- https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback
"Luke Ford reports all of the 'juicy' quotes, and has been doing it for years." (Marc B. Shapiro)
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)"This generation's Hillel." (Nathan Cofnas)
Do You Have A Vision For Your Life?
Posted in Personal
Comments Off on Do You Have A Vision For Your Life?
Why Do We Have Mass Killers?
Can we blame Elizabeth Warren, socialism, anime, or the Devil, for Connor Betts’s massacre? No.
What about Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook killer? There was nothing political in his madness. He was autistic — but millions of people are, and they don’t kill other people. Like El Paso killer Patrick Crusius, he was a child of divorce, but so are tens of millions of others, who never lift a finger to hurt other people.
These guys were all white. You know which mass killer wasn’t white?
Seung-hui Cho, the Virginia Tech mass killer from 2007.
Omar Mateen, the Pulse nightclub shooter. Mateen swore allegiance to ISIS just before he went on his rampage. It’s the fault of Islamic radicalism, then. Right? Probably not: it emerged that Mateen had been an awkward loner with a violent temper, and would toggle between fits of Islamic piety and drinking booze. He was divorced, and evidence emerged that he might have been struggling with his own homosexuality.
Micah Xavier Johnson, who in 2016 ambushed and slaughtered five police officers in Dallas. He was black, and explicitly said he wanted to kill white people in revenge for police killings of blacks. Also in 2016, Gavin Eugene Long, also a black man, ambushed and killed police officers in Baton Rouge, as a political protest.
My point is that people love to take these horrible events as validating the political narrative they prefer, but these narratives can keep us from understanding what really happened.
I remember when the Pulse shooting happened, because it was a gay nightclub, some gay rights groups, media outlets, and other liberals blamed homophobia. The New York Times published an editorial blaming Republicans’ “prejudice,” and Slate blamed conservative Christians. And then we learned that the killer had pledged allegiance to ISIS.
Lots of people today are eager to blame Donald Trump for El Paso. I think Trump’s rhetoric does nothing to tamp down these passions, at the very least, and he ought to have the decency and intelligence to recognize that as president, he has a responsibility to speak with wisdom and balance. That said, it’s simply too convenient to blame Trump for things like this. Patrick Crusius, the El Paso shooter, was a Trump fan (according to his social media), but he was also, according to those who knew him, an extreme loner who had a bad temper, and had grown up in a divorced family with a father who was a drug and alcohol addict for 40 years.
It could be that Crusius, like Omar Mateen, seized a violent ideology that gave him an excuse for acting out the violence in his heart over the fact that he was a failure. We don’t know yet. We’ll know more in the trial. Don’t forget the incel mass killers, who slaughtered people as a form of revenge on women who wouldn’t sleep with them. Those wicked men aren’t driven by Donald Trump. They are driven by rage, and their own failure and impotence.
And look, if you’re determined to kill people, you don’t need a gun. The Toronto incel mass murderer ran down people with his van (a technique that Islamists in France have used.)
I asked a Jewish friend for a response to the latest killer manifesto. He responded:
As is typical, the reporting on the manifesto runs from the left where anything which might exculpate Trump is skipped, to the right where everything that doesn’t exculpate Trump is minimized. Others dismiss the manifesto as incoherent. To some observers it is just evidence that among a certain class of shut in young man who spends his days playing video games, this is just viewed as another extension of gaming to see how many big a body count can be produced.
From the author’s perspective and those sympathetic to him is makes sense, although it doesn’t really hang together. The Manifesto condemns corporations who put profits ahead of promoting policies that have hollowed out industrial America for the benefit of illegal immigrants, and have also spoiled the environment. He holds both political parties responsible and explains he held these views before Trump was elected.Its pretty clear he models himself after Tarrant and Brevik, although Brevik slaughtered innocents to try to spark a political movement and Tarrant targeted Muslims specifically to scare them out of New Zealand. I suppose Crucius might have thought that by killing Latinos in a WalMart that might make Latinos fear that they are never safe and move back to Mexico. I do think this was a political statement and not a statement about white supremacy. I do think it was a cry from the heart expressing nostalgia for an America he never knew that can never be resurrected. He sees himself as the heir to western civilization, and now he is being told that Western civilization is worthless. In the meantime he wants to lash out at them. Them being the despoilers of the country, both in its natural state and in its general philosophy, , the elites of both parties, the enablers of illegal immigration. Crucius is making a statement. It is a big fuck you to the enablers of illegal immigration, to those who are destroying western civilization and seeing Hispanics as the unwitting foot soldiers for these “elites” he is killing them as well.
Instead of paying attention and evaluating whether they have any culpability. their tactic is to diminish Crucius although they are sending two different messages. The first message is he is a nut. The second is that he is part of this mass movement of white supremacists.
Posted in Nationalism
Comments Off on Why Do We Have Mass Killers?
The Hard Stuff
G. emails:
Greetings~
I will try to be quick with my worries, as it has brought to me considerable distress over my beliefs. I message you for help, because you were one of the few people to get me interested in this.
To introduce myself, I’m a Greek artist, interested with philosophy and ideas, and sensitive to them I guess. I first got exposed to group interests through HBD several months ago, and it caused me to have a breakdown, having to revisit certain beliefs I had about IQ, as I had a bit of a universalist/lefist view. It didn’t seem that bad then, but I was having a hard time changing myself, the whole process of change not being the problem, the issue being where it would lead me. I didnt want to become a ‘bad person’, to become something I considered reprehensible but that I couldn’t reject, thus causing me trouble. I’ve been having similar issue with neoreactionaries thinkers, the old school who try to argue against the liberal traditions of the west, and the sensitivity that I have to the individual has carried me through.
What happened a few days ago was that I got into the hard stuff. I started with Kevin MacDonald, but I ended up with White nationalism, William Hunter Pierce sort of stuff, the sort of race/ethnic centrism that argues for separation on the low end, and superiority and domination on the other. It has been traumatic for me, considering that even the SSRIs I am taking are not doing as well as I expected them.
The issue stems that this whole discussion about race and intelligence, the first phase being just accepting a general HBD stance while still remaining philosophically the same, the second my understanding of race-based questions, and the whole trouble I have had with squaring my philosophical views with what these people are saying. It feels like its trying to obliterate my views and trying to supplant them inside me, leading a lot of pain and crying on my end. I believe basically that human beings, if they understand things, have almost infinite abilities to change and cope with the world, that it is ideas that are the most important. Yet, here comes an ideology saying its not ideas, but genes and race that are important.
What specifically distressed me I guess is the hard stuff.
Recently I have begun reading Revilo Oliver’s work, and I have to admit, as somebody a bit on the center, it has distressed me a bit. He seems to be extreme in his views even for me, essentially focusing on total biological determinism in the potential of man, on disparaging Christianity and the faith, on saying how we are a nothing organism in the middle of a rock, and we will be only superior compared to other races if we biologically overtake and over-breed them. That’s not even getting into his ideas about Aryan/racial view of history. This goes against a lot of the thinking of WNs, which at least nominally in regards to not messing with other races, and the other minor issues of having a white ethno-state. I can somehow not mind and reject his whole stupidity about white aryan supremacy and the jews and the holocaust, but its still bringing me a lot of pain. It’s that he is smart, and even when I can ascertain when he is making obviously insane statements, like literal Jewish conspiracies where they control everything, I still am duped by the rest he says.
I’d like to know how one can deal with stuff like that. I seemed to have basically stumbled upon extreme right stuff, literal radicalizing myself, but its so intellectually well presented I can’t get it out of my mind, and I don’t want to become an extreme racialist such as himself.
Jim* says:
On that question of when to withdraw loyalty — obviously a good question. I’ve been thinking about it in relation to my family’s emphasis on “Education” when I was growing up. They encouraged me to be loyal to that institution, but as I grew older, I saw that the thing they valued in “Education” was not the institution, but “Education-itself.” And things became really interesting when I discovered for myself in the echelons of higher-education that the institutions of Education had become corrupt. But I simultaneously discovered that there was a reality (“Education itself”) behind the institutions that is effectively transcendent.
So the same *might* be said of various national projects — to some degree I think “American” as an institution, refers to something greater than merely the forms of statehood that currently exist under that label. It was an idea, and in that idea, something like a spirit. But once the institutions responsible for protecting & cultivating that spirit become corrupt, you have to return to the spirit itself and try to start a new institution, under a new name perhaps, etc.
But I asked about Judaism as I have asked others about Catholicism. How is it that Jews are able to retain loyalty to an institution which is so far afield from what it was originally intended, and isn’t it time to cut losses? To me, Talmudic Judaism seems no more true to Torah/Temple Judaism than staying loyal to pozzed America is true to that original spirit of Americanism.
You don’t have to testify here. And you also don’t need to deal with this question on your show if you find it disadvantageous or whatever, but the idea seems pretty well-defined to me so I thought I’d mention it. Plato says his true philosophers “are those who are able to grasp what is always the same in all respects, while those who are not able to do so but wander among what is many and varies in all ways are not philosophers…”
The Greek mind seeks the eternal, and so its first loyalty (as Kevin said) is to God, not to any institution.
1 Cor 1:22 — “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom.”
Posted in Alt Right
Comments Off on The Hard Stuff