November 9, 2014 A Day In The Life Of Dennis Prager Luke Ford No sacred cows.

A Day In The Life Of Dennis Prager

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Luke Ford

Oct. 31, 2014, Dennis Prager said on his radio show: “I get up perilously close the show time [which is 9 am, so Dennis Prager probably gets up about 8 am]. I do all my work at night, all my preparation for the show. After the show [which ends at noon], I will record ads. I used to play Hearts. I play Hearts at home now… I’ll be home within an hour and a half of the show and then I will probably smoke a cigar and check mail, say hi to my wonderful wife, and then have lunch. That’s my big meal about 3 or 4 o’clock. Then it’s almost always with my wife. And then I will return for the evenings, writing and checking out. There’s so much of interest on the internet. I am interested in so many subjects. I’ll download some classical CDs. I have thousands. It is more fun of a day than it sounds.”

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off

A Jewish View Of Replacement Theology

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Luke Ford

On Oct. 31, 2014, Dennis Prager took a call from Arthur, who said: “I disagree with your characterization of Replacement Theology as anti-Semitic.”

Dennis: “Did I say anti-Semitic? It’s theological embezzlement. Replacement theology means that every time it says Israel in the Old Testament, it means the Christian church.”

“If I said to you, every time it says ‘Jesus Christ’ in the New Testament, it really means Mohammed, what would you say?”

Arthur: “I would find that ridiculous.”

Dennis: “I find Replacement Theology as ridiculous as you find that. And thank goodness Muslims don’t say that.”

“It ended up having terrible consequences for the Jews. They no longer had any connection to God. They were just children of the Devil.”

My father, the Christian theologian, spoke about Replacement Theology.

I grew up as a Seventh-Day Adventist thinking that Jews, for all intents and purposes, had disappeared, replaced by the Church. I grew up thinking that Christians were the real Jews, the true Jews, God’s Jews and that what the world called Jews were atheist imposters. I never knowingly met a Jew until UCLA (though later in life, I realized that a guy I worked with at KAHI/KHYL radio circa 1986 was Jewish).

Posted in Christianity, Jews, Judaism | Comments Off

The Only Time Dennis Prager Experienced Terror

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Luke Ford

On Oct. 31, 2014, Dennis got a call from Buck: “You speak Russian and you traveled several times to the Soviet Union. I was wondering if you were ever contacted by the FBI or the CIA or debriefed?”

Dennis: “I should have been. The first time I went, it was Israel that sent me because of my knowledge of Hebrew and Russian. They debriefed me because I had met with so many Jewish dissidents.”

“I went back again about ten years later. I had a very scary episode at the border leaving the Soviet Union going to Romania at midnight. I experienced terror. It was the only time in my life I experienced terror. I was sick for months. It did something to my immune system. It was a terrible hour. I was smuggling out Soviet dissident literature. It was in Russian so if it would have been caught, they would have understood it. I hid it in the battery drive of my Nikon camera. They saw the camera. They were fascinated. I was shmoozing with them in Russian, thinking that the more I shmoozed, the less suspicious I would seem. They shmoozed back but then said, ‘We’d like to see your camera.’ When they took the camera, I believed I was doomed. And I had very good reason to believe it. I could easily have been beaten up or beaten to death and the Soviets could have said anything. America was not going to war with the Soviet Union over a 30-year old American. I was certain I would be caught. That’s the stuff they hate the most — anti-Soviet work. They don’t like if you smuggle in dollars, that’s a monetary crime. But a propaganda one, that’s the worst. I remember thinking, ‘There’s no way they’re not going to find it.’ That’s the only thing they took.

“They took it away. They didn’t go through it in front of me. They had it for about an hour… It’s pitch black. Completely silent.”

“As it turns out, they never opened up the battery pack. They just wanted to see a brand new camera.”

“What did I do during that hour? I packed a little case thinking I might be sent away. A toothbrush and soap.”

“I remember thinking, there’s no way I am not doomed. I could not think of a scenario [where I turn out OK]… I panic intelligently. I don’t lose my brain. Where you were going to run on the Soviet – Romanian border. They’d shoot you.”

Posted in Communism, Dennis Prager, Jews, Russia, Soviet Union | Comments Off

Muslims Take Babies To Mosque Roof, Drop Them For Blessings

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Luke Ford

LINK.

Adam Parfrey: “Michael Jackson picked up on this ritual.”

Chaim Amalek: “Why do white Christian westerners think they get to tell Muslims how to raise their children?”

Adam Parfrey: “Westerners have no right to tell Muslims not to murder their children.”

Chaim Amalek: “I don’t see an act of murder here. In the West it is common for fathers to toss their babies in the air. This is the same, only others do the catching. Or do you want to start arresting fathers who toss their kids in the air? Get with the program!”

>>They’re aren’t “raising” their children, they’re “lowering” them.

Chaim Amalek: “Oh, so now we are arguing math and semantics instead of morality? It seems so. We are all the same under our skin. Same DNA. I’d wager that better than 99% of their DNA is the same as what you would find in a Jewish person or one of those WASPS.”

LINK:

In Egypt, a young Coptic Christian man, accused of blaspheming Islam for simply “liking” an Arabic-language Facebook page, was sentenced to six years in prison.
One of the intruders in Uganda was shouting, “Today we shall kill you [for converting to Christianity] — you… are not respecting our prophet’s religion.” He then heard his 12-year-old-girl’s cries as the Muslim intruders were strangling her. Then they seized him.
Muslims in Germany were granted their own section of the cemetery. Now these same Islamic communities are demanding that, during Islamic funerals, Christian symbols and crosses in the cemetery be removed or covered up.

Chaim Amalek: “I hate racist pieces like this one. The fact is that many Muslims do not want to murder those who convert to Christianity, and not every muslim wants to kill every gay. But do the haters acknowledge these facts? No, never.”

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

I Hope I’m Wrong About This Hateful Stereotype

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Luke Ford

A few years ago, I watched Philadelphia Eagle receiver DeSean Jackson catch a long pass against the Dallas Cowboys on Monday Night Football and run to the end zone unmolested but short of the goal line, he tossed the ball away, thinking he’d scored. He had not. The ball went out of bounds, I think, the Eagles got it back on the Dallas 1.

DeSean Jackson pulled the same boneheaded move in high school. Wikipedia says: “To cap off his high school career, Jackson was voted the Most Valuable Player at the U.S. Army All-American Bowl in San Antonio, Texas, where he caught seven passes for 141 yards and passed for a 45-yard touchdown in leading the West to a 35–3 victory in a game that featured 80 of the nation’s top players. However, he was also involved in an embarrassing play when he attempted to somersault from the five-yard line for a touchdown, but landed on the one-yard line, leaving the ball there.”

Saturday night, Utah’s Kaelin Clay gave it up at the 1 yard line and then jumped around in the end zone like he scored but Oregon recovered his fumble and ran it back 100 yards to even the score.

Chaim Amalek:

Nebech, we are in gallus! Please send this poor player Moshiach NOW!
Maybe the reason these plays seem to be disproportionately the handiwork of black players is their disproportionate presence in the NFL to begin with. You know — like saying the reason Wall Street shysters are disproportionately Jewish is not that Jews are dishonest, but that Jews are a disproportionate presence on Wall Street.
Also, when Moshiach comes, the goyim will don these suits and fight with one another to see who is the fastest to fetch us a cup of water like they are now when they run with their pig skin ball.

In a Super Bowl, Leon Lett recovered a fumble and was running it into the end zone when he stuck it out in a premature celebration and had it knocked away.

Leon Lett went on to lose the Cowboys a Thanksgiving game against Miami by jumping on a live ball from a blocked field goal attempt when he should have let it be.

What do these players have in common?

The most famous fumble in Monday Night Football history was also committed by a black guy, wide receiver Dave Smith, in 1971.

Jim O’Brien writes:

The Kansas City Chiefs coming here for a Monday Night Football contest with the Pittsburgh Steelers sparked a memory of the most famous fumble in that storied series.
That occurred when Dave Smith of the Steelers decided to showboat before crossing the goal line on what would have been a 50-yard scoring pass by Terry Bradshaw and held the ball high overhead triumphantly.
Then Smith, to his dismay, lost control of the ball and it hit the ground and skidded through the end zone for a touchback.
I was covering that game for The New York Post. I recall talking to Joe Gordon, the Steelers’ publicist, in the press box, as well as members of the Pittsburgh media. That game was played on October 18, 1971. The Steelers lost to the Chiefs, 38-16.
Monday Night Football was a bigger deal in those days, and the TV ratings were unreal. Anyone who cared about football was watching. Smith’s name would live in infamy in football annals.
Smith may have been thinking about spiking the football, but he never got the chance. His premature celebration caused him to simply lose his grasp on the football. He fumbled the ball into the first paragraph of his obituary some day.
The Steelers should get video of that event and show it on a daily basis to their three young wide receivers – Antonio Brown, Emmanuel Sanders and Mike Wallace – in the hope it might convince them to cut back on their own showboating antics.
It’s unlikely any of these young men know about Dave Smith, or any of the early Steelers, but they should. Smith was good enough to lead the Steelers in receiving in one of his three seasons with the team. He had 47 receptions in 1971, the same season in which he fumbled the ball before going into the end zone in Kansas City. Ironically enough, he later played for the Chiefs, as well as the Houston Oilers in his four NFL seasons. The Steelers traded him to the Oilers midway through the 1972 season.
Smith had played football and basketball at Indiana University of Pennsylvania following a short stay at WaynesburgCollege.
Coach Mike Tomlin has said more than once that he was going to have a talk with his three gifted receivers and get them to stop doing their victory dances and more in the end zone after they score touchdowns, or even elsewhere on the field whenever they make a catch, but I have not been convinced that Tomlin’s message is getting through to them.
I am among the fans who hate to see players strutting about and thumping their chests whenever they do the slightest thing on the football field. It’s become a constant “look at me” exhibition.
Chuck Noll could not coach today because he couldn’t put up with such shenanigans and the attitude of most athletes.

From my blog post in 2013: Former Philadelphia 76er Center Daryl Dawkins: Hoops in Black and White (A Sociological Look at USA’s 2004 Dream Team Failure)

From Fox Sports: Once the black game moved indoors and became more organized, the pressure to establish bona fides increases.

If you’re not scoring beaucoup points, if your picture isn’t in the papers, if you don’t have a trophy (right away) then you ain’t the man, and you ain’t nothing.

Being second best in the black community is just as bad as being last. And if a teammate hits nine shots in a row, the black attitude is…’Screw him, Now it’s my turn to get it on.’

If young black players usually cherish untrammeled creativity, white hooplings mostly value team oriented concepts. ‘White basketball means passing the heck out of the ball,’ says Dawkins.

White guys are willing to do something when someone else has the ball–setting picks, boxing out, cutting in to clear a space for a teammate, making the pass that leads to an assist pass.

In white basketball, there is more a sense of dicipline, of running set plays, and only taking wide open shots. If a guy gets hot, he will get the ball until he cools off.

Why is white basketball so structured and team oriented?

‘Because the white culture places more of a premium on winning,’ Dawkins believes, ‘and less on self-indulgent preening and chest beating.’

STEVE SAILER WRITES IN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE:

Darryl Dawkins, the former NBA center who called himself “Chocolate Thunder,” has become an insightful minor league coach. “Black basketball is much more individualistic,” he told Charlie Rosen of FoxSports. “With so many other opportunities closed to young black kids, … if somebody makes you look bad with a shake-and-bake move, then you’ve got to come right back at him with something better, something more stylish… It’s all about honor, pride, and establishing yourself as a man.”

Dawkins, whose showboating Philadelphia 76ers lost to Bill Walton’s Portland Trailblazers in an epic 1977 NBA Finals confrontation between the black and white games, now says, “The black game by itself is too chaotic and much too selfish… White culture places more of a premium on winning, and less on self-indulgent preening and chest-beating.”

Arguing that the best teams combine both styles, Dawkins pointed out, “In basketball and in civilian life, freedom without structure winds up being chaotic and destructive.”

REPORT:

In his book, Chocolate Thunder: The Uncensored Life and Time of Darryl Dawkins Dawkins describes the difference between “white basketball” and “black basketball.” According to Dawkins, “white culture places more of a premium on winning” while black culture indulges in too much “self indulgent preening and chest beating.”

“White guys are more willing to do something when somebody else has the ball—setting picks, boxing out, cutting just to clear a space for a teammate, making the pass that leads to an assist. In white basketball, there’s more of a sense of discipline, of running set plays and only taking wide open shots.”

Posted in Basketball, Blacks, Football, Whites | Comments Off

Union of Jewish Students of France Pushes Hate Speech Laws

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Luke Ford

I hate to see Jews at the forefront of restrictions on free speech.

The Forward reports Oct. 24, 2014:

A little over a year after a French court forced Twitter to remove some anti-Semitic content, experts say the ruling has had a ripple effect, leading other Internet companies to act more aggressively against hate speech in an effort to avoid lawsuits.
The 2013 ruling by the Paris Court of Appeals settled a lawsuit brought the year before by the Union of Jewish Students of France over the hashtag #UnBonJuif, which means “a good Jew” and which was used to index thousands of anti-Semitic comments that violated France’s law against hate speech.
Since then, YouTube has permanently banned videos posted by Dieudonne, a French comedian with 10 convictions for inciting racial hatred against Jews. And in February, Facebook removed the page of French Holocaust denier Alain Soral for “repeatedly posting things that don’t comply with the Facebook terms,” according to the company. Soral’s page had drawn many complaints in previous years but was only taken down this year.
“Big companies don’t want to be sued,” said Konstantinos Komaitis, a former academic and current policy adviser at the Internet Society, an international organization that encourages governments to ensure access and sustainable use of the Internet. “So after the ruling in France, we are seeing an inclination by Internet service providers like Google, YouTube, Facebook to try and adjust their terms of service — their own internal jurisprudence — to make sure they comply with national laws.”
The change comes amid a string of heavy sentences handed down by European courts against individuals who used online platforms to incite to racism or violence.
On Monday, a British court sentenced one such offender to four weeks in jail for tweeting “Hitler was right” to a Jewish lawmaker. Last week, a court in Geneva sentenced a man to five months in jail for posting texts that deny the Holocaust. And in April, a French court sentenced two men to five months in jail for posting an anti-Semitic video.
“The stiffer sentences owe partly to a realization by judges of the dangers posed by online hatred, also in light of cyber-jihadism and how it affected people like Mohammed Merah,” said Christophe Goossens, the legal adviser of the Belgian League against Anti-Semitism, referring to the killer of four Jews at a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012.
In the Twitter case, the company argued that as an American firm it was protected by the First Amendment. But the court rejected the argument and forced Twitter to remove some of the comments and identify some of the authors. It also required the company to set up a system for flagging and ultimately removing comments that violate hate speech laws.

Posted in Facebook, Google, Internet, Jews, Twitter | Comments Off

Who Runs The Internet?

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Luke Ford

I found this list online of Jews running internet companies. I don’t care that the list comes from an anti-Jewish site, I am only interested in what is true.

I don’t think Jews need to hide Jewish successes. Google, Facebook and the internet are gifts of the Jews, like ethical monotheism.

Let’s imagine all the Jews in the following list of prominent online personalities were Muslims. Would the internet be a different place if Muslims ran it? I think so. What if WASPs ran it? Would it be different? Not sure.

I have a hard time imagining Muslims running the internet. I don’t think of them as a group pioneering technology. Perhaps that is a hateful stereotype?

Google seems to me to have a fierce commitment to free speech.

Here are complaints from Radio Islam about Jewish domination of the internet.
These complaints remind me of Godwin Smith’s essay on The Jewish Question back in 1892: “Mr. Arnold White, Baron Hirsch’s commissioner, says, in a plea for the Russian Jews (“The Truth about the Russian Jew,” Contemporary Review, May 1892), that “almost without exception the press throughout Europe is in Jewish hands, and is largely produced by Jewish brains;” that “international finance is captive to Jewish energy and skill;” that in England the fall of the Barings has left the house of Rothschild alone in its supremacy; and that in every line the Jews are fast becoming our masters. Wind and tide, in a money-loving age, are in favor of the financial race….”

I don’t personally look to anti-Semites for truth but over the past few weeks, I’ve decided to stop using the slur “anti-Semite” and to simply regard different groups as having different interests. Just because somebody hates Jews does not mean he is slippery with the facts.

While I don’t have much trust in Radio Islam as a source of truth, I do trust Steve Sailer.

January 21, 2010, Steve Sailer wrote:

The main Google searchbox on Google.com has a feature where if you start typing a phrase it tries to anticipate what you have in mind and offer the complete phrase in a drop down pick list based on what other users have asked. For example if you type into Google’s searchbox
How do I
Google offers ten suggestions for completing this entry, beginning with these three useful questions:
How do I find my IP address
How do I know if im pregnant
How do I get a passport
Commenter Victoria points out that if you type in, however, Pat Bu, Google offers you the following ten prompts:
Pat Burrell
Pat bus schedule
Pat Buttram
Pat Burrell stats
Pat Burns
Pat Burrell wife
Pat Burke
Pat Buckley Moss
Pat Buckley
Pat Burns cancer
Who are these people?
Using the power of Google, it’s easy to discover that Pat Burrell is a leftfielder, Pat Buttram was Gene Autry’s sidekick in 1930s singing cowboy movies and later Mr. Haney on Green Acres. Pat Burns is a former hockey coach. Pat Buckley Moss is a painter. Pat Buckley was the wife of William F. Buckley.
Somehow, I don’t think those are the most famous Pat Bu…s on the Internet today.
If you type in Pat Buc, then Google just gives up giving you prompts, which it doesn’t with other letters. For example, Pat But prompts you with a whole bunch of new names even more obscure than the immortal Pat Buttram.
Maybe it’s just a misunderstanding. So, let’s type into Google Patrick Bu. And we get another list of prompts, but none of them include He Who Must Not Be Named.
Finally if you type in Patrick J. you’ll get a list of prompts of people named Patrick J. Something, none of them as famous as Patrick J. Buchanan, winner of the 1996 New Hampshire GOP Presidential primary.
Of course, Google can’t (yet?) delete Pat Buchanan from their main search engine, just from the prompts. If you type Pat Buchanan into Google’s searchbox, you get back:
Results 1 – 20 of about 1,630,000 for pat buchanan. (0.22 seconds)
In contrast, if you type in Pat Buttram:
Results 1 – 20 of about 49,300 for pat buttram. (0.32 seconds)
It’s the sheer pettiness of Google going to the trouble of banning Pat Buchanan from its little prompting feature, one of its least important, that is so amusing and eye-opening.
P.S.: Richard Hoste points out in comments that Yahoo.com’s search bar has the same prompting engine, with Pat Buchanan being the first of the Pat Bu and second, behind Pat Benatar, for Pat B. Another commenter points out the Microsoft’s Bing search bar delivers the same prompts as Yahoo: Buchanan is the #1 Pat Bu and #2 Pat B.
So, somebody at Google is doing this intentionally. To repeat, this one example isn’t at all important — what’s striking is the mindless animus of somebody at Google that would lead to going to all the trouble of doing such a trivial thing.
And because Google is so close to being a monopoly, it’s crucial that the public monitor abuses by Google stemming from Google’s not exactly subtle political biases, such as this silly little thing or the more serious annihilation of Mangan’s blog in November (which was rectified after many complaints).
Ridicule is the best medicine.

August 28, 2010, Steve Sailer writes:

From PC World:
Google Maps Misplaces Lincoln Memorial
Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, PC World
Aug 28, 2010 2:38 pm
A curious thing has been happening on Google Maps — the Lincoln Memorial is being misplaced in favor of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial [see screen capture from early today and compare it to the now correct map on Google] which is a good half a mile south of the more famous memorial.
According to the Geographic Travels blog, this “misplacement” has been happening for about two days now. Typing “Lincoln Memorial” into the regular Google search bar brings up a number of listings related to the Lincoln Memorial, yet shows a map of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial.
Is this a Google Maps glitch, or could this have anything to do with the fact that conservative radio and TV host Glenn Beck is holding a controversial “non-political” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday?
Beck’s rally, which is called the “Restoring Honor” rally, is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Eastern Time today on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
I saw this wrong map for myself several times, as late as about dawn EDT on Saturday.
This is part of a growing scandal of Google abusing its near monopoly power for (currently) petty political purposes. Google maintains plausible deniability by making minor “mistakes” (sending Glenn Beck’s followers to the wrong place, turning Pat Buchanan into a unperson in the Prompts for awhile, and so forth). Misplacing the Lincoln Memorial is, of course, not a mistake, it’s, at best, a prank. I don’t know whether these dirty tricks are caused merely by individuals at Google abusing their authority, or whether Google, normally a most methodical company, is testing what it can get away with politically.
If it’s the former, has anyone at Google ever been punished for these political dirty tricks? I’ve never heard any follow up to the Pat Buchanan unpersonization, no apology, no press release, nobody reprimanded. So, it may well go down in company annals as a successful little experiment in what Google can get away with by picking on the unfashionable. We’ll see if they get away with misplacing the Lincoln Memorial.
Similarly, a lot of my VDARE.com articles tend to come and go from Google intermittently. For example, a few months ago, I needed to look up the long stream of closely reasoned abuse I’ve directed at Bill Gates’ educational philanthropic efforts over the years. Funny, I couldn’t find it through Google. So, I went to Microsoft’s Bing search engine and, bingo, there were all my attacks on Bill Gates, right at the top of Microsoft Bing’s list.
My personal guess is that Google will be able to get away with manipulating its data for political purposes as long as its masks its manipulations as mistakes that can be “fixed” instantly when the heat gets too intense. Google is too powerful and too scary for most media figures to question publicly. My strategy is the opposite: to speak out about Google’s political scandals. We’ll see…

March 31, 2013, Steve Sailer wrote:

The Google Guys aren’t really into Easter, so for today’s Google Doodle, they’re celebrating the birthday of Cesar Chavez by putting up a religious icon depicting somebody or other: That guy in the Philippines who gets himself nailed to a cross every Good Friday? Don Ho resurrected to sing “Tiny Bubbles” one more time? Apparently, Google doesn’t have any photos of Cesar Chavez on file, so they had to go with an artist’s conception of what Chavez must have looked like as He rose on the third day in his raiment white as snow.

Sailer wrote June 11, 2013:

Most of the Orwellian theorizing we’ve heard over the last week about the power of the Big Data companies misses the point that they can surreptitiously exert modest degrees of influence in all sorts of nearly subliminal ways.
For example, for several years, as you type in searches to Google, it offers auto-complete prompts of its best guess of what you are searching for. This might seem like a ridiculous trivial way in which to attempt to manipulate the public mind, and yet Google has a history of rigging prompts. For quite some time in 2010, for example, Pat Buchanan’s name would simply not be prompted by Google. Was this an effort to ever so slightly stifle Buchanan’s influence? Or did it just represent a vindictive desire to make Pat Buchanan fans type out all 12 characters?
Nobody outside of Google seems to know. Few seem very interested in asking. After all, journalists reason, Pat Buchanan deserves whatever he gets coming. And Google is good. We know this because their motto is the reassuring “Don’t be evil.” That proves they are on the side of the Good, which is us.
And, deep down, there’s the worry that Google is a lot better at keeping an eye on you than you are on them, so let’s not get into a power struggle with a vastly rich near-monopoly with who knows what capabilities.
Now, there’s a new example of Google rigging prompts. Last September, I published a column in Taki’s Magazine called “Google Gaydar” demonstrating my new quantitative methodology for measuring what Washington Monthly editor Charles Peter dubbed “the Undernews.” Just go to Google.com and type in a celebrity’s name, then see how far down in the prompts it takes for “gay” to show up. If it’s not one of the first ten, add a “g” and see how many prompts it then takes.
For example, Sir John Gielgud scored a 100 on Google Gaydar (i.e., “John Gielgud gay” was the first prompt, suggesting it was the number one search item about the great actor) and Walter Matthau a zero.
This opened up a new method for the social sciences to quantitatively study rumors, hunches, stereotypes, misinformation and the like.
But, since my article’s publication, Google has methodically abolished most of this capability. If you search on the late John Gielgud (1904-2000) now, Google will absolutely not offer the prompt “John Gielgud gay.” Only until you type in “John Gielgud ga” does it return “was John Gielgud gay,” which appears to be a rare search phrase that slipped by Google unanticipated. In contrast, “John Gielgud h” will bring up “John Gielgud homosexual,” but you aren’t supposed to use “homosexual” anymore, so few do.
Now, I can certainly understand the viewpoint that the public’s interest in the sexual orientation of the greatest Hamlet of the interwar stage is vulgar. But Google has hardly made it a policy to combat public vulgarity. And it’s hardly an invasion of the privacy of this high culture figure, now dead for 13 years, whose personal traits are of historical interest.
Google has put a fair amount of effort into their recent campaign to neuter Google Gaydar, as can be seen from the fact that Google Gaydar is not broken for out-of-the-closet gay actors, such as Neil Patrick Harris and Zachary Quinto, both of whom still score 100 on my system. In other words, Google looked up out actors and didn’t turn off Google Gaydar for them, or vice-versa.
Now, Google is a private company that has invested a lot of money into achieving something approaching a monopoly. They have, as far as I know, the legal right to manipulate their offerings as they wish.
I just think that the press should pay more attention to these subtle ways that Google manipulates us. Instead, the more evidence of Google’s power, the more people seem to be afraid of Google’s power, and thus conclude that they best shut up about Google’s power.

Sailer adds on the same day:

For a number of years, I’ve been pointing out the unaccountable power of Google’s search engine employees to marginally screw over individuals they don’t like. One of the weirder examples is Google’s intermittent but long-running petty campaign against the high-brow blogger Dennis Mangan.
If you go to Bing and type in “Dennis Mangan,” the first his is his blog, Mangan’s.
But if you go to Google and type in “Dennis Mangan,” you don’t get his blog on the first page of responses. Ironically, you just get other bloggers wondering why Google is messing with Dennis.

June 29, 2013, Steve Sailer wrote:

Google has disabled Google Gaydar, but you can still quantify the Undernews by just putting the word “Is” in front of a celebrity’s name and seeing what are the most popular prompts.
Personally, I’ve never felt inclined to state my Google searches in the form of a question, but then I know a lot about the logic of searching. So, these “Is” prompts may bring up a lower stratum of Google users. Let’s hope so.
In honor of Wimbledon, let’s try tennis players:
“Is Djokovic”
brings up
1. Is Djokovic doping
2. Is Djokovic married
3. Is Djokovic gay
1. Is Serena Williams married
2. Is Serena Williams a Jehovah’s Witness
3. Is Serena or Venus better
4. Is Serena doping
1. Is Nadal gay
2. Is Nadal right handed
3. Is Nadal playing in the 2013 French Ope
4. Is Nadal on steroids
1. Is Federer gay
2. Is Federer injured
Doping or steroids doesn’t come up in the top 10 for the Swiss great, who has already lost at Wimbledon.
1. Is Sharapova still engaged
2. Is Sharapova married
3. Is Sharapova engaged
How about baseball players? What could be more enthralling than rehashing once again last year’s American league MVP race?
1. Is Miguel Cabrera on steroids
1. Is Mike Trout married
2. Is Mike Trout a Christian
3. Is Mike Trout on steroids
Movie stars?
1. Is Johnny Depp dead
This “is dead” thing seems to come up a lot with movie stars (Is John Goodman dead is popular, but so is Is James Garner still alive), but not with athletes or Presidents:
1. Is Barack Obama black
2. Is Barack Obama muslim
3. Is Barack Obama the antichrist
4. Is Barack Obama the devil
5. Is Barack Obama a mason
6. Is Barack Obama left handed
7. Is Barack Obama Osama bin Laden
8. Is Barack Obama a good president
9. Is Barack Obama getting impeached
For sheer minimalism, you can type in just “Is ” and find out What the World Most Wants to Know:
1. Is anyone up
2. Is shingles contagious
3. Is today a holiday

April 30, 2013, Steve Sailer wrote:

Last year, I pointed out in Taki’s the unintended existence of what I called Google Gaydar. Go to the home page of Google.com and type in the name of a celebrity, then hit the space bar. Google gives you ten possible auto-complete prompts based on what others have typed. If the celebrity is the subject of gay rumors, one of the first prompts will be the word “gay.” If that doesn’t come up, you can add the letter “g” and see if “gay” comes up.
For example, Bill Murray got a 0 on Google Gaydar, with the word “gay” never being prompted by Google in either situation. With Kevin Spacey, however, “gay” was the first prompt.
It was an interesting tool for gauging, for whatever they are worth, public perceptions and rumors, the Undernews.
But now Google has broken Google Gaydar. The prompt system still works, but “gay” won’t be offered as prompt. You can type in even “Harvey Fierstein g” and still not get “gay” as a prompt. Today, the first g prompt for the out Broadway actor who often performs in drag is “gerbil” — that’s okay with Google, but “gay” is not.
Ironically, aged basketball player Jason Collins’s carefully choreographed coming out party in the media is snagged on this too: Google’s first prompt for “Jason Collins g” is “girlfriend.” “Gay” won’t come up as a prompt for Collins. Google is trying to force him back into the closet!
Bing Gaydar still seems to work, though.
If you pay attention to Google, you’ll notice a lot of oddities like this that come and go. In 2010, I pointed out that Pat Buchanan had been deleted from Google’s prompting system. You could type in “Pat Bu” and be prompted with
Pat Burrell
Pat bus schedule
Pat Buttram
Pat Burrell stats
Pat Burns
Pat Burrell wife
Pat Burke
Pat Buckley Moss
Pat Buckley
Pat Burns cancer
But not with the name of the devil incarnate Pat Buchanan. (On Bing, at the time, he was the first prompt.)
Now, however, Pat is back in the good graces of Google Prompt and comes up first.
What happened? Who knows? Nobody was all that interested in asking. My impression is that the media is slightly terrified of Google. The search firm has so much power that all we can do is hope they live up their motto “Don’t be evil,” because if they don’t, whaddaya whaddaya?
My guess is that these weird events are not generally part of a Conspiracy that Goes All the Way to the Top with Sergey and Larry sitting around deciding who they are going to mess with today.
Instead, my guess is that on the inside, Google is a big ball of twine, with lots of low-level employees having fiefdoms over chunks of the extremely complicated code. If an individual Google worker gets bored and decides to screw with individuals or websites that he doesn’t like, he can get away with it for awhile, especially if it’s intermittent and thus not always replicable.
For example, I notice that most of the time my posts pop right up in searches, but some fraction of the time, Google forgets about my posts except for my weekly archives. Right now, for example if I type in “Steve Sailer Hart Risley” I get excellent search results to individual posts I’ve done. Other times, however, I only get links to Blog Archive 10/7/2011 – 10/13/2011 or whatever. This can go on for a few hours, then go back to working right.
Is this just accidental or is some clever Googleite screwing around by creating non-replicable problems for objects of his ire? Who knows? And nobody seems that interested in finding out.

February 11, 2010, Steve Sailer wrote:

A few weeks ago, we noticed that Google had rigged their little “prompting” system on the Google home page, where, as you type your search term, it offers up the most popular searches beginning with those letters. Oddly, Pat Buchanan had been relegated to Unperson status by Google, unlike Yahoo’s and Bing’s search engines where Buchanan was the second prompt for “Pat B” after only Pat Benatar.
Obviously, that wasn’t the most crucial issue of our times, but it does say something when a super-rich and powerful near monopolist surreptitiously engages in petty political vendettas.
I concluded, “Ridicule is the best medicine.”
And ridicule seems to have worked. Buchanan is now second on Google among the “Pat B” prompts, well ahead of the immortal Pat Buttram.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Facebook, Google, Islam, Jews, Steve Sailer | Comments Off

F. Roger Devlin Critiques Wendy Shalit’s Books

Posted on November 8, 2014 by Luke Ford

Roger Devlin writes: Shalit is, of course, emphatic on a man’s lack of all sexual rights before the wedding. Referring to a girl whose boyfriend began “pressuring” her for sex after eight months of courtship, her assessment is: “If he’s pressuring you for sex, he probably doesn’t love you.” (GGM, p. 29) Now, courtship is typically an interaction in which the man seeks sexual surrender from the woman and the woman seeks assurance of commitment from the man. Would the author sympathize with a man who reasoned: “If a woman is pressuring me for commitment, she probably doesn’t love me”? It does not sound like it: elsewhere, she approvingly quotes a woman who is “mortified” that when girls “hint to their boyfriends about marriage [they] find themselves dumped like garbage.” (RM, p. 227) She even refers to the authority of another of her old etiquette books to show that “a young woman could assume that a man wanted to marry her if he simply spent a good chunk of time with her.” (GGM, 28) (I’m guessing eight months would count as “a good chunk of time.”) In other words, women have the right to expect commitment from men, but men are bad when they seek sexual surrender from women; women’s instincts are morally valid, but men’s are not. (Moreover, Shalit never says a word about the legitimate male fear of divorce, which may well be why the young man in her anecdote was “pressuring” his girlfriend about sex rather than simply proposing marriage.)

An old-fashioned fellow might agree with the author’s disapproval of premarital sex, but probably on the assumption that she would at least acknowledge the husband’s claims after the ceremony. This assumption would be mistaken, however. Once the couple is married, the wife’s sexual desires and the duty of the husband to satisfy them become her exclusive concern. (RM, p. 114-15) When she comes across a case of a couple where the man was the party less eager for physical intimacy, her sympathy is once again with the woman; she asks: “If he has no interest in a mutually satisfying relationship, why not just leave?” (GGM, p. 177)

I believe Shalit is by no means unusually narcissistic, as women go. Most do take for granted men’s obligation to put women’s needs and desires before their own, and thus to feel no particular gratitude when men do so. Many women have no idea, for example, how intense a young man’s sexual urges can be, and are not inclined to treat this powerful force of nature with the necessary respect. Shalit never seems aware that men feel “pressured” by their own sexual urges, or that a normal, healthy young man who has dated a girl for eight months before making these urges known has already demonstrated a fair amount of self-control.

Lack of a sense of moral reciprocity and of an ability to empathize with men leads many women, in fact, into a kind of schizophrenic attitude toward male desire. Most of the time they complain about how annoying it is and seem to wish it would go away entirely. But they do, of course, want some man to marry them. In other words, men’s sexual desires are supposed to be weak enough never to inconvenience women, but at the same time strong enough that they gladly exchange all their independence and most of their income whenever some woman does, after all, decide to take a mate. The desideratum would appear to be a man whose natural urges are like a faucet that women could turn on and off at their own convenience.

It is true that actual men fall short of this “dildo ideal,” as it might be called. No restoration of feminine modesty is going to change the situation, however, or eliminate the need for women to compromise with men. Children who insist on having everything their own way eventually learn that no one wants to play with them anymore; women who follow Wendy Shalit’s advice of “waiting and keeping their standards high” may find that the wait lasts all the way to menopause.

When the sexual revolution began, women imagined that the “slavery” of marriage was unfairly standing between themselves and endless erotic fulfillment. Forty years later, many are imagining instead that the availability to men of sex outside marriage is standing in the way of their wedding. “If other women were not sluts,” they reason, “the man of my dreams would be forced to discover my true value and come crawling to me with a diamond ring.” One of the interviewees from Shalit’s first book, for example, complains: “After three dates when I wouldn’t sleep with [a certain man], he dumped me, just like that! If you ask me, it’s because it’s way too easy for them. Why should they waste time with a girl like me when they can get it for free?” (RM, p. 104)

Now, how does the woman know this is the reason he “dumped” (stopped courting) her? Never once have I heard a woman say: “I am such a pain in the derriere that after just three dates men are charging for the exit.” Appealing to the supposed universal availability of sex has become a way for women to avoid facing the reality of rejection. Men break off courtships for all kinds of reasons: they may sense that a particular girl might not be faithful, is not careful with money, has too many bad habits, or just plain is not for them. Holding out for wedding rings is not going to solve these women’s problems and allow them to live happily ever after. If we could wave a magic wand and cause extramarital sex to disappear overnight, many women would be shocked to discover that handsome movie stars were still not flocking to their doorsteps with flowers and chocolates.

Indeed, I have heard men remark on the oddity that sex seems to be the only card women have to play in the dating game any more. They do not know how to manage a household, raise children, or treat a husband. Instead, like prostitutes, they think entirely in terms of maximizing the return they get on sex. Even Shalit acknowledges an inability to cook at the time of her marriage. (That apple pie recipe of hers begins, “You will need two frozen premade pie crusts …”) A renewed focus on feminine modesty, while welcome, will not by itself prepare young women for their domestic duties. The attitude that “I’m too good to sleep around” in the absence of anything to offer men besides sex may result not in any epidemic of marriage proposals but in widespread spinsterhood enlivened only by occasional readings of The Vagina Monologues, the lesbian-feminist play in which women gush over how wonderful their own private parts are.

But let us consider Shalit’s own account, culled from anecdotes and women’s magazines, of the sexual situation women face today. The humble corporate drone who has to fear harassment charges and loss of livelihood if he winks at the girl in the next cubicle will feel as if he stepped through Alice’s looking glass when he reads this material. Here is a realm in which men have reduced women to struggling to see who can offer them the most and the best sex, frantically searching the Kama Sutra for some new position or technique that will manage to gratify their cloyed appetites. The men who inhabit this world are concerned not that women remain faithful, but that they do not become “clingy.” Cosmo supports them, advising women to scurry out the door immediately after sex for fear of intruding on the Big Important things their man has to do that day that do not involve them — and that may well include a tryst with another girlfriend. “It’s sad to see that this is what it’s come to,” says one woman: “that guys will raise the bar and girls will scramble to meet it. Women just want to know what they have to do to get these guys to fall in love with them.” (GGM, p. 176) One young woman explains: “If I don’t do whatever [my boyfriend] wants and he broke up with me for some reason, two days from now he’d have somebody else. That’s just how it works.” (GGM, p. 177) “The men who share these women’s beds,” says Shalit, “are treated like kings or princes whose authority comes from God himself, whereas the women’s own feelings and even their health concerns are restricted in the extreme.” (GGM, p. 81) Shalit advises one such woman to “run, not walk, to the nearest exit, trying not to trip over all the naked women on her way out.” (GGM, p. 79)

All these stories certainly make it appear that, in the brave new world of the sexual revolution, the man’s position is stronger than under monogamy while the woman’s is weaker. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Let me pose a simple question that Shalit never considers. It used to be that there was roughly one girl for every boy; if men now have harems, where are the extra women coming from?

The answer is equally simple and obvious. Most men do not have harems, of course, and there are no more women than formerly. Some men have harems because women “liberated” from monogamy mate only with unusually attractive men. This situation demonstrates not the weakness of the woman’s position but its strength. If the male sex instinct were the primary determinant of mating, the overall pattern would be the most attractive women getting gang-banged.

In order to understand what is really going on, it will be necessary to shine a harsh light on a matter women instinctively prefer to keep under wraps: the female sex drive. Shalit almost never refers to it, and there is even a certain appropriateness about this, since such reticence is part of the feminine modesty she is trying to reestablish. But it means a veil is drawn over some important circumstances that must be honestly confronted if marriage and the natural family are to be restored as social norms.

When a young girl becomes erotically aware of boys, she is endowed by nature with a set of blinders that exclude the majority of them — including many who can make good husbands — from her sight. What gets a male within her narrow range of vision is called “sexual attractiveness.” What is it?

It is not possible to find out by asking women themselves. They will insist until they are blue in the face that they want only a sensitive, respectful fellow who treats them right. “Intelligence, kindness, personality [and] a certain sense of humor” make up Wendy Shalit’s list of supposedly sought-after male qualities. (RM, p. 116) In a passage on the decline of male courtesy she delivers the following ludicrous assertion deadpan: “When … a man does dare to open a door for a woman, he is snapped up right away.” (RM, p. 156)

When women claim to be seeking kindness, respect, a sense of humor, etc., they mean at most that they would like to find these qualities in the men who are already within their erotic field of view. When a man asks what women are looking for, he is trying to find out how he can get into that field of view. Women do not normally say, either because they do not know themselves or because it embarrasses them to speak about it. The advice they do give harms a lot of lonely men who mistakenly concentrate their mating effort on showing kindness and courtesy to ungrateful brats rather than working to gain the things females actually respond to.

Fortunately, we do not have to depend upon female testimony. It is with women as with politicians: if you wish to understand them you must ignore what they say and watch what they do. Plentiful evidence gathered over a vast range of history and culture leaves no room for doubt: women are attracted to men who possess some combination of physical appearance, social status, and resources.

In the environment in which we evolved, the careful choice of a mate was critical to a female’s success in passing on her genes. If her man was not strong enough to be a successful hunter, or not of sufficiently high rank within the tribe to commandeer food from others, her children might be in trouble. The women who were reproductively successful were those with a sexual preference for effective providers. A kind of erotic “tunnel vision” was selected for, which causes women to focus their mating effort on the men at the top of the pack — the “alpha males” with good physical endowments, social rank, and economic resources (or an ability to acquire them). Today the female preference for tall men, to give just one example, no longer makes much sense, but they, and we, are stuck with it.

What women instinctively want is for 99 percent of the men they run into to leave them alone, buzz off, drop dead — while the one to whom they feel attracted makes all their dreams come true. One of the keys to deciphering female speech is that the term “men” signifies for them only the very restricted number of men they find sexually attractive. All the dirty articles in Cosmo about “giving him the sex he craves” and “driving him wild in bed” concern this man of her dreams, who by some amazing coincidence usually turns out to be the man of some other girl’s dreams as well.

During their nubile years, many women are at least as concerned with turning male desire off (i.e., telling the 99 percent to drop dead) as with turning it on (getting Mr. Alpha to commit): they get more offers of attention than they have time to process. Cunning feminists, many of them lesbians, have exploited this circumstance to the hilt, convincing naive young women they are being “harassed.” Quietly observing the furor over so-called harassment during the past two decades, I wondered how these women could fail to realize that the men of whom they were complaining constituted their pool of potential husbands and that they could not afford to alienate all of them. Clearly, I overestimated their intelligence. And Wendy Shalit does not distinguish herself in this respect either; she uses the term “harassment” as freely and uncritically as any man-hating feminist could wish.

But surely North America’s leading spokesman for feminine modesty would never encourage young women to date simply on the basis of their sexual urges?

Well, let’s see. At one point in her first book she is discussing a woman’s use of the controversial drug Prozac to help her “date calmly.” She then blurts out: “Maybe a woman shouldn’t be dating calmly — maybe it should be dizzying and tailspinning and all the rest. Maybe the floor should drop.” (RM, p. 165) What she is describing here is female sexual arousal; it takes an emotional form. Her statement is the precise female equivalent of a man saying: “Men shouldn’t date calmly — they should date only young hotties with fantastic legs, hourglass figures, etc.” What would Wendy Shalit think of that advice?

Now, let me be clear: I do not have any objection per se to every woman being able to marry a stunningly handsome, successful man who makes her swoon in blissful passion eternally, yada, yada; I am merely pointing out that the world does not work this way, and men are not to blame that it doesn’t.

Moreover, there is nothing in the definition of marriage about the man (or woman) being attractive. That is because the marriage vow lays out the duties of the two spouses. Duty implies possibility. A man usually can, with considerable self-control and sacrifice, remain faithful to a single woman and support her and the children; he cannot become a romance novel hero and turn his wife’s life into a perpetual honeymoon.

The traditional answer to the question, “How do I get Mr. Tall-Dark-and-Handsome to commit?” is, “You probably won’t.” Those men go fast, and they usually go to the most attractive females. But that does not, of course, guarantee the contentment of those females either: four women walked out on Cary Grant. Part of the folk wisdom of all ages and peoples has been that sexual attraction is an inadequate basis for matrimony.

Monogamy means that women are not permitted to mate with a man, however attractive, once he has been claimed by another woman. It does not get a more attractive mate for a woman than she would otherwise get; it normally gets her a less attractive one. “Liberated,” hypergamous female mating — i.e., what we have now — is what ensures highly attractive mates for most women. But, of course, those mates “don’t commit” — really, are unable to commit to all the women who desire them. The average woman must decide between having the most attractive “sex partner” possible and having a permanent husband. If she were serious about seeking commitment, in fact, the rational procedure would be to seek out a particularly unattractive man, i.e., one for whom there is the least possible competition. This thought seldom occurs to young women, however.

Posted in F. Roger Devlin, Feminism | Comments Off

Goldwin Smith On The Jewish Question

Posted on November 8, 2014 by Luke Ford

Goldwin Smith was a 19th Century professor of English as such places as Cornell. In 1892, he published an essay on The Jewish Question:

Jewish ascendancy and the anti-Semitic movement provoked by it form an important feature of the European situation, and are beginning to excite attention in America. Mr. Arnold White, Baron Hirsch’s commissioner, says, in a plea for the Russian Jews (“The Truth about the Russian Jew,” Contemporary Review, May 1892), that “almost without exception the press throughout Europe is in Jewish hands, and is largely produced by Jewish brains;” that “international finance is captive to Jewish energy and skill;” that in England the fall of the Barings has left the house of Rothschild alone in its supremacy; and that in every line the Jews are fast becoming our masters. Wind and tide, in a money-loving age, are in favor of the financial race….
A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader, whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might, so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the filling Empire they were the great slave traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force?
Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.

Goldwin Smith has no illusions about Jewish inferiority. He notes instead that Jews dominate the press in Europe and the world of finance and that without discrimination, Jews will rise to the top of every society and rule the world. This potential for dominance provokes the less intelligent goyim of creation who wish to preserve the distinctive nature of their countries to fight back with brute force.

My rejoinder to Goldwin Smith and to The Jewish Question is that free countries such as America, England and Australia have allowed the Jews to attain their natural level and this has not destroyed their host countries. Rather, these countries rule the world (though the WASP has gone into decline).

Which countries have prospered? Those who tried to decimate the Jews such as Germany during WWII and Russia in the late 19th Century or those who took the Jews in and let them rise to the level of their abilities (the US, England, Australia, Canada)?

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Jews | Comments Off

World Domination

Posted on November 8, 2014 by Luke Ford

“We share the material world and its material ways with all other nations. We are dispersed among and interact with the nations. By serving G-d in these foreign countries and harnessing the physical towards a spiritual end, we bring about the era regarding which G-d promised, ‘I will convert the nations to a pure language that all of them call in G-d’s name, to worship Him as one.’ We will then be considered a truly great national for all of mankind’s worship will be to our credit.” (Me’or Einayim as quoted in the Oct. 26, 2014 Chayenu)

This is the Torah’s plan for world domination.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off