A viral video of a masked protester socking white supremacist and anti-Semite Richard Spencer in the jaw as he was being interviewed about protests at the presidential inauguration prompted an increasingly common question: when it is acceptable to use non-lethal violence against those who advocate ethnic cleansing?
It’s difficult for many to say out loud, but the violent attack against Spencer does not deserve condemnation.
Those who don’t underestimate the violent nature of white supremacy see these acts of intimidation—including the attack on Spencer—as self-defense.
Spencer advocates a white nationalism masquerading as nonviolent, despite his followers’ clearly apocalyptic fantasy language. His movement spurred an on-again-off-again-maybe-on-again armed march by Neo-Nazis against Jews in his hometown of Whitefish, Montana. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a spike in racist incidents following Donald Trump’s election, including several dozen bomb threats against Jewish community centers. Even if Spencer maintains he wants a nonviolent sorting of the races, many of his rabid followers are having none of it, and he’s canny enough to know it. Up until months ago, it seemed that the alt-right might be extreme and reprehensible, but still operating under free speech. But when a movement becomes so inherently racist and violent, we must judge the attack on Spencer in the right context.
So if people take offense at Ari’s views justifying the violence against Spencer, I am sure he’ll be fine if they beat him up.
Posted inRichard Spencer|Comments Off on Ari Paul: ‘Do Punch Nazis: Richard Spencer Attack Was Self-Defense’
That’s why Jewish country clubs were famous for immediately letting in lots of Italians, Poles, French Canadians, blacks, Japanese, Mexicans, American Indians and all the other people discriminated against by WASP country clubs. For example … well … hmhhhmmhmm … actually I can’t think of any examples.
Oh, wait: here’s an example: Hillcrest, the Hollywood moguls’ country club, let in Danny Thomas, when he was one of the top television stars and most admired philanthropists in the country, after only about 30 or 35 years of being 100% Jewish.
Or here’s another example of the open-armed love of diversity for which Jewish country clubs were so famous: After WWII, the German Jewish Century Club in Westchester County started letting in Russian Jews after merely a couple of generations of blackballing every single one of them who tried to sneak in.
You almost might think from the historical record that Jews kind of liked having their own country clubs, just like the WASPs liked having their own.
But, of course, no, it couldn’t possibly be true that Jews tend to be kind of like everybody else when it comes to being somewhat ethnocentric. It’s unthinkable that rich golfing Jews ever had any agency.
* One need not have seen this article to know how it was going to turn out. The mere fact, that there was some public noise about the situation meant that these guys were going to get some serious, mounting pressure from other Jews to admit Obama. Failure to admit Obama would draw some *very* unwanted attention to the membership policies of Jewish clubs, which further rubs right up against the issue of Jewish behavior, ethnocentrism and the very nature of Judaism.
Maintaining fictions–gentiles discriminate, we Jews welcome integration; Jews are progressive, open, non-discriminatory–and keeping gentiles from thinking very hard about Jewish behavior–hey, now how come Jews get to discriminate? how come Jews get to be tribal and ethnocentric? but all that is racist for white Christians?–is way more important than settling some petty meaningless score over UN votes on Israel.
Posted inJews|Comments Off on Crisis Averted: Obama Finally de-blackballed by Jewish Country Club
Comment: It turned out to be a bunch of well-fed white women wearing $150 running shoes and holding $500 cell phones, with more life options than they know what to do with.
Practically speaking, there are no more rights left to give women. So when they find out that all jobs frankly kind of suck, everybody forms hierarchies, everybody has to compete, and successful men don’t enjoy their company, what then? Answer: find a lightning rod for all your inchoate rage about your sucky life and go on a stupid, pointless march.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on The Menopause March
Comment: FBI should have spilled the beans on King and spared us the BS aura around King.
If the dirty secrets on King had been released, two things could have happened, both better than what followed.
1. Fall of King, seen by the public as a degenerate and hypocrite. After all, King didn’t just lead a movement but postured as a saint-prophet. He was acting all holy-shmoly and was full of himself. This was all BS as he was a loutish punk in real life. The problem is less King as a political figure(as black demands during the Civil Rights Era were sound and legit by the rules of US Constitution) than as a ‘spiritual’ figure whose utopian ‘dream’ is something we should atone for and aspire to. But how did King live out this ‘dream’? He cheated, had drunken orgies, and acted like Snoopy Dog Doggy in GIRLS GONE WILD videos. The only reason he went to the mountaintop was to bang some ho’s.
2. King would have survived the scandal but would have led as a political operator than as some holier-than-thou prophet of the hour. That would have been better because Race Relations were far more complicated than a case of ‘bad racist whites’ oppressing ‘good peace-loving blacks marching with King’. While it’s true that American Society withheld full equality to blacks, the reasons on the white side were compelling: Social equality with blacks would lead to biological inequality whereby stronger and more aggressive blacks would bully, attack, rob, assault, rape, and murder whites. So, BOTH sides had legit reasons in the racial conflict. In a law, Segregation was social compensation for the the fact that evolution made blacks the stronger and more aggressive race. Segregation was Compensatory Parity. If whites are deficient in physical power to defend themselves from blacks, then they need social and legal compensation to provide them with extra security against tough-n-rough Negroes. It’s like NY has Stop-and-Frisk and spends lots of money to keep the Negroes down. Financial power offers Compensatory Parity for Jews and whites in NY against angry and vicious Negroes who tore that city apart in the 70s and 80s.
If King had been a political leader with real demands(without all that pompous holy talk), the issues might have been handled more honestly, and a sounder deal might have been struck between whites and blacks.
But the holy aura around King disseminated the BS that all these peace-loving blacks were demanding a bit of justice under the leadership of messiah King.
One good thing about Malcolm X was he was willing to put all the cards on the table and talk honestly about the problems between whites and blacks. He was angry(understandable) but also forthright. In contrast, MLK was always a sermonizing punk who was so full of hisself.
We need to deal with the Real Negro, not the Magic Negro. King-ism mucked up race relations with the sacralization of the Negro. We can’t think back to the Civil Rights Era with a clear mind because of the Cult of King. It’s like Christians cannot think clearly about the story of Jesus since He is seen as Son of God. King has been made into some kind of holy figure in American mythos, but he was just some punkass mofo.
If King had been exposed as a ‘gangsta’, he might have led a movement as a hard-nosed political figure than a holier-than-thou pompousard. And there would have been less quasi-spiritual BS associated with wild-ass Negroes.
His message would have been, “My folks want a piece of the pie, honkey!! So, what you gonna give us, and then we can talk some more, honkey.”
If King had come down to ground and acted more like George Jefferson, then racial relations and politics would have had more clarity, honesty, and sense.
Maybe we should blot out King from all history books and documentaries and replace him with George Jefferson. Instead of all that pompous talk, it will have Jefferson giving us some straight talk.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Would Buzzfeed Have Published the Martin Luther King Sex Tape?
How often did the New York Times and other media accuse Barack Obama in news stories of repeating lies and falsehoods? I don’t remember the MSM doing this to any other politician with the regularity it does it to Trump.
An opening montage of news reports contains several references to Mr. Trump’s unpredictability, and the message of “Trump’s Road” is that his combination of improvisation and obsession makes it impossible for traditional methods of reporting to deal with him. We’re now seeing the news media’s delayed reaction to that, as mainstream outlets (including The New York Times) attack the truth of his and his minions’ statements in an unprecedentedly aggressive fashion.
WaPo: “A journalist had misreported that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office.”
So when Trump gets his facts wrong, he lies, but when journalists do, they “misreport.” Got it.
Posted inJournalism|Comments Off on NYT: ‘Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers’
A few years ago, my work on white supremacy led me to the neo-Nazi tract The New Order, which proclaims: “The single serious enemy facing the white man is the Jew.” I must have read that statement a dozen times. Until then, I hadn’t thought of myself as the enemy.
Women tend to take things personally.
She never considered that different groups have different interests? She thought every group would think of Jews as friends? What about the Palestinians who were displaced by the Jewish state of Israel? Did she ever think that they might consider Jews as enemies? In a Darwinian world, life is a struggle to survive.
Around 1995, in his first lecture on the Book of Exodus as part of his 18-year project to teach the Torah verse by verse, Dennis Prager said: “The Jewish dream is that the world not be based on blood ties. It is the only dream ultimately that will save humanity given the horrors of blood historically. Blood beliefs are the greatest source of cruelty in history because if you are not my blood, you are not valuable. That’s how people have lived.”
“The reason that Hitler so hated the Jews was a belief in blood. The Jews are the world’s polluters of blood purity. If you are into the purity of blood, the Jews are your quintessential enemy because wherever the Jews are, they assimilate in part and stay Jewish in part. They are part of you but not fully part of you because of their blood. If they fully assimilate, they are still dangerous… The assimilated Jew was the ultimate polluter of German purity. If you believe in the purity of the nation, the Jews are the quintessence of opposition to you.”
“The only nation to keep its identity and still be all over was the Jews.”
“He [Pharoah] doesn’t like that the Jews are all over Egypt, maintaining their identity but also a part of Egyptian life. He was interested in blood purity.”
And yet Jews are genetically distinct from non-Jews. So it seems that while Jews, according to Prager, are the enemies of blood purity, within their own kind, they value blood purity. In other words, they, according to Prager and Ferber, seek the opposite for the goyim than what they seek for themselves. They seek cohesion for me, multi-culturalism for thee.
When I began my research for a book on race, gender, and white supremacy, I could not understand why white supremacists so feared and hated Jews. But after being immersed in newsletters and periodicals for months, I learned that white supremacists imagine Jews as the masterminds behind a great plot to mix races and, thereby, to wipe the white race out of existence.
So she learned that what Prager said — “The Jews are the world’s polluters of blood purity.” She learned that some non-Jews value blood purity as much as Jews do!
The identity of white supremacists, and the white racial purity they espouse, requires the maintenance of secure boundaries. For that reason, the literature I read described interracial sex as “the ultimate abomination.” White supremacists see Jews as threats to racial purity, the villains responsible for desegregation, integration, the civil-rights movement, the women’s movement, and affirmative action — each depicted as eventually leading white women into the beds of black men. Jews are believed to be in control everywhere, staging a multipronged attack against the white race. For WAR, the newsletter of White Aryan Resistance, the Jew “promotes a thousand social ills … [f]or which you’ll have to foot the bills.”
Are there any groups that don’t value secure boundaries? Former Vice-President Joseph Biden seemed to have a similar view of Jews to the white supremacists Ferber read. Jennifer Epstein reported for Politico May 21, 2013:
Vice President Joe Biden spoke at length Tuesday night about the influence of Judaism on the United States, dating back to the country’s founding and to the present day as Jews helped shape views on gay rights.
“The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it’s fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage,” he said. “The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you.”
“You make up 11 percent of the seats in the United States Congress. You make up one-third of all Nobel laureates,” he said. “So many notions that are embraced by this nation that particularly emanate from over 5,000 years of Jewish history, tradition and culture: independence, individualism, fairness, decency, justice, charity. These are all as you say, as I learned early on as a Catholic being educated by my friends, this tzedakah.”
“The embrace of immigration” is part of that, as is the involvement of Jews in social justice movements.
“You can’t talk about the civil rights movement in this country without talking about Jewish freedom riders and Jack Greenberg,” he said, telling a story about seeing a group of Jewish activists at a segregated movie theater in Delaware. “You can’t talk about the women’s movement without talking about Betty Friedan” or American advances in science and technology without mentioning Einstein and Carl Sagan, or music and Gershwin, Bob Dylan and “so, so, so many other people.”
“I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he said. That’s why he spoke out on gay marriage “apparently a little ahead of time.”
“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage,” Biden said.
“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good,” he said.
Jews have also been key to the evolution of American jurisprudence, he continued, namedropping Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan. “You literally can’t. You can’t talk about the recognition of … rights in the Constitution without looking at these incredible jurists that we’ve had.”
“Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that’s a fact,” he said.
“We talk about it in terms of the incredible accomplishments and contributions” of Jews in America,” Biden added, “but it’s deeper “because the values, the values are so deep and so engrained in American culture, in our Constitution.”
“So I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation. We owe you, we owe generations who came before you,” he said.
Ferber writes:
Reading white-supremacist literature is a profoundly disturbing experience, and even more difficult if you are one of those targeted for elimination. Yet, as a Jewish woman, I found my research to be unsettling in unexpected ways. I had not imagined that it would involve so much self-reflection. I knew white supremacists were vehemently anti-Semitic, but I was ambivalent about my Jewish identity and did not see it as essential to who I was…
I am reminded that my ancestors were expelled from the dominant race, persecuted, and even killed.
Could you not make at least as strong a case that Jews have always seen themselves as a people who shall dwell alone? Were they expelled or did they choose to isolate themselves and their gene pool?
Speaking out against the high rates of intermarriage among Jews and non-Jews, [Orthodox Jewish leaders] issue dire warnings. Like white supremacists, they fear assaults on the integrity of the community and fight to secure its racial boundaries, defining Jewishness as biological and restricting it only to those with Jewish mothers. For both white supremacists and such Orthodox Jews, intermarriage is tantamount genocide.
Posted inAlt Right, America, Jews, Nationalism|Comments Off on What White Supremacists Taught A Torah Scholar About Identity
Donald J. Trump campaigned as a populist rather than as a conservative, and won in the face of hostility from the conservative movement and Republican leadership. For all his faults, Mr. Trump recognized that the Republican path to the presidency was incompatible with many conservative shibboleths.
As the new leader of his party, Mr. Trump has the opportunity to change its ideological orientation. He should seize it.
If Mr. Trump makes peace with mainstream conservatives and defers to the likes of the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, by backing upper-class tax cuts, economic deregulation and reduced entitlement spending, he will be a failed president, and the energized voters who sent him to the White House will feel justifiably betrayed.
During the campaign, Mr. Trump threw out the traditional conservative playbook. He appealed directly to the demographic that, in the mid-1970s, the sociologist Donald Warren called “Middle American Radicals.” These voters are not persuaded by tropes about limited government, but they have little interest in the Democratic Party’s cosmopolitan egalitarianism. They identify with neither Wall Street nor Occupy Wall Street. They are frightened by the prospect of privatized Social Security, but roll their eyes at the far left. They are not against government; they want a government that works for their specific interests.
Yet the Republican Congress appears ready to disregard the voting bloc that has handed it power. Instead of secure Medicare and building projects, Mr. Trump’s supporters may end up with fewer banking regulations — which they never cared about. If Republicans push for a traditional conservative agenda, and Mr. Trump acquiesces, many of the Middle American Radicals will not turn out for them in 2018 or 2020.
This group has made political waves before, filling the ranks of Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” and serving as Ross Perot’s base in 1992 and Pat Buchanan’s during his failed presidential campaigns in ’92 and ’96. Since that time, and especially since 2008, both parties ignored the Middle American Radicals, and it showed in their declining turnout rates.
Mr. Trump brought them back into the Republican coalition without suffering significant losses among ideological conservatives. He did not even underperform compared to recent Republican nominees among minority voters.
The conservative movement — the constellation of institutions, journalists, intellectuals and politicians who stand for limited government, traditional family values and a strong national defense — has dominated the Republican Party for a generation. But as Mr. Trump’s rise suggests, mainstream conservatism is a failed movement that has little to offer 21st-century America.
Steven Sugarman, the chief executive of fast-growing Irvine lender Banc of California, resigned on Monday, the same day the bank announced it is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The bank offered no explanation for Sugarman’s resignation but the move, and the SEC investigation, appear to be continued fallout from questions about insider relationships at the bank and connections between bank insiders and a convicted fraudster.
In an early morning announcement, the bank said that Sugarman, a board member since 2010 and chief executive since 2012, had resigned as chairman and CEO. In a separate announcement, the bank acknowledged it has received a formal investigative order and a subpoena from the SEC.
The bank said the subpoena demands information related to an October press release in which Banc of California laid out its response to a blogger’s allegations that the bank was connected to and possibly controlled by Jason Galanis, an L.A. financier who pleaded guilty to securities fraud charges over the summer.
Posted inCalifornia|Comments Off on Banc of California chief resigns amid SEC inquiry
“The ‘alt-right’ or ‘alternative right’ is a name currently embraced by many white nationalists, neo-Nazis and so called ‘race-realists’ along with a number of other groups in a coalition of the far right. Their ideology emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order,” according to the Associated Press definition.
While nationalists promise anti-immigration policies and protectionist economic measures as a boon to their country’s citizens, relying to various degrees on racial and ethnic undertones to make their case, the alt-right dispenses with citizenship altogether and appeals directly to racial identity.
The alt-right’s love of Europeanism blends racial politics with a quasi-religious faith in a pan-European identity. You can hear this clearly when one of the movement’s leading voices, the white nationalist Richard Spencer, praises Trump as the first politician “who’s fighting for European identity politics in North America.”
Posted inAlt Right, Europe|Comments Off on European roots of Trump’s ‘America First’
"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)
