Most Jews Don’t Have A Rabbi

Posted on August 17, 2017 by Luke Ford

There’s this notion among some non-Jews that every Jew has a rabbi directing him.

That’s not how it works.

Just as most Christians are not mentored by a pastor or priest, most Jews also do their own thing. A Jew or Christian goes to their house of worship every week and in most cases, they don’t take much direction from their clergy.

Some Jews do have an allegiance to a particular rabbi, an allegiance that often amounts to direction in certain parts of his life (and occasionally in all areas of his life). I’d say that accounts for fewer than 10% of Jews. A Hasid never publicly disagrees with his rebbe. Hasidim are more guided by their rebbe than other Jews are by their rabbi. Hasidim account for about 5% of Jews.

Rabbis, like other groups, are usually fighting for more power. They often flatter themselves that they direct their congregants. This is usually an illusion.

I remember sitting in my Orthodox shul about ten years ago and the rabbi mentioned in his sermon that we had chosen him as our spiritual leader. I thought, what? No way! I chose this particular synagogue for various reasons, but I did not agree with the rabbi about many things, and when I sought guidance from a rabbi, I usually went elsewhere.

Just because a particular rabbi oversees one’s conversion to Judaism does not mean that that rabbi exerts pull over you. Conversion to Judaism is rarely a spiritual process. It is usually a prosaic one and it is rarely any fun for the would-be convert. Not many converts develop particular affection for their Av Beit Din (head of the Jewish law court overseeing their conversion).

Washington Post:

Ivanka Trump’s rabbi ‘deeply troubled’ by president’s response to Charlottesville

By Derek Hawkins August 17 at 3:27 AM

A head rabbi at Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s New York City synagogue denounced President Trump’s response to the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, joining a chorus of political and religious leaders who say the president was wrong to blame “both sides” for the violence.

In a letter Wednesday to his congregation, Rabbi Haskel Lookstein wrote that his community had been “consumed” by the “frightening message and fallout” from the hate-fueled mayhem that left one woman dead and others injured last weekend.

“We are appalled by this resurgence of bigotry and antisemitism, and the renewed vigor of the neo-Nazis, KKK and alt-right,” read the letter, which was signed by Lookstein and two other rabbis. “While we always avoid politics, we are deeply troubled by the moral equivalency and equivocation President Trump has offered in his response to this act of violence.”

“We pray that our country heeds the voices of tolerance, and stays true to its vision of human rights and civil rights,” it read.

Posted in Conversion, Rabbis | Comments Off on Most Jews Don’t Have A Rabbi

What Is A Nazi?

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Related post: Would Americans Choose National Socialism If They Could? (8-17-17)

I see the term “Nazi” thrown around a lot these days.

I learned in Political Science classes in college that Nazism was a uniquely German phenomenon. You cannot be non-German and a Nazi just as no matter how much you love Judaism, if you are not born of a Jewish mother or converted through a recognized beit din (Jewish law court), you are not Jewish.

What made Nazism a party of the right and not the left was that it believed in human inequality.

Just as neo-conservatives aren’t conservative, neo-nazis aren’t Nazis. Just as neo-Hasidism isn’t Hasidic, neo-nazism isn’t Nazism. People called “neo-nazis” are more accurately described as ethno-nationalists just as many Jews are ethno-nationalists (as normative Judaism is ethno-nationalism with Zion its home, and according to Torah, there is no room for non-Jewish citizens in the Jewish state).

“Neo-Nazi” in general usage has no meaning. It is purely a slur. The Unite the Right march in Charlottsville on Saturday was not neo-nazi and had nothing to do with Nazism (even if a few marchers waived that flag). White nationalists who do the Nazi thing are sending a message to the low IQ to rally for their race. It’s a short-hand for white nationalism. Take these guys seriously but not literally. For example, Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the number of Jews who died in WWII, but rather is a denial that Jews have ever been 100% the innocent party in group conflicts and denial that the Holocaust is the supreme event in history through which all else must be viewed.

Wikipedia notes:

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/[1]), is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, and other far-right groups. Sometimes characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism’s development was influenced by German nationalism (especially Pan-Germanism), the Völkisch movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after Germany’s defeat in First World War.

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[2] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum, and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or “inferior” races. The term “National Socialism” arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the “common good” and accept political interests as the main priority of economic organization.[3]

The Nazi Party’s precursor, the Pan-German nationalist and antisemitic German Workers’ Party, was founded on 5 January 1919. By the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler assumed control of the organization and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers’ Party to broaden its appeal. The National Socialist Program, adopted in 1920, called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalization of some industries. In Mein Kampf, written in 1924, Hitler outlined the antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for parliamentary democracy and his belief in Germany’s right to territorial expansion.

In 1933, with the support of traditional conservative nationalists, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany and the Nazis gradually established a one-party state, under which Jews, political opponents and other “undesirable” elements were marginalised, and eventually, several million people were imprisoned and killed. Hitler purged the party’s more socially and economically radical factions in the mid-1934 Night of the Long Knives and, after the death of President Hindenburg, political power was concentrated in his hands, and he became Germany’s head of state with the title of Führer or “leader”. Following the Holocaust and Germany’s defeat in World War II, only a few fringe racist groups, usually referred to as neo-Nazis, still describe themselves as followers of National Socialism…

Following Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II and the end of the Holocaust, overt expressions of support for Nazi ideas were prohibited in Germany and other European countries. Nonetheless, movements which self-identify as National Socialist or which are described as adhering to National Socialism continue to exist on the fringes of politics in many western societies. Usually espousing a white supremacist ideology, many deliberately adopt the symbols of Nazi Germany.

Few if any of the marchers in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottsville were Nazis. The march had no concern with Germany. A few marches adopted Nazi symbols, but just as a man who cuts off his penis and gets breast implants does not change his DNA into that of a woman, so too Americans with no connection to Germany can not become Nazis by adopting Nazi slogans and rituals.

What about the term “fascist”? According to Wikipedia: “Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.” It sounds like the word is similar to “Nazi” in the sense that it is usually used as a slur.

I’ve found that 99% of the time I hear someone fling around the terms “Nazi” and “fascist”, it indicates that they don’t want to think hard. They just want to call names. Name-calling is not an honorable form of argument. There are only two honorable forms of argument — debating facts and logic.

Wikipedia notes that Nazism “aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft).” That sounds like a ton of tribal approaches to life.

Posted in Nazi | Comments Off on What Is A Nazi?

NYT: ‘Down the Breitbart Hole’

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Wil S. Hylton writes for the New York Times Sunday Magazine:

After losing Bannon and Gorka and Hahn to the White House; accepting the resignation of Yiannopoulos, who was caught advocating statutory rape; and firing the editor Katie McHugh over a string of odious tweets, Alex has left himself with a roster of writers who are startlingly inoffensive.

Because he’s writing in the New York Times, Wil S. Hylton has no need to explain what was odious about Katie McHugh’s tweets. He can just hurl slurs and that counts as big league journalism. That’s a sweet gig if you can get it. Honorable argument, needless to say, consists solely of contesting facts and logic. Any other type of argument is not honorable, but Wil S. Hylton and the New York Times have no moral constraints. They can hit as low as they want.

Then there’s the execrable headline about young Muslims being ‘‘time bombs.’

And what is execrable about that headline? Once again, Wil S. Hylton and the New York Times feel no need to make an argument. They just hurl slurs and call it journalism.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on NYT: ‘Down the Breitbart Hole’

WAPO Media Columnist: ‘This week should put the nail in the coffin for ‘both sides’ journalism’

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Margaret Sullivan (former ombud for the New York Times) writes for the Washington Post: “During the 2016 presidential campaign, the national news media’s misguided sense of fairness helped equate the serious flaws of Hillary Clinton with the disqualifying evils of Donald Trump.”

Evil is a moral judgment that requires a shared faith. Without a shared faith in a transcendent source of morality such as God, there is no objective right and wrong. If Donald Trump is evil, then what word would you use to describe Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao?

“In the aftermath of last weekend’s disaster in Charlottesville, [Trump] is being widely criticized for treating white supremacists and those who protest them as roughly equal.”

Very few if any of the marchers to preserve Southern heritage last Saturday were “white supremacists.” That’s just a slur. The Antifa weren’t protesting them as much as they were beating them. There’s a long ugly history of antifa violence.

Sullivan: “Journalists should indeed stand for some things. They should stand for factual reality.”

Such as racial differences in IQs?

Posted in America, Journalism | Comments Off on WAPO Media Columnist: ‘This week should put the nail in the coffin for ‘both sides’ journalism’

Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Paul Gottfried on Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. — March 3, 2007:

Those Southern secessionists whose national flag we are now celebrating have become identified not only with a lost cause but with a now publicly condemned one. Confederate flags have been removed from government and educational buildings throughout the South, while Confederate dignitaries whose names and statues once adorned monuments and boulevards are no longer deemed as fit for public mention.

The ostensible reason for this obliteration or dishonoring of Southern history, save for those civil rights victories that came in the second half of the twentieth century, has been the announced rejection of a racist society, a development we are persistently urged to welcome. During the past two generations or so, the South, we have been taught, was a viciously insensitive region, and the Southern cause in 1861 was nothing so much as the attempt to perpetuate the degradation of blacks through a system based on racial slavery. We are being told that we should therefore rejoice at the reconstructing of Southern society and culture in a way that excludes, and indeed extirpates from our minds, except as an incentive to further white atonement, the pre-civil rights past, also known as “the burden of Southern history.” This last, frequently encountered phrase is from the title of a famous study of the South by C. Vann Woodward, who in his time was a liberal-minded Southern historian.

Arguments can be raised to refute or modify the received account of Southern history now taught in our public schools and spread by leftist and neoconservative journalists. One can point to the fact that a crushing federal tariff falling disproportionately on Southern states contributed to the sectional hostilities that led to the Southern bid for independence. One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms, as the price of the freedom that Southerners were seeking from Northern control. And even if one deplores slavery, this commendable attitude, which was also shared by some Confederate leaders, does not justify the federal invasion of the South, with all of its attendant killing and depredation. That invasion took place, moreover, in violation of a right to secede, with which several states, including Virginia, had entered the Union.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why Do They Hate the South and Its Symbols?

Sacrificing Smart Asians to Keep the Racial Peace

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Robert Weissberg writes:

Stated in cost-benefit terms, denying a few hundred (even a few thousand) high-SAT scoring Asians an Ivy League diploma and instead forcing them attend Penn State is a cheap price to pay for social peace.

This argument rests on an indisputable reality that nearly all societies contain distinct ethnic or religious groups who must be managed for the sake of collective peace. They typically lack the ability to economically compete, may embrace values that contravene the dominant ethos, or otherwise just refuse to assimilate. What makes management imperative is the possibility of violence either at an individual level, for example, randomly stabbing total strangers, or on a larger scale, riots and insurrections. Thus, in the grand scheme of modern America’s potentially explosive race relations, academically accomplished Asians, most of whom are politically quiescent, are expendable, collateral damage in the battle to sustain a shaky status quo.

Examples of such to-be-managed groups abound. Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes well into the 19th century or what several European nations currently face with Muslims or today’s civil war in Burma with the Karen People. Then there’s Turkey’s enduring conflict with the Kurds and long before the threat of Islamic terrorism, there were Basque separatists (the ETA), and the Irish Republican Army. In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe according to the Global Terrorism Database. At a lower levels add the persistently criminal Gypsies who for 500 years have resisted all efforts to assimilate them. This listing is, of course, only a tiny sampling of distinct indigestible violence-prone groups.

The repertoire of remedies, successful and failed, is also extensive. Our native-American problem has, sad to say, been largely solved by the use of apartheid-like reservations and incapacitating a once war-like people with drugs and alcohol. Elsewhere generous self-rule has done the trick, for example, the Basques in Spain. A particularly effective traditional solution is to promote passivity by encouraging religious acceptance of one’s lowly state.

Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.

To appreciate the value of affirmative action recall the urban riots of the 1960s. They have almost been forgotten but their sheer number during that decade would shock those grown accustomed to today’s relative tranquility. A sampling of cities with major riots includes Rochester, NY, New York City, Philadelphia, PA, Los Angeles, CA, Cleveland, OH, Newark, NJ, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Washington, DC and several smaller cities.

The damage from these riots— “uprisings” or “rebellions” according to some—was immense. For example, the Detroit riot of 1967 lasted five days and quelling it required the intervention of the Michigan Army National Guard and both the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions. When it finally ended, the death toll was 43, some 7200 were arrested and more than 2000 buildings destroyed. Alas, much of this devastation remains visible today and should be a reminder of what could happen absent a policy of cooling out black anger.

To correctly understand how racial preferences at elite colleges serves as a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence, recall the quip by comedian Henny Youngman when asked “How’s your wife?” He responded with, “Compared to what?” This logic reflects a hard truth: when confronting a sizable, potentially disruptive population unable or unwilling to assimilate, a perfect solution is beyond reach. Choices are only among the lesser of evils and, to repeat, under current conditions, race-driven affirmative action is conceivably the best of the worst. A hard-headed realist would draw a parallel with how big city merchants survive by paying off the police, building and food inspectors, and the Mafia. Racial preferences are just one more item on the cost-of-doing business list–the Danegeld.

In effect, racial preferences in elite higher education (and beneficiaries includes students, professors and the diversity-managing administrators) separates the top 10% measured in cognitive ability from their more violent down market racial compatriots. While this manufactured caste-like arrangement hardly guarantees racial peace (as the black-on-white crime rate, demonstrates) but it pretty much dampens the possibility of more collective, well-organized related upheavals, the types of disturbances that truly terrify the white establishment. Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro’s left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership. Violence is now just Chicago or Baltimore-style gang-banger intra-racial mayhem or various lone-wolf criminal attacks on whites.

Posted in Asians, Blacks | Comments Off on Sacrificing Smart Asians to Keep the Racial Peace

Saturday In Charlottsville

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Paul Gottfried writes:

First of all, I find no heroes emerging from these events. The police showed no ability or perhaps no willingness to keep the two sides separated; and when they met it was inevitable that these armed partisans who hated each other’s guts would clash. Although the dismantling of Lee’s statue (in May a judge placed a six-month stay on this outrage) may have been only the pretext for obnoxious youth to raise holy Hell, the removal of Confederate statues and the renaming of parks and streets commemorating Confederate commanders is sheer lunacy. It should be opposed by all possible legal means. The NAACP and leftist cranks like Max Boot who push this agenda are the American equivalent of the Taliban. Are we supposed to do the PC cringe again when the usual pests demand that we remove the names of Jefferson, Madison and Washington from every city in this country because our country’s Founders owned slaves?

As for the bloody clash in Charlottesville, it’s impossible for me to read the account provided by neocon princeling John Podhoretz in the New York Post this morning without losing my breakfast. The villain for Podhoretz (as it always is these days when’s he’s not attacking critics of the Likud Party) is Donald Trump who refused “to denounce Nazis and white supremacists unqualifiedly and by name.” It seems that Trump had the “shamelessness” to suggest that there were two sides involved in the clash in Charlottesville. (Donald Trump has since unloaded all his fire on Pod’s target.) The anti-fascist and BLM protestors, according to Podhoretz’s doctored narrative, were merely “responding” to hate; and the president whom Podhoretz wouldn’t back against Hillary and whom he continues to denounce “refused to name the evil in our midst,” thereby showing “the behavior of a man whose moral sense is stunted.” On Saturday evening, Fox-news offered an interview by Julie Banderas of a Weekly Standard senior editor who scolded Trump for not treating the Altright in the same denunciatory manner as ISIS. Both, according to Ms. Torrance, were equally dangerous terrorist organizations…

Finally I would observe as a representative of the independent Right that Richard Spencer and his friends did us a horrible disservice by contributing to the confrontation that took place on Saturday. Much of what Richard and other members of the Altright say about the growing indistinguishability of our authorized Right and authorized Left is entirely on the mark. But the way to combat this deplorable situation is not to team up with Nazis and encourage demonstrators to come armed to Charlottesville to protest the leftist Taliban. One has to create a counter-media to what our shared enemies have done and be willing to accept decent people, whatever their race, to combat left-wing totalitarians and fake conservative enablers.

The war for civilization is almost entirely between groups of whites, in fact mostly white Christians. The white Left has drawn in other groups, but mostly as auxiliary forces. The same battle would be going on, as it has been in much of Europe, if we were only dealing with white opponents. None of the multiculturalists I have known has been black; and calling white multicultural fanatics “race traitors” is a gross oversimplification because the object of leftist hate goes well beyond their own racial group. It now includes all normal people who have not been reconstructed by the managerial therapeutic state or are fighting the scourge of Political Correctness. At the very least, Richard and his comrades have diverted us from this fight and compounded this injury by playing a role in the violence that should not have occurred.

I can’t help asking this rhetorical question, at least parenthetically at the end. According to white nationalist protocol, am I supposed to ally with white cultural leftists against the very black African Cardinal Robert Sarah, who spoke yesterday in Brittany? The good cardinal affirmed his reverence for the Vendean martyrs who fought for their king and church against the evil French Revolution. Needless to say the ideology that Cardinal Sarah decried was far less radically leftist than what our fake conservatives proclaim as their global democratic agenda. The struggle to restore a decent society that we’re in cannot and should not be reduced to racial differences.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Saturday In Charlottsville

The Greatest Sins Of The West

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* In reality, the greatest sins of those who built America, and frankly the greatest sins of the West, have been kindness and generosity. These are great virtues, and among our greatest strengths when extended to ourselves. They create high trust, low crime, low corruption societies, where people watch out for one another, help each other through hardships and the cream can rise to the top. But it is ruthless exploited by people from everywhere else, who view it not as virtue, but view it the same way a thief views a home where the people don’t lock their doors.

People in other parts of the world aren’t dealing with this BS because they never had their others to deal with. When they conquered others, the others either were subsumed inside the dominant people completely, or they were annihilated. Needless to say, these people wouldn’t think of letting in the ‘wretched refuse’ of other lands come and suckle off their generosity, spit on their ancestors, and talk about and act in ways to wipe out the majority.

* Nassim Taleb recounts the old Levantine saying, in Antifragile: the man who has no past has no future. I mentioned this to an Israeli friend, and he told me the Israeli version: “a tree without roots cannot grow.”

* I think the best explanation for the present America-hate is the one given by Nietzsche — it’s the politics of ressentiment, or resentment.

Nietzsche drew a distinction between “master-morality” and “slave-morality.” “A living thing,” wrote Nietzsche, “seeks to exert its strength.” People of superior intellect, strength, creativity and willpower create nations and make history. They define morality in their own image, for they are the masters.

The weak, the stupid, and the losers embrace slave morality — that is, they resent and object to anything that the masters create. It is based upon envy and the knowledge that they are inferior.

Nietzsche argued that Jews and feminists were the primary transmitters of slave morality. The only way they could exert power was to gin up resentment, envy and hate to bring down the intelligent, the creative, and the powerful.

And that’s EXACTLY what we see happening today. Who are the “antifa,” tearing down statues of great men, but a collection of self-loathing freaks? Fat, tattooed women with purple hair, “transgenders,” 80-IQ blacks, scrawny beta-cucks and gays, and neckbeards with dark-rimmed “smart” glasses on college campuses. They’re incited by the ideas of Jewish Frankfurt School academics and Jewish feminists like Susan Sontag and Shulamith Firestone, which are now 100% mainstream in intellectual circles. They hate America and hate its Founders because they every time they look in the mirror know damn well they are incapable of matching up to a Jefferson, a Washington, a Lee, an Edison, a Ford, a Carnegie, a Wright or a Yeager.

The hatred is based on envy and the knowledge of one’s inferiority when standing in the shadows of giants.

* The bastards now attacking my ancestors are going to be removed from the United States. There is no other way. God bless all who will defend their ancestors when Civil War II fully breaks out.

Some Jews are great. Stephen Miller and Mickey Kaus and Ron Unz come to mind. Some Jews are ungrateful to the Angles, Saxons, Normans, Celts and others who created and maintained the British Empire, the American Empire and the Anglosphere. The corporate media is to a large extent controlled by Jews. The corporate media is the power in the United States that constantly attacks the Founding Fathers and other founding stock Americans. The Jews who control the corporate media bit off more than they can chew when they picked a fight with the Anglo-Celts in the South.

Who controls the corporate media in the United States is a question of national security and civilizational survival. Americans of European Christian ancestry can no longer allow non-Europeans or non-Christians to own and control the corporate media in the United States. We did not ask for this civil war, but it is upon us.

* Hitler and most of the Nazi high command were really passionate about Native American rights. Even going so far to draw up tentative plans to return large chunks of North America to the indigenous people.

* At some point, you need to decide whether your are for Western Civilization or against it. I can’t speak for everyone obviously, but I’m happy to join with anyone who genuinely wants to help save our history and culture regardless of their religious background or ethnicity.

But if you can only think “Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, what about the Jews? ” then what help are you? There is something much larger here than feeling insulted when someone points out the truth about Jewish culture.

* For more than a week we had a growing anti-SJW momentum in popular culture with Damore’s memo. The facts were perfect and on our side, and we had a likable face the normies could identify with, and a dislikable enemy in Apu Pikachu and the blue haired “that’s not funny!” harpies.

Then our friends Richard Spencer and DailyStormer did them a solid and changed the topic to “Violent Nazi Mobs: Yea or Nay?”

* In many ways, the current moral panic over Trump declaring that both sides were violent in Charlottesville is identical to that over saying “All Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter”.

Under current religious rules, it’s blasphemous to suggest that there’s any parity between the concerns of one side and those of the other. There is only one evil, “Othering”, and only one good, the extermination of “Othering”.

* Let me use a parable, since you are from San Fran and I was once a native too. After many bitter harvests since moving to California, the Giants had the best run of fortune of any MLB team this century, winning 3 World Series in 4 years. Yet whenever I hung out on a Giants fan message board, all the weak-kneed, no-heart fans there could go on about was how stressful winning it all was, and how their delicate little systems could not stomach anything less a 4-consecutive blowout Giants sweep. And if I am truly honest with myself, I was not much better than those fans.

The point being, that if Trump has not improved you as a man, you really have not been paying attention. Trump pulled off the greatest upset in Presidential history, yet to road to the White House was anything but smooth, orderly, and dignified. And if we have any hope of saving this country and its traditions we have to learn the have the self-confidence, thick skin, and will of Trump, and not be afraid to look boorish, loud-mouthed, and uncouth sometimes, or succumb to the urge to run to the nearest corner to curl up and die the next time we are ‘embarrassed’. A regular gentleman, polished, nice paleocon would have died the death of a thousand comedy-news snarks by now. Trump is out there fighting the good fight and he is doing it completely alone. Truly the most Olympian figure of our age.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on The Greatest Sins Of The West

Random Thoughts On Charlottsville

Posted on August 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

* The news coverage of the Charlottsville rally showed zero criticism of violent communists.

* The news coverage of Charlottsville this weekend showed zero empathy for whites who want to preserve their heritage. Zero.

* If the cops had done that to Jewish protesters – funneled to violent protesters for a beating – Jewish orgs would have all called it a pogrom.

* “The mere fact that not even a shot was fired by one of the myriad of gun carrying rightists is a miracle in itself. Astounding self control.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Random Thoughts On Charlottsville

President Trump Argues Over Charlottesville, Race Relations in Heated Press Conference | NBC News

Posted on August 15, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Trump was spot on. That was a beautiful press conference. I love that he gave those media thugs a piece of his mind. Our mainstream journalists have not one shred of credibility left, they are blinded by hate and their ideology and see no wrong in reporting half truths or outright lies.

It’s come down to this: only the left has the right to protest, no one else does. Any other group who tries to protest will get shouted down, clubbed, pushed, beaten. Is this still a free country?

What kind of people wear masks to a protest? Why do they need them? Those Antifa thugs wear masks and bring clubs to every “peaceful” protest. Add to them the BLM racist thugs, and you always know how things will end.

I don’t know why the right go out to march or protest, it just gives these leftist thugs more opportunities to incite violence. Let them go own the streets and protest all they want, all they’ll do is turn more people off. Let these Antifa/BLM thugs protest, they’ll get bored eventually, meanwhile, we vote!

* I thought that Trump’s press conference was utterly masterful — and entirely truthful. Violence (except self-defense) was explicitly disavowed by the alt-right groups who actually got a permit for the rally. And unlike Obama, who time and again sprinted to the podium to make politically-charged and racially-charged statements “without knowing all the facts,” Trump carefully examined the evidence and found that the Left was indeed inciting and committing violence.

It’s almost unreal how the mainstream press has scripted a completely false narrative and is using it to hold the President of the United States hostage. I’ve never seen anything like it… perhaps with the exception of Soviet Union, where the Official Party Narrative disseminated by Party organs like Izvestia and Pravda was frequently at odds with reality. But in the USSR, it was the government and the party were controlling the media narrative, not being assailed with it. The 6:30 national news on all major networks was so slanted against Trump’s truthful statements I was absolutely flabbergasted.

* That speech was pure Bannon. The Left is now going insane trying to deal with the term alt-left.

I admit I was opposed to that term, but I was wrong. It was a rhetorical kill shot. That said, alt-right is probably dead a brand, but that may not be a bad thing either.

* He took the media to task on the violent left, on the slippery slope of taking down statues and re-writing history, on the painting of all proud southerners with a racist brush. And it was funny as heck. I don’t know how his advisors standing next to him kept from smiling or laughing – more discipline than I have.

Posted in Alt Right, America | Comments Off on President Trump Argues Over Charlottesville, Race Relations in Heated Press Conference | NBC News