example of a pure race…

A number of twentieth-century anthropologists have observed that primitive tribes typically do not recognize the humanity of others; indeed the very concept of a universal humanity is alien to the thought patterns of primitive peoples…

The sons of Noah were supposed to have fathered the major races of the world: Japheth was the father of the Europeans; Shem of the “Orientals” (which included the Jews); and Ham of the Africans (Gen. 9.21-27) The Book of Deuteronomy has been described as providing a religious source for modern racism, and its various exhortations concerning the extermination of the indigenous peoples of Canaan (eg. Deut. 19, 20) offer justification, for those who seek it, for policies of racial extermination.

In talmudic commentary, protoracist elements are common. The rabbis increase the racist potential of the story of Ham beyond the bare biblical text, for example, by making the sons of Ham “ugly and dark-skinned.” Thus, religious exclusiveness meshed with “racial” exclusiveness, for in traditional Judaism lineage or ancestry (yikhus) — indeed, hereditary or “racial” sinfulness, as int he case of the descendants of Ham — remained categories of central importance… In the opinion of later influential Jewish thinkers, such as the Maharal, inborn racial qualities were to be found in every nation; he considered it impossible that a member of one nation could become part of another…

Judaism, or at least major and deep-rooted traditional interpretations of it, must be considered only uncertainly a community of belief; mixed into the belief system of the religion as traditionally defined are “essentialist” (or “racist”) notions in that one is born a Jew…

The Jewish priestly caste (kohanim) is ruled by especially stringent regulations. Its members may not, for example, marry a convert to Judaism, why by definition lacks the necessary ancestry. A Gentile child, adopted by Jews at birth and brought up according to the faith, must still at a later point undergo a formal, individual conversion ceremony, according to halakha. Such a child can never qualify for priestly status, even if the ancestry of his adoptive parents would permit it for their natural children. A mamzer (roughly, a bastard, the product of adultery between Jews) may never marry a “full” or “real” Jew (that is, one born of a properly married Jewish mother), however faultless his practice of Judaism. Unions between mamzerim and Gentile converts are permitted, since both qualify as inferior types of Jews… Again, their moral probity or fidelity to the beliefs and rituals of Judaism, no matter how perfect, cannot alter their lower status…

Nazis, too, said that one is born a Jew and Jewishness could never be relinquished.

“Blood,” “seed,” and “soul” have been used by Jews in defining Jewishness, and according to such definitions Jewish qualities have been seen as both permanent and mysteriously latent or immanent, springing from inner, invisible, or otherwise obscure determinants — an unchanging and unchangeable Jewish essence. Even a modern Jew like Freud, who had broken entirely with traditional Jewish belief, spoke of a mysterious “inner identity of Jews,” since they have…a similar “psychic structure,” “a miarculous thing in common, which [is] inaccessible to any analysis so far.” Eugene Borowitz has recently written that Jews have a mystical bond with one another, which allows them to “know how to find” one another.

The belief that blood in some way determines character was held long before the advent of Christianity in Europe and lies deep in European culture…

Jewish blood, then, was widely believed, by non-Jews and Jews alike, to be responsible for Jewish character. Indeed, the argument in favor of an unmixed strain of blood was assumed to be especially strong in the Jewish case, because of the Jews’ non-European origin and their own stringent prohibitions against intermarriage…

Yiddish-speaking Jews distinguished between Gentile koyekh (brutish, physical power) and Jewish moyekh (brains, guile, mental subtlety), a distinction related to those identified with Esau and Jacob. Non-Jews throughout most of recorded European history seem to have been impressed with a peculiar Jewish sharpness of intellect, a cleverness and cunning that baptism did not alter…

In spite of his having converted to Christianity as a child, [Benjamin Disraeli] emphatically insisted that he remained a member of the Jewish race. He believed, moreover, that the Jewish race had been extremely influential in the course of European civilization. That influence was to be explained…by the inherent genius of the Jewish race and because of the way Jews stuck together, assiduously keeping their race pure and disregarding national borders in pursuit of common interests as Jews…

In his novel Coningsby, Disraeli depicted a vast and secret power of Jews, bent on dominating the world. His noble Jewish character, Sidonia (based on Lionel Rothschild), describes race as a supremely important determinant (“all is race; there is no other truth”)…

Consistent with the belief that if a race became impure, it would weaken and decline, he wrote that if the “great Anglo-Saxon republic” [the United States] allowed its white population “to mingle with [its] negro and coloured populations” it would be the beginning of the end for the new country…

It was the ever more extensive contact with sub-Saharan Africa that seems to have reinforced racist interpretations of European superiority… African appeared physically more primitive to European observers, more animal-like… A popular work on slave buying described black Africans as “fickle and careless. Dancing and beating time are engrained in their nature.”

…[Immanuel Kant] concluded that race was both distinctive and immutable. Climate would not make blacks out of Scandinavians transplanted to central Africa, nor would African blacks become blond and white-skinned if moved to northern Europe.

…[H]e still implicitly accepted that there were distinctly different and permanent spiritual qualities, as there were physical, among the various races of mankind…

The concept of race also meshed nicely with the kind of nationalism that began to gain strength in the course of the nineteenth century, since one aspect of that nationalism was a belief that certain groups, or races, properly belonged within the confines of certain nation-states. The French race, the German race, the Italian race, so the reasoning went, deserved a nation-state composed uniquely of the appropriate race.

Johann Gottfried von Herder was an admirer of Hebrew literature, but he saw a deep-seated corruption in the Jews of his day, deriving from their long-standing status as peddlers, merchants, and moneylenders… He, like nearly all of his contemporaries, including Mendelssohn, did not believe that Jews were or could become Germans.

Count Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882)…dismissed environmentalist theories of the rise and fall of civilizations, nothing that civilizations rose, failed to rise, or declined in the same kind of environment. The real cause for the periods of decadence in earlier civilizations, he asserted, was the mixing of races, the corruption of aristocratic blood by that of the inferior races. The lowest of all human races, he believed, was the Negro, and the lower classes in countries like France had qualities like those of Negroes: low intelligence and self-discipline, an inability to organize socially, and an overdeveloped sensuality and an inclination to destructive rampages…

Moses Hess (1812-1875) [said] Judaism would become the spiritual guide of humankind, whereas Christianity, “a religion of death”, would wither. He was a good friend of [German-Jewish historian Heinrich] Graetz, who wrote him of his delight in “scourging” Germans. Graetz added that “we must above all work to shatter Christianity.”

Jewish racism, and of course Zionism, could build upon the tribalistic-nationalistic elements within Judaism, but no doubt equally important in the nineteenth century was the simple fact that nearly everyone believed in racial determinism…

The French-Jewish man of letters Julien Benda reported that among his Jewish acquaintances at the end of the century “were certain magnates, financiers rather than literary men, with whom the belief in the superiority of their race and in the natural subjection of those who did not belong to it, was visibly sovereign.” Similarly, a number of Jewish politicians on the left in France harbored a sense of their special merit or destiny as Jews to be political leaders, what they considered as their “right to rule.”

…The work of Sir Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius (1869), listed Jews as one of the groups that should be encouraged to reproduce, because of their racial superiority. Alphonse de Candolle, perhaps the most influential theoretician of race inside France, considered Jews to be a crowning culmination of the white race…

Darwin was merely the most famous of a growing corp of natural scientists who took pride in careful procedures, exact measurements, and theories based on solid facts. Darwin’s illustrious contemporary, Paul Broca, the founder of the Anthropological Society of Paris in 1859, focused his attention on a meticulous measuring of human bodies. He devoted particular attention to an obvious human organ, the brain. Did a larger one mean greater intelligence? And did different races have different-sized brains? Broca arrived at a positive answer to both of those questions, based on careful measurement. Negroes have smaller brains than Europeans, just as women have smaller brains than men.

…Broca was a man of the left, and what is particularly interesting in his case is that he did not ostensibly want to believe in human inequality, but he felt driven in the direction of believing in the inequality of races, and sexes, by what he deemed overwhelming evidence… He stated that it was necessary for scientists to put aside their ethical hopes for human equality: Truth was truth, even if unpleasant, and the truth was that races were unequal.

…Jules Carvallo…concluded that since Jews had a larger cranial capacity than other races, they were particularly suited to survive in the world. Another Frenchman, Alfred Legoyt, emphasized the lower death rate among Jews as further scientific or objective evidence of their biological superiority…

The brilliant and famous Scottish anatomist Robert Knox proclaimed, “race is everything, civilization depends upon it.”

Posted in Genocide, Jews, Judaism, Race | Comments Off

Modern Times by Paul Johnson

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

I’m rereading this book (revised in 2001):

On 5 April 1940 , four days before the Nazi invasion of Norway began the European phase of the war in earnest, Goebbels gave a secret briefing to selected German journalists, one of whom made a transcript. The key passage is as follows:

“Up to now we have succeeded in leaving the enemy in the dark concerning Germany’s real goals, just as before 1932 our domestic foes never saw where we were going or that our oath of legality was just a trick. We wanted to come to power legally, but we did not want to use power legally … . They could have suppressed us. They could have arrested a couple of us in 1925 and that would have been that, the end. No, they let us through the danger zone. That’s exactly how it was in foreign policy too … . In 1933 a French premier ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it): The new Reich Chancellor is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!’ But they didn’t do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done, and well armed, better than they, then they started the war.”

This remarkable statement is, on the whole, an accurate summary of what happened in the 1930s…

Hitler’s full programme, therefore, was as follows. First, gain control of Germany itself, and begin the cleansing process at home. Second, destroy the Versailles settlement and establish Germany as the dominant power in Central Europe. All this could be achieved without war. Third, on this power basis, destroy the Soviet Union (by war) to rid the ‘breeding-ground’ of the ‘bacillus’ and, by colonization, create a solid economic and strategic power-base from which to establish a continental empire, in which France and Italy would be mere satellites. In the fourth stage Germany would acquire a large colonial empire in Africa, plus a big ocean navy, to make her one of the four superpowers, in addition to Britain, Japan and the United States. Finally, in the generation after his death, Hitler envisaged a decisive struggle between Germany and the United States for world domination.

No one since Napoleon had thought in such audacious terms. In its gigantic scope the concept was Alexandrine. Yet until he was engulfed by the war he made, Hitler was always pragmatic. Like Lenin he was a superb opportunist, always ready to seize openings and modify his theory accordingly. This has led some historians to conclude he had no master-programme. In fact, while always adjusting the tactics to suit the moment, he pursued his long-term strategy with a brutal determination which has seldom been equalled in the history of human ambition. Unlike most tyrants, he was never tempted to relax by a surfeit of autocratic power. Quite the contrary. He was always raising the stakes on the table and seeking to hasten the pace of history. He feared his revolution would lose its dynamism.

He thought himself indispensable, and at least four of his phases must be accomplished while he was still not only alive but at the height of his powers. It was his impatience which made him so dangerous in the short term and so ineffectual in the long term (the very reverse of the Soviet strategists). In a secret speech to German newspaper editors in November 1938, after his great Munich triumph, he deplored the fact that his need to talk about peace had led the German nation to relax too much. He argued that for Germany to accept peace, and thus stability, as a permanent fact of international life was to accept the very spirit of defeatism. Violence was a necessity, and the public must be prepared for it.

Posted in Germany | Comments Off

New IDF Chief Faces Herculean Task?

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Nowhere does this analysis mention that Israel is the Middle East’s strongest military power and that it has no close competitor.

I was asked by a mate in Australia yesterday what I thought about the back and forth between Obama and Netanyahu. I said it had little real meaning. It is all for show. Netanyahu can’t say that Jews should move to Israel to be safe and claim at the same time that Iran is a deadly threat to Israel. Iran’s building of nuclear weapons is in its strategic interest. Iran has not launched an offensive war in about 300 years.

YNET: There are only two things about which we can be almost completely certain: The likelihood of a war breaking out on more than one front during Eisenkot’s term is much higher than during his predecessors’ terms, and the window of opportunities for a peace agreement has been almost completely shut.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off

Funeral Home Burglar Charged With Necrophilia

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

NEWS REPORT:

Man charged with having sex with corpse in Georgia mortuary

COLUMBUS, Ga. (AP) – Police have charged a homeless man with performing a sex act on a woman’s body at a funeral home in Columbus.

The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reports 26-year-old Domonique Smith is charged with necrophilia.

Capt. Gordon Griswould says Smith was arrested Monday and charged with stealing a bicycle from Hill Watson Peoples Funeral Service. During that investigation, police found evidence that the man had sexual contact with the body of a woman at the funeral home.

Funeral director Cedric Hill declined to discuss details. He says the business looks for the best protection and security for families.

Smith pleaded guilty to the burglary and remains in jail.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off

Is Australian Rapper Iggy Azalea A Foreign Policy Realist?

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Foreign Policy:

At the outset of her chart-topping single “Fancy,” Australian rapper Iggy Azalea declares, “First things first, I’m the realest.” But could that in fact be nothing but an utter mondegreen? Might Azalea in fact be declaring her loyalty to the “realist” camp in foreign policy thought?

Before you dismiss that question outright, consider this: Azalea has described herself as something of a fan of Francis Fukuyama. Seriously.

In an interview with Paper, Azalea reveals that she’s wading her way through Fukuyama’s recent doorstopper, The Origins of Political Order.

“I like to read,” she told Paper. “I’m currently reading The Origins of Political Order. It starts at the beginning of time and goes up to the French Revolution. It’s about how religion turned into politics and politics turned into religion. Actually, it’s really informed how I look at the music industry.”

What might Azalea have learned from this book to gain insight into the music business? For most of his career, Fukuyama was an avowed neoconservative, but the Iraq war changed all that, leading Fukuyama to repudiate his views and fall back on a line of thinking still concerned with the spread of liberty but less willing to use American military force to promote it.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Gays Vs Lesbians

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Gay men are quite attracted to Straight men (glance through Gay male personals. ”Str8t acting” is probably the single most desired trait in a paramour), but they know that Straight guys are just not interested. Men are just too consistent in their sexual orientation. Therefore, tension between Gay men and Straight women is quite low.

For Lesbians, though, it is quite different. Female sexuality is less fixed, more open to ideology and contingency. Hence, Lesbians can fantasize about how they can get Straight women. It’s just a matter of separating them from Straight men (cf Lesbian Separatist SF novels like Joanna Russ’ The Female Man, etc). This being the case, Lesbians strongly resent Straight men. They are two predators seeking the same prey.

* Let’s be fair – romance novels are usually pornography, and pornography reflects what gets the target audience hot and bothered. It’s not a great guide to the totality of that audience’s desires, which are usually a bit more complex than what pushes their buttons; just as what men want from a sexual or romantic relationship is generally more complex than breasts and buttocks, although those visual signals tend to dominate characteristically-visual male porn, ‘what women want’ isn’t simple or invariant across time.

* The goal of a population is maximizing local longer-term reproduction (long-term reproduction=sustained reproduction, implies good quality offspring).
Sexual reproduction has advantages (adaptivity to changing environments..), but two main bottlenecks: 1) large investment in growing/caring for the child, and 2) eliminating deleterious mutations from the population.
Instead of loading two bottlenecks on all individuals (and have no sex-differentiation), reproduction becomes more efficient if each bottleneck is handled by separate types of individuals.
Female and males have evolved to take care of these two bottlenecks, respectively.

The female specialization is clear. The male one means that males must compete fiercely for a rank in a hierarchy. The position in this hierarchy assigns ‘reproduction rights’. Most males left without reproducing, and a small minority at the top that reproduce widely.
The females then choose the highest ranked men for mating. The non-mating, low-ranked males are ‘filtering out’ bad genes (typically deleterious mutations) by simply not reproducing.

Two examples of this: sports, and duels. Sports happen to have a tournament structure, with enough fighting to establish a ranking, but not all pairs fight, which would be wasteful.
Women like it when two men fight for her. This establishes which is the ‘better’ one, and she goes with the winner.

* Female sexual arousal is switched on by attention from men (and sometimes just attention in general, hence lesbians’ occasional success with normal women). The higher status the man, the stronger the effect. The man’s arousal also arouses her.

Men have objective sexuality — they see something they like and they want it, and are notoriously obtuse when it comes to the feelings of the object of their desire. Women have far more subjective sexuality in that when something they like notices them it turns them on. This is why professional photographers have such great success with women.

The reason 50 shades is so popular is that all the bondage is taking sexual attention to an extreme. It’s like Cinderella on crack.

* Ironically women never seem to have anything interesting to say about what they want when it comes to men. They want everything and its opposite and they want both without having to ask for it because that ruins the whole thing and makes them not want it anymore. Women are not very interesting on the topic of women.

* There are all kinds of sexual deviancies but why do homos get special privilege?

Why no incest pride parade?

Why no S&M pride parade?

Why no polygamy pride parade?

Why no food sex pride parade?

Why no wife-swapping pride parade?

Why no cuckold pride parade?

Why no masturbation pride parade?

Why no granny fetish pride parade? (Aka Harold and Maude pride parade)

Why no costume sex pride parade?

It’s because people who indulge in such stuff have no special relation to any special talent?

But homos do have great talent apart from sexual deviance. And that made all the difference. If most homos were poor trash living in trailers, I doubt if anyone would have cared.

But many homos became writers, poets, artists, movie makers, fashionistas, agents, etc.

* After many decades, I have concluded that women want utopia and are continually frustrated that they can’t have it. Men are more content with their circumstances. To Wit the 70% of divorces initiated by women. Also it seems that most women stop even thinking about sex after 40.

* It always struck me that girls have competing desires when I had sex with them the first time. During pillow talk, they’d confess they’d made up their mind to have sex with me long ago. But leading up to sex there would be this faux prudishness: slapping my hand , giggling while saying no, and pretending to be offended by my sexual overtures. It was a case where no meant “not yet, but keep trying.” I knew another who acted not interested and then completely dropped the facade when she saw me with somebody else . It’s like they wanted to feel that A). They weren’t easy. B). I’m not easy, and I had options C) sex just happened, there was no burden of making a logical decision to have sex on her part. So I guess the fantasy is have it both ways, not having to consent to a guy she obviously would have consented to. It’s not a rape fantasy, it’s a passionate consensual sex without explicit consent fantasy.

* Men are into almost an infinite number of fetishes.
I’m familiar with fetish sites and men are into absolutely anything you can imagine, no matter how weird, how vile, how innocuous sounding (like the guys who get off on popping balloons), how painful, you name it, there are guys into it and they have a forum where they discuss it. The breadth of male dominated fetishes is astonishing and you just can’t imagine them all.

For women it’s quite different.
In most fetish forums, you have 100 guys trying to grab the attention of the 5 women who are part of the group. Among the 5 women, 2 are professionals, 1 is there because her man is into the weird fetish and the last 2 are into the fetish.

For what fetishes do you find ratios more like 100 guys for 30 women ? In any fetish forum that’s about “daddies” punishing their bad girls, rape fantasies, fantasies about strong guys humiliating and treating the woman like dirt and fantasies about women being “forced” to do horrible things to please “daddy”, etc. You’ll also find a disturbing number of women who participate in death fantasy forums where they fantasize about some predator guy killing them then eating them, etc. Those are the kind of fetishes that women really get into and in a sick way. You won’t find women in the groups about having sex with car engines (you will find guys into that though, for sure).

* 50 Shades of Grey is not a Cinderella story, as far as I can determine (not having read it). It’s a Beauty and the Beast story. If you’re going to use archetypes to carry out cultural criticism, you need to label the archetype correctly.

I don’t know if female competition has much of a part in 50 Shades, but it sounds as if the book’s primary emotional impact comes from the transformation of a rich, unfeeling Strong Man into an emotionally available one, thanks to the loving submission of a good woman. It’s her submissiveness that is attracting feminist criticism. The heroine of the story is supposed to be a virgin when she meets the “hero”. I can’t recall the last time I came across one of those in a book not written for children.

Cinderella doesn’t fit your template either. It’s the story of a girl who is unjustly treated by her father’s new wife and step-daughters, and who is rescued from a life of poverty by her prince. She doesn’t remove any of the competition; they try to remove her, and almost succeed. It’s only thanks to the intervention of her fairy godmother that she’s able to go to the ball and meet the prince at all.

* There’s anal fisting in 50 Shades (look it up if you don’t believe me). It’s been a while since I’ve read the Cinderella story, but if memory serves, there’s no anal fisting in Cinderella.

* 50 seems more a class fantasy than a sexual one as Douther mentioned.
Would all these women have cared about it if it were about a woman treated this way by some poor guy in a run-down trailer?
The appeal is in his riches and privilege and power. More Fifty Shades of Green.
It’s like hazing ritual for a woman to be allowed into the world of the super-rich. No pain, no gain.

Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

* This novel appealed to millions of women. I have not read it, but I work at a major public library and it has been on hold in more than one language, for years and years now. Whether it is badly written or not, and I think it is, given the few pages I have been subjected to during processing the books, it hits the spot of many, many women. I sense that many men feel threatened by the book. No one is reading it for “the articles”, as they used to say about Playboy.

Porn for men is based on the desires of men, porn for women, written by women, is based on the desires of women. I have never understood the basically gay male nature of male directed porn, men seem to desire to look at, up close and very personal, endless penises. I, on the other hand, have zero desire to see female sexual organs. I would much rather watch gay male porn than lesbian or straight porn. The male habit of looking at other naked males seems very gay to me and makes me feel uncomfortable toward the men who get off on such things. I don’t like it, it creeps me out, but I let it slide, obviously, it serves some purpose.

You need to let women slide on Fifty Shades of Gray. It turns them on, they can’t help it, no matter how silly it may seem to you. Roll with it. Pull some hair, do some spanking! Pin somebody down, make them take it!

When I was in my teens, a friend’s mom, trapped in a hideous and abusive marriage, used to buy a lot of romance novels. My friend and I babysat for a lot of women’s kids. We would pass the naughtiest romance novels around. One of the women we babysat for had a husband who loved for his wife to read romance novels. He told us, “She reads them next to me in bed. She will read a bit, then she will molest me! She’ll read a bit more, then she will attack me! I don’t know what’s in them, but I love them!”

Posted in Homosexuality, Sex | Comments Off

Our Democratic Heritage

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Blog post: Anybody with a 3rd grader out there better check out their new textbook from McGraw-Hill;

Wondering whether elementary school students are truly indoctrinated in the left wing agenda? Well, wonder no more. They are; and it’s worse — far worse — than you can possibly imagine.

Consider, if you will, McGraw-Hill’s Our Democratic Heritage, a textbook designed for third-graders and published in 2010. If you’d assume that it was intended to teach kids about America’s founding and its institutions of government, you’d assume wrong.

The book is a veritable cornucopia of left wing spin.

There is but one sentence devoted to the Bill of Rights. It reads, “These rights [of citizens] are listed in the part of the U.S. Constitution called the Bill of Rights”.

• Two pages cover the Declaration of Independence
• Two pages describe the Constitution, all of which are devoted to the three branches of government and separation of powers
• No pages are devoted to James Madison and the authors of the Constitution; there is no mention of federalism
• Six pages are spent describing the background of Paul Revere
• Ten pages are devoted to the history of democracy in ancient Greece.
• George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mentioned only in passing, almost as if they are immaterial scenery on the road to diversity and social Utopia.

In the section entitled “America’s Freedom Fighters”:

• Eight pages are spent covering the life of Frederick Douglass
• Five pages on Susan B. Anthony
• Six pages on Mary McLeod Bethune,
• Zero pages are devoted to the life of Abraham Lincoln

In fact, the entire Civil War is described only as a backdrop to the lives of Frederick Douglas and Mary McLeod Bethune.

In the section entitled “The Fight for Freedom Continues”:

• Seven pages are spent on praise for FDR (including 2 pages on Pearl Harbor)
• Six pages on Eleanor Roosevelt
• Six pages are devoted to Thurgood Marshall
• Six pages are spent on LBJ’s life and the wondrous effects of “Great Society”
• Six pages are spent on Cesar Chavez and the lionization of the labor movement

Posted in America | Comments Off

Are Jews Safer In Europe Than In Israel?

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “Netanyahu’s implication that Jews are safe in Israel. Apparently, in the leader of Israel’s judgment, Jews shouldn’t worry all that much about the Iranian nuclear program, Gaza tunnels, Hezbollah rockets, or all the Arabs in the world ganging up on Israel and driving them into the sea.”

Luke: “He can’t have it both ways — that Iran is a mortal danger and Israel is a safe place for Jews.”

Chaim Amalek: “He can’t have it both ways, but he is a politician. As a Zionist, he has to make the case that Jews are safer in Israel or why else have an Israel? He cannot very well urge them to move to America, where they might well be safer than they would be living in a country, Israel, surrounded by tens of millions of violent, angry people who want it wiped off the map and its Jews with it.”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Most Israeli politicians, regardless of what they might say in public, know that Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied. Iran is never going to attack anybody.

As for Gaza tunnels and Hezbollah rockets, those are more of a nuisance than anything else and get crushed pretty quickly these days.

So as you say, Steve, Israel is safe and sound and Netanyahu is relishing the prospect of adding the 500,000 French Jews to his voting rolls. I got to hand it to Bibi, he knows how to get things done.

* Whether or not Jews are ‘safer’ here or there doesn’t matter and shouldn’t matter at this time. Jews in the modern world are actually very safe. Take a look at the the wars. Count the bodies. Identify the dead. And after that, identify the killers and those who orchestrated the wars.

Also, examine murder statistics in places where Jews live. Jews are savvy, well-connected and accomplished. Relatively speaking, they are very safe in and very well-insulated from violence in the modern world. And they are even very free to dish it out when it suits them.

The actual state of Jewish ‘safety’ is not–and should not be–the real purpose of this TIMES story or Bibi’s call for more Jewish emigration to Israel. After all, Israel is always clamoring for more Jews (and fewer gentiles). This latest headline is just one in an endless collection of tales involving ‘Jewish security’ and, implicitly, the threat posed to Jewish existence by non-Jews. That’s the underlying theme of this concocted story and hundreds like it: what are the dreadful, anti-Semitic Christians and Muslims up to now?

Another implied meaning here is this: Jews must self-segregate to survive. Go East young Jew!

But this is slightly absurd. Sure, several Jews have been shot in France recently by a handful of disconnected, angry Muslim gunmen. But as many have probably died in traffic accidents.

But what about the causes of these terror incidents?

This ‘news item’ is simply more Jewish exceptionalism in everyday news. It is propaganda. Bibi should be ignored, if not arrested. And we should be discussing Zionist criminality, not Jewish insecurity.

Jews, in fact, might be too secure right now; though they pretend otherwise. Jewish security (and Jewish power) breeds arrogance and excessive confidence. Even aggression.

Do Muslims get to talk this way (and get sympathetic news coverage) when American or Israeli rockets rain down on their cities, leaving hundreds or even thousands dead? No.

When will we discuss Palestinian or Muslim ‘security’ (and protection) from Zionist war-plotting?

Meanwhile, the over-sized Jewish impact on gentiles is never covered in this story or so many others like it. So this ‘news item’ is actually another kosher insult directed at the non-Jewish world. We’re supposed to take Jewish security problems seriously but ignore our own. No thank you.

Headlines of this kind are designed to cement Jewish identity and the idea that there’s a never ending conspiracy by the evil Goyim against innocent Jews. The poor dears.

Meanwhile, much of the Middle East is in chaos due to Zionist machinations and Israeli-American wars of choice. Steve also needs to dig a little deeper on this subject.

* Jewish birthrates (Israel) are very good and are outdoing the Muslims in their historic tactics of demographic warfare. Israel fights and resists them while Europe takes in more and more and cowers. There is nothing more perverse than funding your own demise by paying (via European welfare systems) for your own displacement. Euro-White IQ is high but comes with fatal flaws. This European loss of future orientation, they are becoming more like blacks.
Northern winters make one future oriented while technology and comfortable living standards weaken winters impact.

* Israeli politicians have three audiences. One is their domestic voters, another is American voters and then you have the Imperial Capital. Bibi despises Obama as does most of the Imperial Capital. The hod carriers in the American media cover up that fact, but official Washington will be glad to see the Obamas head to Hawaii for good.

I suspect Bibi is aiming these remarks at pro-Israel voters and the hawks in Washington. The next president will be a Republican and he will be tasked with solving the Iran problem. Bibi would prefer a hawk and conjuring images of Jews fleeing Europe will do wonders for them in the GOP primaries. This comment is a two-fer for Bibi. He gets to take a shot at Obama and he advances the interests of war candidates in the GOP.

* When native hostility to massive uncontrolled third world immigration first reared its head way back in the 1960s – remember this was at a time when the number of third world immigrants in Europe was small, and could have been repatriated relatively harmlessly – some of the most ferocious opposition to nationalism came from Jews. Jews also sided very publicly with the immigrants and generally identified strongly with the immigrants and against natives.
For example in Britain virtually all the so-called ‘race relations’ laws that were exclusively passed by Labour governments, and whose sole object is to legally protect and privilege third workers to a level above that of natives, were drafted and sponsored by Jewish politicians and jurists.

* Due to the open borders agenda that the vast bulk of American Jewry has pushed for, aggressively in most cases, the global free-for-all in allocating American residence will take unexpected twists, and it is more or less certain that certain mass population ethnies notably conspicuous in the USA by their relative scarcity will inundate the States to the extent that the past half century’s experience of massive Mexican immigration look like the proverbial vicarage tea party. Yes really. Count on it. Mark my words. In all my years pontificating here, and occasionally spewing filth, garbage and unfunny jokes, there is nothing I have written that I am more certain about.
The particular ethnies I have in mind are Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Muslim Indians, there are over 100 million of the latter.
Dare I say it but none of these ethnies are particularly well disposed toward Jews. Neither are the until millions of Latin Americans and blacks who will also comprise the bulk of the American population.
It’s a case of ‘be careful of what you wish for, it might just happen’.

* But he doesn’t urge Europeans to expel Muslims and Africans (like Israel does with unwanted newcomers) which would make more sense.
He practices LePenism at home but doesn’t urge it on Europe.

* What country in the West is “indifferent to the safety of Jews”? France just gave a guy two years for “Holocaust Denial” (TM). If you can’t even question the official History if it’d make Jewish people look bad, I’m sure that any violence against them would be dealt with pretty severely.

Anyway, it must be nice to have a country to flee to. It kills me that Jewish leaders can do stuff like this, muck things up for the people living in formerly Christian lands, and then bolt when the kitchen gets too hot. Real swell.

* Israel has nukes, and has second strike capable subs (gift from germany). Iran does not.

* What safety western European Jews still enjoy comes with extreme constraints on their day-to-day freedom. Their synagogues and schools require Ft Knox-like security, their children aren’t safe playing in the park or attending many public schools. So the logic is that of facing danger in Israel vs hiding from it in Europe. That logic should be easily grasped by any red-blooded American who’s grappled with the pros and cons of keeping a gun for home protection; would you rather live on your knees or die on your feet?

As for Netanyahu worrying about Iran even though it doesn’t *yet* have a nuclear arsenal, here’s Enoch Powell:
“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

* Of course the deep irony is that the true threat to Jews outside of Israel comes entirely from the predictable results of a liberal immigration policy — which so many of them support — rather than from Native Great-Great-Grandsons.

So it’s rather backfiring; they’ve imported their own monsters.

But will they ever Notice?

* It takes a long time to wrap your head around counterintuitive Jewish behavior. Kevin McDonald’s group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense. When trying to understand the Jews, always think “diaspora” first. They have survived and largely thrived for millennia as strangers in strange lands while maintaining a separate and unique cultural identity. IIRC, after WWII they were offered Madagascar (a nice big safe secure island) as a homeland, but chose Israel (a crappy small territory surrounded by hostile enemies). To the minds of us Goyim, that sounds absolutely crazy. To the Jews that’s business as usual.

They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.

Is being surrounded by millions of hostile non-whites good for the Jews?

It’s not so bad.

Is being surrounded by millions of racially conscious Whites good for the Jews?

NEVER AGAIN!! BECAUSE HOLOCAUST!!!

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off