November 16, 2014 To Love Jews Is To Not Know Jews? Luke Ford No sacred cows.

To Love Jews Is To Not Know Jews?

Posted on November 16, 2014 by Luke Ford

I’m looking at this ADL listing of the most Jew-friendly countries in the world and it seems that Asian countries where most people have never met a Jew are the most Jew-friendly.

From the ADL: “The least anti-Semitic country overall was Laos, where 0.2 percent of the population holds anti-Semitic views. The Philippines, Sweden, the Netherlands and Vietnam all came in at 6 percent or lower.”

Chaim Amalek: “Similarly, the most diversity-supporting and least racist corner of New York City is the all-white Upper West Side.”

“only 0.2 percent of Laos adults hold anti-Semitic views.” I have always urged yidden to hold two passports, three if you can manage. The third should be to one of the yellow countries and of those, it looks like Laos is the best. Take that, Malaysia!

Cristian Bökös: “How come that ALL the top 10 most antisemitic countries in the world are MUSLIM countries?This report must be wrong, since everybody knows that Jews and arabs are ”cousins” while Judaism and islam are so ”closely connected”? Why is the US not on the No.1 spot as the most antisemitic country in the world? Everybody knows that most Americans are formally christians, and christians can’t wait to kill Jews, right? Europeans can only be considered as even more vicious Jew-killers than Americans, hence the presence of some European countries on the list of the least antisemitic nations in the world can only be misleading.But don’t worry, the muslim ”cousins” are going to bring peace to those countries. Islam = peace.”

Posted in ADL, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off

The Wonderful Terrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl

Posted on November 16, 2014 by Luke Ford

This is a great documentary on the greatest movie director of the Third Reich.

I’ve been binge-watching documentaries about the Nazis. I don’t know much, but it seems like Nazism was a variant of nationalism and all nationalisms require the willingness to commit genocide, if necessary, to protect your group. From the little I know, Nazism seems to be primarily about German solidarity and prosperity.

When one group unifies and rises in power, other groups are affected. Individuals and groups exert a force field. The establishment of strong Jewish and Japanese and black communities in Los Angeles, for example, affect the lives of outsiders around them.

My instinctive self regards the Nazis as the epitome of evil. My stomach gets tight and I feel myself filled with hatred against them because they killed so many people. I blame the Nazis for WWII, which killed 55 million.

My reflective self says different groups have different interests and this produces conflict and tragedy.

From my meager understanding of the Nazis, it does not seem that their primary goal was to commit genocide. Instead it seems like Nazism wanted to create a healthy space for Germans, similar to how Zionism wanted to create a healthy space for Jews.

Let’s say Israel’s conflicts in the Middle East spin out of control and nuclear weapons are used all round and tens of millions of people are murdered. Would this primarily be the fault of the Jews? If the Jews in Israel were simply trying to live peacefully in their own space and they were attacked by their neighbors, then no, it would be the fault of the Jews. From the Nazi perspective, Hitler was tired of Germans getting threatened and so he invaded Poland to create a safe space for Germans and then things spiraled and Hitler, wanting to stop the advance of Jewish Bolshevism, invaded the Soviet Union.

If you are a nationalist, you’ll do anything to protect your people.

Initially, some Orthodox rabbis (such as Jehiel Jacob Weinberg) supported the Nazis and they in turn kept Rabbi Weinberg alive through WWII.

Like all traditional ways of looking at life, the Nazis hated homosexuality, decadence, pornography, and destruction of the nuclear family. Unlike Orthodox Judaism, Nazism made raising up a strong military a top concern. They were also back to nature in a way that Orthodox Jews are not. They venerated hiking and physical activity while Orthodox Judaism venerates study of Torah. There’s no mass killing program outlined in Torah (aside from God’s command 3,000 years ago to wipe out the Canaanites). Jews who study Torah are about the least likely group in the world to commit murder (though they can be strong in Israel’s defense).

All groups seem to regard themselves as superior, be it Jews, blacks, Chinese, Japanese or Nazis so it does not bother me if Germans or any group thinks of themselves as the master race.

In a 2006 lecture, Tom Wolfe said: “Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world – so ordained by some almighty force – would make not that individual but his group…the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles.”

The Nazis wanted all Jews out of Germany and they were pro-Zionism until 1940. Orthodox Judaism does not want non-Jewish residents of Israel. Rabbi Meir Kahane‘s approach to the Arabs in Israel is straight out of the Torah tradition.

I hold conventional views about the Holocaust. I believe there were gas chambers in Auschwitz and Treblinka and there were mobile killing units, the Einsatzsgruppen, because that seems to be the consensus of historians. I believe that approximately six million Jewish civilians were murdered in Europe during WWII just as there were approximately six million Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin during the 1930s and about 70 million Chinese were murdered by Mao.

I do not believe that these genocides constitute a valid reason for stopping discussions of such things as racial differences (such as there might be a genetic reason for why all starting cornerbacks and tailbacks in the NFL are black and why most nuclear physicists are not black).

I love Jews. I wake up thinking about Jews, I go through the day thinking about Jews, and I go to bed thinking about Jews. They are my people. I am primarily concerned with their welfare. This makes it easy for me to empathize with other nationalists.

The Torah commanded the Jews to conquer Canaan and to commit genocide against its inhabitants. Historians say this never happened.

Genocide has not been a traditional Jewish practice, but there were many secular Jews (along with non-Jews) who carried out Stalin’s genocides. Jews played a role in the rise of Bolshevism and Jews enjoyed similar success in the Soviet Union as they achieved in the United States.

ANON tells me:

The Nazi party was not very different from other movements in Germany post war. There were any number of similar groups that formed after WWI, most of a paramilitary bent incorporating large numbers of unemployed veterans. Ultimately Hitler was able to get the rest to accept the Nazis as their leader, but their principles were things that many progressives would embrace such as a back to land, pagan ethic to be stewards of the environment, to be physically fit and eat organic food. To make sure workers weren’t exploited but treated fairly. To engage in large scale public work and infrastructure projects that helped everyone who lived there. To develop a pride in the fact that a defeated nation subject to sanctions, stripped of much of its territory and overseas colonies, could though the industriousness of its citizens become the most powerful and modern country in the world. This is obviously the good side and it is the reason that many people in the 1930’s were admirers of the Nazis and Hitler.
One of the things that I think people who judge the Nazis can’t seem to do is to place themselves as an ordinary German citizen in a smaller city with no or few Jews. By and large, until the war started claiming large numbers of casualties (after the invasion of the Soviet Union) life was probably a lot better after Hitler than before his ascension to power. Obviously, it was not as good if you were a Jew or a communist, but unless you were one or related to one or moved in their circles, the Nazi attitude and treatment of them wouldn’t have made any difference to you. People think that for a burgher in Bavaria in 1937, he could have foreseen that Hitler would try to extirpate Jews from Europe, and bring about the most horrible war leading to half of Germany being under Communist control, and that Hitler would be viewed as the epitome of evil. Very few people could have foreseen that and even fewer would have acted upon their wisdom, but its easy for today’s hypocrites to think they would act differently, not realizing they act the way they do because they too have been conditioned by propaganda.

ANON1 writes:

I really don’t think the Germans were anywhere near as antisemitic as say, the Poles. Jews and Germans got along well enough, and I don’t think the 32% of the Germans who voted for the NSDAP in 1932 did so primarily out of hatred for the Jews, but other reasons. Which still leaves the other 68% who did not vote for them at all and presumably were less antisemitic. Nazism was largely the handiwork of a few men, tapping into the vast energies left behind as a result of WW 1. As to why Hitler in particular came to hate the Jews as he did, I think it was the outlet by which he expressed all of his life’s disappointments.

Posted in Genocide, Israel, Jews, Nationalism, Nazi | Comments Off

Is Australia Headed For An Asian Takeover?

Posted on November 16, 2014 by Luke Ford

When I grew up in Australia (most of 1966 to 1977), the country was more than 95% white. Now it is about 87% white and an increasing percentage of the country’s top jobs are going to Asians, who are becoming the country’s managerial class, rather like Jews in the history of Eastern Europe.

From Wikipedia:

On 17 March 1984, [Australian historian Geoffrey] Blainey addressed a major Rotary conference in the Victorian city of Warrnambool. He regretted that the Hawke Labor Government in “a time of large unemployment” was bringing many new migrants to the areas of high unemployment, thus fostering tension. He blamed the government, not the migrants themselves. Criticising what he viewed as disproportionately high levels of Asian immigration, then running at 40 per cent of the annual intake, he added: “Rarely in the history of the modern world has a nation given such preference to a tiny ethnic minority of its population as the Australian Government has done in the past few years, making that minority the favoured majority in its immigration policy”.[23]

Three days later, in response to the prediction of the “increasing Asianisation” of Australia made by Labor’s Immigration Minister Stewart West, Blainey argued: “I do not accept the view, widely held in the Federal Cabinet, that some kind of slow Asian takeover of Australia is inevitable. I do not believe that we are powerless. I do believe that we can with good will and good sense control our destiny…. As a people, we seem to move from extreme to extreme. In the past 30 years the government of Australia has moved from the extreme of wanting a white Australia to the extreme of saying that we will have an Asian Australia and that the quicker we move towards it the better”.[24]

Blainey’s speech, along with subsequent articles and a book on the subject, ignited nation-wide controversy, especially in the Australian federal parliament which had not debated the principles of the immigration policy for many years. Most critics argued that Blainey’s views were moderate and not racist. “All peoples of the world are worthy and deserve respect”: that was the prime principle set out in the book, All for Australia, which he wrote on the topic.[25]

However, he criticised the belief that “immigration policy should primarily reflect the truth that all ‘races’ are equal. On the contrary, an immigration policy should not, any more than a trade or tariff policy, be designed primarily to reflect that fact”. According to Blainey, the Australian government’s immigration policy was increasingly being based on multiculturalist ideology at the expense of the national interest and the majority of Australians. He argued: “We are surrendering much of our own independence to a phantom opinion that floats vaguely in the air and rarely exists on this earth. We should think very carefully about the perils of converting Australia into a giant multicultural laboratory for the assumed benefit of the peoples of the world”.

His views were to receive the support of a majority of Australian voters, both Labor and non-Labor voters, as a national Gallup poll confirmed in August.

Posted in Asians, Australia | Comments Off

Was The G-20 Summit A Disaster For Australia?

Posted on November 16, 2014 by Luke Ford

Robyn Dixon writes for the LA Times:

The adolescent country. The bit player. The shrimp of the schoolyard.
For Australians it’s not so bad — most of the time — to be so far away, so overlooked, so seemingly insignificant as to almost never factor in major international news. The lifestyle makes up for it.
But occasionally, there’s an awkward, pimply youth moment so embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world’s most important leaders visit for a global summit and Prime Minister Tony Abbott opens their retreat Saturday with a whinge (Aussie for whine) about his doomed efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.

So I surfed over to news.com.au and did not get this impression at all. According to the Robyn Dixon article, what matters for a country’s foreign policy is impressive speeches and meddling in other countries affairs. For me, a foreign policy consists of protecting your borders and seeking your country’s best interests.

I guess American dipolomat Victoria Nuland is the epitome of the big-time foreign player, telling Ukraine who should be in their government. To me, that’s cringe-worthy.

I’ve lived about 12 years of my life in Australia and for most people I knew, Australia was the lucky country.

Look at Dixon’s lead: “The adolescent country. The bit player. The shrimp of the schoolyard.”

Do you think she would write this about a new black country, even one that considerably under-achieved Australia (as all majority black countries do)? She would only feel free to disparage such a country if it were white.

Dixon writes: “The Group of 20 summit could have been Australia’s moment, signaling its arrival as a global player, some here argued. But in all, the summit had Australians cringing more than cheering.”

So if Australia had made a splashy Global Warming treaty and committed its troops in some pointless overseas combat, then it could have arrived as a global player?

As far as the summit having Australians cringing more than cheering, that applies to Australians left of center, not those right of center, who are just fine with what happened (if you read the Australian press).

Dixon writes:

It was a classic example of what Australian author and journalist Peter Hartcher calls the “pathology of parochialism” in a recent book, “The Adolescent Country.” Hartcher argues that the nation’s politicians rarely miss a chance to trump important foreign policy matters of long-term national interest to score cheap domestic political points.
“The big matters are commonly crowded out by the small,” he argues. “International policy is used for domestic point-scoring.”

Who is this Peter Hartcher? He’s apparently a big fan of George W. Bush and Middle East adventurism, writing in 2005:

Until now, US presidents have been content to live with this stronghold of tyranny in the Middle East in the service of stability. This has been one of the manifestations of the school of realism in US foreign policy. George Bush reminded us again yesterday in his State of the Union address that he is no realist. He is an idealist and that means he is a revolutionary.
Last month, in his inaugural address, Bush made a case against tyranny that was so powerful and seemed so brimful with purpose that dictators around the world grew concerned: “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.”
…Hartcher believes that Australian politicians have lately squandered opportunities to strengthen the country’s global position at the time of a major global power shift.
“The great crises that threaten Australia’s national prosperity come from abroad,” he wrote. “So do the grandest opportunities. But the reflex in Australia’s national politics is that where these biggest stakes come into competition with the smallest, the small are the ones that very often win.
“Measured against its potential today and its needs tomorrow, Australia is seriously underperforming and it is underperforming because of the pathology of parochialism.”

Considering how the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan turned out, I’d say Australia would be better off sticking to its parochial concerns.

Crikey posts: “Hartcher’s article fits into a long line of Australian journalists and politicians taking free, Zionist lobby trips to Israel and miraculously returning with glorious tales of Jewish heroism, Palestinian violence and Zionist democracy. Crikey’s Margaret Simons investigated this tradition in January and revealed a number of participants on the trips failed to disclose the all-expenses paid jaunts (to its credit, the Herald acknowledged Hartcher’s free holiday.)”

Posted in Australia | Comments Off

All Honorable Men Are Slaves To Higher Ethical Values

Posted on November 15, 2014 by Luke Ford

In Orthodox Judaism, we often speak about “eved HaShem” aka a slave of God. It’s a good thing.

Judaism has complex views on slavery.

In his book, Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, Tom Sunic writes:

…[George Fitzhugh] understood that each honorable person in a given social circumstance must be a slave to higher ethical goals. A slave does not only mean a physical slave, subject to physical torments on the part of his master; it could be a highly cultivated person or a leader who decides to become a slave to his Promethean self-ascribed intellectual goals…
Black slavery was to Fitzhugh a matter of fact; a social bond necessary for black Americans, who due to their incapacity to equally participate in free trade and cut throat competition, are far better off in farm bondage in the South, supervised by a paternalistic white farmer, than working for a Northern white crook who pontificates about human rights and strips them of human dignity.

From Wikipedia:

George Fitzhugh (November 4, 1806 – July 30, 1881) was an American social theorist who published racial and slavery-based sociological theories in the antebellum era. He argued that “the negro is but a grown up child”[1][2] who needs the economic and social protections of slavery. Fitzhugh decried capitalism as spawning “a war of the rich with the poor, and the poor with one another”[3] – rendering free blacks “far outstripped or outwitted in the chase of free competition.”[4] Slavery, he contended, ensured that blacks would be economically secure and morally civilized.
Fitzhugh practiced law and was a painter for years, but attracted both fame and infamy when he published two sociological tracts for the South. He was a leading pro-slavery intellectual[5] and spoke for many of the Southern plantation owners. Before printing books, Fitzhugh tried his hand at a pamphlet titled “Slavery Justified” (1849). His first book, Sociology for the South (1854) was not as widely known as his second book, Cannibals All! (1857).
Fitzhugh differed from nearly all of his southern contemporaries by advocating a slavery that crossed racial boundaries. Writing in the Richmond Inquirer on 15 December 1855, Fitzhugh proclaimed: “The principle of slavery is in itself right, and does not depend on difference of complexion”, “Nature has made the weak in mind or body slaves … The wise and virtuous, the strong in body and mind, are born to command”, and “The Declaration of Independence is exuberantly false, and aborescently fallacious.

Posted in Blacks, Judaism, Slavery | Comments Off

Mark Twain: The Worst Loneliness Is To Be Not Comfortable With Yourself

Posted on November 15, 2014 by Luke Ford

I’ve struggled with feelings of loneliness throughout my life. This webinar explores the topic better than anything I’ve heard before.

Alexandra Katehakis: * What does it feel like in my body to be alone now? Am I lonely because there is nobody out there to reflect back to me? Addicts tend to have a difficult time being alone. People grow up with the TV as a babysitter because being alone with loneliness and despair is untenable. Part of recovery is learning to tolerate that feeling of loneliness.

* Human being are sexually gregarious. We’re wired for connection. When that does not happen early on, certain brain-body connections are not made in a robust way and that will leave a person chronically depressed and lonely. We then try to get into relationships and we hope that we will find that one person who will put their finger in the dam of that loneliness. Initially in love, that works. We find the one person who saves us because they are reflecting what we did or did not get in infancy. We’re constantly seeking to repair in relationship what we did not get as children. This is embedded in our most primitive brain, the limbic system, the part of the brain responsible for emotions. Because our brains are encoded in a particular way, we’ll choose someone who can’t come through for us.

* Being alone and enjoying your own company is a sign of mental health.

* When you are alone, do you need distraction? Can you tolerate silence or does it raise your anxiety?

* When loneliness is constant, it hearkens back to childhood when neglect and abandonment were the landscape of life. When the child looks for attunement from the mother, and doesn’t get it, the child’s brain is encoded that it is alone. When the infant is neglected, that can lead to a lifelong depression and feelings of abandonment, neglect and loneliness.

After a divorce, some children complain they could never figure out who they were because they did not have a father reflecting back to them with any regularity.

If your parents abandoned you, you are likely to have problems with loneliness.

How do you deal with that hollow feeling of emptiness you have all the time?

That creates a personal identity when we internalize the parent and we can go out into the world and feel we’re ok because we were told we were ok. That attunement with a parent emotionally regulates a child and let’s him know he’s ok.

* Some people say they’re fine when they’re alone. Their insecurities get kicked up when they date. None of us have issues when we’re alone. When we start communicating with another and we’re not getting our needs met and we don’t communicate explicitly what our needs, we’ll feel we’ll never get our needs met. It’s infantile desire to have your mind read. Part of being an adult is communicating your needs. If someone ignores your needs and has no interest in meeting your needs, you probably should not date them.

LUKE: * I remember this one woman I dated in 1995, she was a few years older than me. I took her to Stephen S. Wise temple one Shabbos morning but did not drop her off at her apartment. Instead, I dropped her off on Wilshire Blvd, a few blocks away, because I wanted to get to Aish Ha Torah for mincha. She later complained and used that as the reason why she wouldn’t go out with me again. I ran into her about 17 years later. My God, she was scary. She’d not just hit the wall, she’d been destroyed. I never treated her like a treasure and I dodged a bullet. In those halcyon years, I messed around with many women older than me, women I had no intentions of marrying, but the break-ups did at times rip my heart out when they did the breaking up, and I shed tears.

* There’s something in my childhood, in my early wounding, that I sometimes fear may never get repaired. It’s part of the structure of my autonomic nervous system.

Posted in Addiction, Psychology | Comments Off

How Is Putin’s Intervention In The Ukraine Any Different From America’s Monroe Doctrine?

Posted on November 14, 2014 by Luke Ford

From Wikipedia: “The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.”

Russia is understandably annoyed with western governments interfering with Ukraine, which is Russia’s next door neighbor.

America would not put up with Russian or Chinese intervention in Mexico or Central America.

As Tom Sunic wrote in his book Homo Americanus:

The Monroe Doctrine, as [Carl] Schmitt notes, was basically a unilateral decision. “It is not a treaty signed with other European countries.” It is very general in its wording and can be interpreted at will by its architects, while providing America with an astounding weapon to counter hostile interests… “Other nations can never extract anything from America by means of this doctrine; America can always demand anything from any political actor, whatever it desires.”

Posted in Russia | Comments Off

How Can Euro-Asian Males Build Self-Esteem?

Posted on November 14, 2014 by Luke Ford

Some mixed race kids have it tougher in life because they don’t have a clear identity and a clear in-group. So they have more mental problems.

Post:

Being Eurasian Male has completely destroyed my self-esteem and sense of self-worth. I realize I’m letting the racists win too easy, the ultimate psych-op to defeat your enemy solely through propaganda without firing a single shot. But what can I say it worked. And whenever I go out and see the huge WMAF AMWF disparity with my own eyes, it serves as empirical proof that all my self-loathing is justified. I feel like I’m objectively the least valued, desired, wanted category of male.
I should also mention that I myself am the offspring of a White Dad and Asian Mom, and no I don’t consider them particularly bad, but I do resent them simply for belonging to the class of WMAF. And it does make me take WMAF all the more personally.
Basically I can’t even function anymore, and I kind of take a why bother attitude? Why bother trying to make money, when all the money jobs in STEM and business require you to be good at math? I can work my butt of to be good at math, and a great engineer/computers/science/tech/business , and people will just say ‘oh hes Asian’ like that explains everything. So why even bother trying to succeed?
My only solution now is to live off my WMAF parents for life, since they committed the crime of race-mixing anyway, and thus now have to take care of their Down Syndrome mutant.
I don’t really have an Asian-American community to fall back on besides the internet.
How do I boost my self-esteem against the seemingly overwhelming statistical evidence telling me, I’m the worst?

I don’t know what this guy is talking about. Elliot Rodger was a good well-balanced person despite having an Asian mom and white dad.

Anon replies:

Consider the role misogyny and living in a misogynistic society plays in your frustration self-described resentment about stuff like the interracial dating disparity. Where do you end and where do other people begin? (Where does what other people think about you end and where does what you think about yourself begin? Where does other people’s happiness end and where does your own begin? What about other people’s choices and your decision to make them a reflection on yourself or your race?)
It isn’t just about “letting the racists win too easy” though it is clear you have a lot of internalized racism that you still need to work through.
You are making a choice, conscious or subconscious, to decide that the WMAF AMWF “disparity” (women as a commodity?) is “empirical proof that all my self-loathing is justified. I feel like I’m objectively the least valued, desired, wanted category of male.”
So talk to someone trained to work with this baggage and explore it. Why is that proof that you are not desirable? Why is your self loathing “justified”? Really explore it. Pick it apart. Is there really an objective, statistical correlation with Asian women’s dating preferences and your value as a human being? And why are you putting it on that?

Response:

This is why in my personal life I concentrate much of my fire against my own Asian Mother, since her quest for her own happiness lead directly to my own birth and thus there is no separating our self-interests.
Its true that other than my own WMAF mother, I don’t have any power to judge other AFs. This leads many to assume that my own WMAF parents are especially bad and that I’m unfairly judging WMAF couples by my own bad experience. I would argue its the other way around. That my own parents are just fine, but my negativity towards contemporary WMAFs colors my resentment toward my parents.
As far as misogyny goes, I think there is a huge amount of misogyny among the vast majority of WMAF relationships I read about on the internet. In which the white man is usually looking for a submissive Geisha, since he can’t handle the rude feminist women of the West.
I would ask you, if psych tests suggest Asian men are the least desirable, and the huge WMAF AMWF disparity seemingly acts as a confirmation, why wouldn’t it destroy my self-esteem and value as a human being?

Jared Taylor writes:

There are two levels on which one can oppose miscegenation: for one’s own family, and for everyone else. For my own family, as I once put it, I want my children to look like their grandparents, not like Anwar Sadat or Whoopi Goldberg or Fu Manchu. This is partly for unabashedly esthetic reasons; I like the way white people look, and that’s reason enough to want white children.
It is a near-universal human desire for people to want to see themselves rather than strangers in their children. (Of course, in contemporary America, as Steve Sailer has observed, only Jews are allowed to express it.)
Thus Lowri Turner is a blonde British woman whose second marriage was to a man from India. She already had two blond children, and now got a new daughter. You would think it had occurred to her that this time around her children would not look like here, but no:
[W]hen I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien…
I didn’t realize how much her looking different would matter and, on a rational level, I know it shouldn’t. But it does.
Evolution demands that we have children to pass on our genes, hence the sense of pride and validation we get when we see our features reappearing in the next generation.
With my daughter, I don’t have that…
Even admitting to having mixed feelings about her not being blonde and blue eyed, I feel disloyal and incredibly guilty.[ “I Love My Mixed Race Baby—But Why Does She Feel So Alien?” London Daily Mail, July 12, 2007]
People of other races are no different. Most black people want black children and Asians want Asian children. When people imagine what it would be like to be a parent they imagine children who look like them.
The Taylors—and their forebears—have been white for thousands of years. Suddenly to produce one who wasn’t would be as strange as joining Al Shabaab or apprenticing myself to a snake charmer.
Most people who can have children of their own do so rather than adopt. That is because they understand instinctively that family is about genetic closeness.
And most people who adopt would rather adopt a child of their own race. One reason is that they don’t want to stick an obvious “I was adopted” label on their children—but another is that they feel instinctively closer to people of their own race.

Posted in Asians, Miscegenation, Whites | Comments Off

‘Buy The Toxic Assets!’

Posted on November 14, 2014 by Luke Ford

I enjoy listening to Econ Talk by my former UCLA professor, Russell Roberts, the famed economist who helped inspire my conversion to Orthodox Judaism.

Roberts is a model interviewer. Listening to him reminds me of all the long talks we had after class. Everything he talked about achieving back in 1989, he had done so.

From EconTalk.org: “Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about Zingales’s essay, “Preventing Economists’ Capture.” Zingales argues that just as regulators become swayed by the implicit incentives of dealing with industry executives, so too with economists who study business: supporting business interests can be financially and professionally rewarding. Zingales outlines the different ways that economists benefit from supporting business interests and ways that economists might work to prevent that influence or at lease be aware of it.”

The same thing would apply to groups. If a group is dominant in the media, for example, it should be assumed that this power will be used in its interests.

Here is an excerpt from Luigi’s essay:

If everyone in that network is drawn from the same milieu, the information and ideas that flow to policymakers will be severely limited. A revealing anecdote comes from a Bush Treasury official, who noted that in the heat of the financial crisis, every time there was a phone call from Manhattan’s 212 area code, the message was the same: “Buy the toxic assets.” Such uniformity of advice makes it difficult for even the most intelligent or well-meaning policymakers not to be influenced.

Posted in Economics, Russ Roberts | Comments Off

My Spiritual Leader

Posted on November 14, 2014 by Luke Ford

I was sitting in an Orthodox shul one morning and the rabbi got up and remarked that we had chosen him as our spiritual leader. I was shocked. I did not go to the shul because of the rabbi and his spiritual leadership. What percentage of orthodox Jews choose a shul because they want the rabbi to be their spiritual leader? I’d say about 10%.

Posted in Orthodoxy | Comments Off