{Editor’s Note: The following is adapted from Ambassador Prosor’s speech to the UN General Assembly on Nov. 24}
I stand before the world as a proud representative of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I stand tall before you knowing that truth and morality are on my side. And yet I stand here knowing that today in this Assembly, truth will be turned on its head and morality cast aside.
The world’s unrelenting focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an injustice to tens of millions of victims of tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East. As we speak, Yazidis, Bahai, Kurds, Christians, and Muslims are being executed and expelled by radical extremists at a rate of 1,000 people per month.
How many resolutions did you pass last week to address this crisis? And how many special sessions did you call for? The answer is zero. What does this say about international concern for human life? Not much, but it speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the international community.
Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, less than half a percent are truly free – and they are all citizens of Israel. Israeli Arabs are some of the most educated Arabs in the world. They are our leading physicians and surgeons, they are elected to our parliament, and they serve as judges on our Supreme Court. Millions of men and women in the Middle East would welcome these opportunities and freedoms.
Posted inArabs, Israel|Comments Off on The World’s Freest Middle East Arabs Live In Israel
Here is Evelyn Rich’s story in her own words. She has a PhD from Boston University in Sociology and African-American Studies (with her dissertation on the ideology of the modern KKK).
Jared Taylor is a long time friend of Mark Weber of IHR and Don Black of Stormfront. As Jobling and Raymond note, he has invited well known anti-Semites to speak at the AR conferences (where anti-Semites are always prominent in the audience). In response to inquiries about the Holocaust, Taylor has expressed his lack of interest in the subject. Tellingly, Taylor has never spoken out against anti-Semitism. He also criticized Israel in a series of articles for The Last Ditch.
Guy White gleefully notes (without much forethought) that Taylor says white ethnomasochism has a life of its own, that Jewish influence isn’t exclusively the cause, and that Whites have repeatedly shown themselves (without Jewish assistance) to be capable of egalitarian excesses. In other words, his position on the Single Jewish Cause is virtually identical to the one taken by this website.
Jared Taylor’s stance on the Jewish Question is a stratagem. AR’s mission is to revive white racial consciousness. It has a definite logic to it: if you don’t care about your race, why would you care about the Jews who are trashing it?
The Jewish Question is a distraction from Taylor’s primary goal, the restoration of white racial consciousness, and so he naturally prefers to avoid discussing the issue. Besides, as Taylor himself has noted, there are any number of other websites (such as this one) that address the matter. There is no shortage of anti-Semitism in the AR community.
Jared Taylor isn’t our enemy. Unlike Ian Jobling, Lawrence Auster, or Guy White, he has never once attacked us. Perhaps the anti-anti-Semite race realists are so desperate, isolated, and few in number that they feel compelled to imagine their situation were otherwise.
In its dossier on Taylor, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Review speculates that his conspicuous lack of antisemitism “may be related to his wife, who some in the movement have said is Jewish.” The Atlanta-based organization, which monitors hate groups, has described Taylor as “the race hater.”
“What kind of ‘intelligence’ is that?” Taylor asked. He said that his wife, Evelyn Rich, is not Jewish.
According to the Intelligence Review: “Evelyn Rich became well known because of her 1985 and 1986 interviews of Duke, conducted as part of her dissertation research… [which] were used by anti-Duke forces to make radio ads attacking Duke during his run for Louisiana governor in 1991.” This may help explain the wary relationship between Duke and Taylor, opposites in many ways.
Posted inJared Taylor, Jews|Comments Off on Jared Taylor & The Jews
Here is Evelyn Rich’s story in her own words. She has a PhD from Boston University in Sociology and African-American Studies (with her dissertation on the ideology of the modern KKK).
Book review: Blood and Politics, published this May, is a history of “White nationalist” political activity between 1974 and 2004 by Leonard Zeskind, an anti-racist writer and activist who has monitored White political groups since the 1970s. The book consists of a chronologically ordered series of chapters on phenomena including Willis Carto‘s Liberty Lobby, William Pierce‘s National Alliance, David Duke‘s campaigns, Klan groups, Holocaust deniers, survivalists, Christian Identity adherents, Aryan Nations, White separatist compounds, bank robberies and murders by White criminal conspiracies, the Populist Party,skinheads, Pat Buchanan‘s campaigns, Ruby Ridge, Waco, White power music, militias, common law courts, American Renaissance, The Bell Curve, the Oklahoma City bombing trials, the Council of Conservative Citizens, Sam Francis, and 9/11…
Zeskind does not beat up on White nationalists for lacking credentials. He explains that Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, was raised in Japan and graduated from Yale. Zeskind tells the story of Eveyln Rich, a woman who wrote her PhD dissertation on the Klan while supplying information about Klan activities to anti-racist watchdog organizations. Though she “grasped the subject of her inquiry like few others” and was later active in opposing David Duke, “[a]t some point Evelyn Rich must have dropped any scholarly distance she had from white nationalists” because she married Jared Taylor.
In contrast to liberals who assume that occasional acts of violence are the only threat posed by White nationalists, Zeskind argues that White nationalism is a serious threat because the mainstreaming wing of the movement, led by politicians, lawyers and PhDs, is capable of having an effect on mainstream politics.
For example, he argues that David Duke’s political campaigns, while unsuccessful, awakened a constituency concerned with White dispossession and thereby “opened the door” for Patrick Buchanan, a relatively mainstream figure, to bring Duke’s political issues into the Republican party.
Posted inWhites, William Pierce|Comments Off on Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, by Leonard Zeskind
Bribery on the part of Jews seeking to evade the multitude of special laws concerning them became a way of life… Many conscientious police officials and members of the judiciary came to consider the Jews a troublesome and corrupt people, forever importuning the authorities with petitions, protests, and bribes. The courts were crowded with Jewish criminals and litigants, quite aside from those arrested for revolutionary activity, incurring the ire of over-worked officials…
Matters were not made any easier, he remarked, by the notorious vehemence of the Jewish petitioners. They were not…a passive and fatalistic people. The governor…was struck by their wild gesticulations (especially the women) — “so that one had to back away from them” — and their shrill demands for immediate action…
The Russian police force was required to devote a major part of its energies to enforcing the myriad of often contradictory regulations that applied to the Jews. Jews themselves naturally were tempted to evade laws that they considered grossly unfair, indeed that in some cases made it nearly impossible for them to earn an honest living. Since many ordinary Jews in Russia were obliged to become “criminals” in order to survive, the attitude of many other Jews to the law in a more general way inevitably became evasive or even contemptuous. Jews gained a reputation of being inveterate liars and dissimulators when dealing with the authorities. A Yiddish-language paper in the United States wrote that even after leaving Russia and dealing with American or German authorities, “Our Jews love to get tangled up with dishonest answers,” or they get themselves into trouble by offering bribes to officials unaccustomed to receiving them. (Pg. 150-151)
Posted inJews, Russia|Comments Off on Tsarist Laws & Jewish Honesty
I doubt this woman and her family mentioned below have good work skills and the type of character that most employers prefer. If we are going to pay their way cradle to grave, including for their incarceration when necessary, should we not require them to get sterilized, or do we want more of their ilk? I know too many people like this woman who’ve done little honest productive work in their lives, are not capable of such toil, are subsidized all their lives, and have off-spring in prison for violent crime. I may sound harsh, but I care more about the hard-workers who pay the bills in America and suffer at the hands of these cheats, thugs and murderers than I do about the cheats, thugs and murderers. We are suffering from severe dysgenic trends in the West. Should we just give up and hand over our sovereignty to China?
I am less concerned with Americans being nice than I am with Americans surviving as a distinct people with their own distinct civilization. In short, I care about Americans in a similar way to how I care about Jews. I want both peoples to flourish free of outside interference. The more we give to the unproductive, the less we have to give to preserve our own way of life. Charity should begin at home.
In a universal and divine sense, there is no superior race, but distinct groups and cultures and countries have the right to act in their self-interest and to require that their minority residents either carry their weight or lose privileges.
The compassion shown by Officer William Stacy to desperate Alabama mother Helen Johnson captured the nation’s attention at a time of strained relations between the police and black Americans.
Instead of arresting her for stealing five eggs to feed her starving family on Saturday, Stacy bought the carton and the touching hug they shared afterwards caught on video by a stunned passer-by went viral.
But it got even better on Wednesday when Officer Stacy and some colleagues arrived at 47-year-old Johnson’s home with two truckloads of food to keep her and her children and grandchildren fed through Christmas.
Charles Murray is a big philo-semite so maybe he doesn’t realize he’s criticizing Jews as America’s new elite?
The video begins with Jeffrey Rosen yakking on about how he’s the president of the National Constitution Center.
I’m just going to share my feelings in real time as I listen. Do I really need to submit my feelings to the strictures of bourgeois morality and back them up with citations?
CM: “The Americans were particularly proud of their honesty.”
I feel like Charles Murray is making a brutal assault on Jews here, no less an assault than that mounted by the Einzatsgruppen.
“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.
Alex Linder made even more unkind remarks in his review of the movie Shattered Glass.
CM summarizing Alexis DeTocqueville: “Of course Europeans would bring their European vices with them.”
CM: “The Founders took for granted that marriage is the bedrock institution of society.”
CM: “The word ‘morality’ for the Founders referred to fidelity within marriage and the permanence of marriage.”
Wait, didn’t Freud show that this was a hang-up? If we couldn’t focus on adultery, we would have less TV and movies for the goyim.
CM: “Marriage in America was a much more solemn affair.”
Not when our satirists have at it!
CM: “The Founders were not particularly religious…but they were united in this — religion is essential for the health of the nation.”
All strong in-groups have hostility for out-groups. Just as Christians have some ambivalence and hostility for Jews, so too do Jews have some ambivalence and hostility for Christians. Jewish elites may have done more than any group to remove religion from America’s public square. When you hear there’s a lawsuit to remove a creche or a public posting of the Ten Commandments or the saying of an invocation at a football game, you often find there are secular ADL-ACLU-type Jews behind it.
CM: “Religiosity among white work class has plummeted.”
Hmm, I wonder who’s led the way in calling Christianity stupid and evil?
CM: “The pointy-headed intellectuals did become secular.”
That means Jews, right?
CM: “There has been such a deterioration in the things the Founders thought were essential to the functioning of a free society.”
Hmm, who led the way in destroying these things?
CM: “The American project is not about how well the most prosperous group is doing.”
Hmm, which group is the most prosperous in America today? Probably the group with the highest average IQ.
CM: “The new upper class… have developed a culture that is far more separated from mainstream American culture than was previously true.”
Is that a shot at Jews?
CM: “There is a collapse in confidence of codes of unwritten behavior.”
“The elite’s code determines the code of society.”
It sounds like he’s talking about Jews.
CM: “The second way the new upper class is failing in its obligation is unseemliness… Some examples. Unseemliness is building a house of 56,500 square feet and 123 rooms, which is what Aaron Spelling did in Beverly Hills.”
Jew!
As someone who grew up a WASP, I notice that many Jews live more opulently than what I knew. They often celebrate more extravagantly. I don’t remember WASP equivalents of the Persian-Jewish wedding and the Beverly Hills bar mitzvah.
CM: “Being an American trumped membership in a social class.”
It does not trump membership in a tribe, be it Jewish, Chinese or black. Members of tribes are often tribesmen first and members of their host nations second. They may not care that much about America’s civic culture.
CM: “I grew up in a home home to the Maytag company. Maytag executives made good money. They could have afforded to buy Cadillacs. None of them did. Why not? Because they would be getting too big for their britches. The idea of constructing a 20,000 foot house wouldn’t cross their mind. In New York City and Los Angeles, you had people who bought Cadillacs and built big houses [in the 1950s], but if you looked around the rest of the country…”
CM: “This sense of wanting to be an American first and not a member of an upper class was palpable.”
It was palpable among WASPs, who used to run the world.
CM: “We also have going on among the new upper class a fairly openly expressed contempt, not billionaires, but the elites in academia, law, journalism, foundations and cultural institutions, a kind of contempt for mainstream Americans.”
Charles Murray is talking about Ashkenazi Jews here. We have high IQs and we are disproportionately the new elite. All strongly identifying in-groups, including many Ashkenazi Jews, have varying degrees of contempt as well as admiration for outsiders.
CM: “That would have been considered unseemly 50 years ago, it would have been seen as snobbery and snobbery used to be un-American.”
Am I out to lunch here or are the cultural changes Charles Murray laments largely the result of this upper class changing from overwhelmingly WASP to partly Jewish?
CM: “The unseemliness that now seems acceptable among America’s new upper class is a symptom of the collapse of codes of behavior that depend not on laws and regulations, but upon shared understandings of the fitness of things and an allegiance to behave in accord with those standards. Unseemliness is another symptom of hollowness of the core.”
Am I stark raving mad or is Charles Murray echoing the Nazi critiques of the Jews of Germany?
CM: “How much do you value what has made America exceptional and what are you willing to do to preserve it?”
I hear the marching of jackboots.
CM: “America’s new upper class must once again fall in love with what makes America different.”
CM: “Suppose that all the people who wrote sitcom plots and television series all felt it was really important that children be born to a mature adult male and female committed to their care in a committed relationship. If they all believed that, it would get conveyed. That’s what I mean by the collapse of a sturdy code. There’s no code out there that gets into the air.”
Well, who writes these TV shows? It is often Jews. Is Charles Murray saying that the Jews, the new upper class, are the problem?
In conclusion, I know most of my thoughts above are paranoid. In reality, there’s probably little meaningful difference in these things between Jewish and non-Jewish elites.
Posted inCharles Murray, Jews|Comments Off on Charles Murray On America’s Elites
Now, today’s porn-driven awareness of alternatives sounds like a good thing, right, because then young people can calmly negotiate over exactly what they will engage in. Perhaps they could hire agents to negotiate the fine points and draw up a contract spelling everything out in excruciating detail in the manner of, say, a movie industry contract stipulating just how nude Jennifer Lawrence will be in a movie nude scene.
But more likely in the heat of the moment stuff happens, often more complicated stuff than pre-porn, and the parties may not fully agree on whether what happened was what each had in mind, especially if he doesn’t send flowers the next day. This provides much in the way of hurt feelings for University administrators to patiently listen to.
Choice comments:
* If you’re ever wondering about why a dumb law or regulation is being undertaken, it’s always good practice to estimate how many billable hours it will generate.
* 1) Hey, here’s a radical, doubtless deeply misogynist, idea – if you’ve been raped, instead of asking a campus bureaucrat to set up an informal hearing, why don’t you ask a cop to make an arrest?
2) This shows the uniquely white/upper class/bourgeois aspect of this story (and that has always existed in feminism), which is reflected in a mindset which believes that getting expelled from a prestigious college is so awful a fate that it’s right up there with decades of prison time as an acceptable punishment for rape. After all, if that happens, one might end up having to go to a low-tier state school, or maybe never even get a degree at all, and end up having to get a job in which one works with one’s hands. The horror!
* I think the main problem is that we do not have any baseline for sexual conduct anymore, there are no taboos either about the kinds of sexual practices, or the consequences of sexual practices: not when something like 50% of American children are now born out of wedlock.
There are also zero expectations about sexual activity: if a woman in love makes love to a young man, there is no guarantee that he won’t just dump her the next day, and no way to sanction him if he does. (And, of course, it goes the other way as well.)
I’m willing to accept whatever someone wants to tell me about sexual assault, however, most of the stories I hear (this doesn’t include the UVA story, of course) involve young women who get inebriated and then have sex. Very, very few of these stories involve violence, the threat of violence, drugging, or drinking to incapacitation. If someone wants to call them “sexual assault”, OK, fine, but while it may cross a college threshhold I doubt if it will cross a legal one.
The current “last ditch” attempt is to stake the matter on Affirmative Consent. But I can already tell you that it won’t work. Why? Because there are many many cases of couples getting drunk and actively and enthusiastically assenting to all sort of things: and then have no memory of it the next day. So how do you enforce those laws then? You don’t.
LUKE:
I know a story of two female friends of mine who got drunk. While drunk, one friend promised the other to buy her a plane ticket. So one girl went off the next day and bought the ticket and when she asked for reimbursement, the other girl had no memory of what she had promised. So there went the friendship.
A similar thing happened to two other friends of mine.
I had an alcoholic girlfriend who promised all sorts of things that she later forgot.
I got with several bipolar alcoholic nymphomaniacs in my time. I’m lucky it wasn’t a disaster.
* Remember when NJ arrested and convicted a dude whose only crime was video taping his gay roommate having gay sex, who subsequently jumped off a bridge? And how he only showed it to a few people, but his gay roommate freaked and committed suicide in shame?
Dude got expelled, convicted, and then deported.
Remember how Stephen Glass got barred and shunned not only from being a journalist, but from being a lawyer as well, all for inventing stories?
Yet Jackie and Erdley–who accused an entire group of men of an unspeakable crime, and led the nation on a wild goose chase of lies—will not face any criminal charges or punishment of the sort.
Female privilege.
* If only there were administrative procedures in place at UVA! If the proper procedures, techniques, policies, protocols, counselling and education are in place then students can get up to any sort of sexual activity they want and there won’t be cases like Jackie’s in the future. Procedures, policies and protocols are needed to make universities and workplaces kid-proof but in a sexual way. Universities are supposed to be fun and safe places where adult kids can get drunk, have any sort of sex they can think of and be safe from running into any emotional or literal sharp edges. Procedures clearly were not in place at UVA to make this possible. People need to get on that.
A long time ago Samuel Johnson said “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel” but I think today it’s procedure that’s the last refuge. We have the right to do whatever we want without consequences and procedures need to be put in place to make that happen.
* There were fewer sexual encounters in those days to begin with – respectable young ladies did not have premarital sex except perhaps (or perhaps not) with their fiance (and if they became pregnant, whoever they were having sex with BECAME their fiance). Certainly not in college dorms which were well chaperoned. If sex did happen, what went on behind closed doors in a hotel room/ in the back seat of ’57 Chevies was highly private and never admitted to publicly, especially not by young ladies (men might brag to their buddies). If some sexual negotiation between a girl and her steady went wrong this was not something you would take public before some tribunal. If the offense was grievous enough, the couple would break up and that would be the end of it. Certainly (and to this day) the police would have nothing to do with it – if a woman put herself alone in a room with a man and without her knickers, then whatever happened after that was definitely not rape and was no more than she deserved for putting herself in that position. There were no campus tribunals to deal with such complaints. Any woman would even be ashamed to admit that she had done as much.
Let us take the case of the “mattress girl” at Columbia. According to her account (and she tell this without embarrassment to everyone who asks, indeed to all of America) she was having consensual vaginal relations with a casual acquaintance when he decided to use the back door (and she had not agreed to this part of the deal). Since she had not specifically consented to this act, Romeo went from welcome vaginal guest to rapist in her view, and she demanded from all that would hear that he be punished accordingly. Would ANYONE in 1950s America publicly admit this and seek legal or public redress for such a complaint? Was there ANY forum in America that would have heard such a dispute and not thrown the hussy out the door the moment she was so bold as to actually give the details thereof?
But in 2014 America, having drunk the “consent” Koolaid, she considers this to be a valid complaint and is shocked, shocked that neither the police, nor (surprisingly) the campus authorities consider to be anything more than a lover’s quarrel that is not judicable. Thus she carries the mattress that was the scene of the crime as the burden she must bear in order to receive redress (and earn her 15 minutes of fame and a book deal).
* My wife’s cousin is in the university sports center development business. She typically spends about 5-7 years at a state flagship university as the head of building a new goldplated sports complex to attract students. She vacations in places like Abu Dhabi and Martinique and on cruise lines checking out the latest resort amenities, then gets together with architects to design a lavish resort on campus. After it’s built and running she moves on to the next state’s flagship campus to do it all over again, just more lavishly.
Posted inRape|Comments Off on What Constitutes Rape These Days?
…just like I was promised when I converted to Judaism. It does not have to be a magazine, it could be a vertically integrated digital-media company. What’s important is that I get what’s coming to me as a Jew.
Chaim Amalek: “IF this stands, what next – Indians running Goldman Sachs? Big beefy gentiles making goy-friendly movies in Hollywood? Hashem send us Moshiach already so that we can regain control over the New Republic!”
Brian Doherty:
Well, Luke, I hope you get it, but be warned that apparently if upon getting this publication you dare fire an editor (after having fired ANOTHER editor to hire that editor, but apparently the first firing was OK) you will be vilified as a force of cultural destruction and one of the worst (somethings) in America by an echo chamber of privileged professionals living in the past.
This story is about Jews not wanting a goy to own their shop and hire some Guy Vidra over them but it is presented as the death of journalism, like anybody cared about TNR anymore anyway (maybe five times a year I’d hear somebody talk about something in there, about as often as I heard someone remark on a new essay in Hustler).
Brian Doherty:
Luke—I suggested that before posting about this controversy, you should have to answer 5 multiple choice Qs first about articles the Hughes TNR ran, then about 5 articles run in the decade before Hughes took over. You note that NO ONE asserts that anything about the Hughes TNR has been disgraceful or destroyed TNR’s vaunted traditions—-basically, this is all about firing ONE editor (who edited it before, then didn’t, then did again–the mag survived) then everyone else allegedly dedicated to its traditions quitting. If anyone “killed TNR” it is all of them. (Oh, wait, he hired someone who talked tech jargon and acted like something more than trad print journalism was necc. in the 21st century.)
And everyone writes about it as if Hughes is to blame, as if HE purged the mag. They purged themselves.
Leon Wieseltier refers to his cocaine and threesome habithere: “We are not only disruptors and incubators and accelerators,” he said, seemingly mocking the language that Hughes and Vidra often used. “We are also stewards and guardians and trustees.” He went on,“The questions that we must ask ourselves, and that our historians and our children will ask of us, are these: How will what we create compare with what we inherited? Will we add to our tradition or will we subtract from it? Will we enrich it or will we deplete it?”
The loss of Wieseltier was easily the biggest component of the shift — he’d been in his position for 30-plus years, is steeped in every classic and embodies the high-minded way in which the New Republic has always looked at the world, not to mention itself. Here, for instance, is the opening line of his Nov. 19 piece about the New Republic: “The idea that the journey is more significant than the destination, out of which Cavafy made something imperishable, is one of the controlling platitudes of American popular culture, and accounts for some of the consolation that Americans find amid confusion and also some of the forgiveness that they practice toward themselves.”
I’ve been wearing a religious head-covering to work for about 20 years. Only on one occasion was I asked to take it off — when I was working as an extra on a TV show, playing an ambulance assistant, I believe. I took it off. It would not offend me if an employer asked me to remove or to hide my religious regalia.
I want employers to have the right to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason.
Seven national Orthodox Jewish groups filed a Supreme Court brief in favor of a Muslim woman’s right to wear a head scarf at work.
The brief was filed by attorney Nathan Lewin of Lewin & Lewin, LLP of Washington D.C. for a case that is expected to be heard in February or March of next year on whether an applicant’s failure to give explicit notice that she is a practicing Muslim who wears a head scarf at work allowed clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch to reject her application, saying it was in violation of the company dress code.
In the brief, Lewin recounted how his application to a New York City law firm was turned down because the firm didn’t want to be inconvenienced by making accommodations for his religious observance.
The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, Agudas Harabbanim, Agudath Israel of America, National Council of Young Israel, Rabbinical Alliance of America, Rabbinical Council of America and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America joined the friend of the court brief.
Posted inIslam, Orthodoxy, Whites|Comments Off on Should Wearing Religious Head-Coverings To Work Be A Right?
Growing up a goy, I never heard anyone boast about canceling their subscription. Once I converted to Judaism, I heard the expression frequently from Jews who were displeased with the publication of negative things about Israel.
For many longtime friends of T.N.R., the contrition was too late. This week, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had delivered the toast to the magazine on its hundredth anniversary, sent a private note to one of the departing editors telling him that she had cancelled her subscription.
Conclusions are supposed to be the most powerful part of a story. That a Supreme Court justice had canceled her subscription, that is supposed to hit the reader like a punch in the stomach. I guess it is my goyisha genes that leave me unmoved by these proclamations.
Chaim Amalek: “IF this stands, what next – Indians running Goldman Sachs? Big beefy gentiles making goy-friendly movies in Hollywood? Hashem send us Moshiach already so that we can regain control over The New Republic!”
“The smart Jew subscribes just so he can threaten cancellation. It is like when a woman places a personal ad, and warns men in advance that if they fail to provide the demanded traits, their email WILL be cancelled, and possibly reported to the authorities.”
If we lose control of The New Republic, will we lose control of the republic next? Moshiach now! I don’t want to wait.
Posted inJews|Comments Off on Jews Canceling Their Subscriptions
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
