November 18, 2016 Frontpagemag: ‘Inventor of term “Alt Right” explains why Bannon critics are full of hot air’ Luke Ford No sacred cows.

I’m beginning this commentary on the recent assaults on Steve Bannon by quoting my response to questions that a CNN-Digital reporter asked me concerning President-elect Trump’s friend and adviser:

“There’s no indication that Steve Bannon, the Breitbart executive and Donald Trump adviser, who has been characterized as a white nationalist, is a racist or anti-Semite. Bannon is not a white identitarian or race realist. He comes from the world of Washington politics and journalism, not white identity politics. Although I don’t know the man, I doubt Bannon hangs out with people who burn crosses on other people’s lawns.”

I expressed this view, more or less, not only to CNN-Digital. I also expressed it in a phone-call marathon to representatives of a Danish daily and the Jewish Forward and, in an hour and a half German conversation, with an editor of the German conservative weekly Junge Freiheit. In all these exchanges I had to answer the question of whether Steve Bannon was in fact an anti-Semite and racist, a judgment that was coming from, among others, such exemplary American “conservatives” as Glenn Beck, Jonah Goldberg, and writers for the Wall Street Journal. I was also asked whether as the co-inventor of the term “Alternative Right,” which has now been shortened to “Altright,” I could tell if Bannon, who likes the term in question, enjoys the company of “white nationalists.”

I tried to explain that the exceedingly elastic term “Altright” has been claimed by a number of groups that belong to the non-establishment Right. All those on the Right who are at war with the GOP establishment and neoconservative politics and who are combatting PC with particular ferocity have embraced the designation “Altright.” This is especially true of Millennials who scorn establishmentarian positions. But it’s not at all clear to me that those who write for Bannon’s website publication, some of whom are Orthodox Jews, have much to do with white identitarians who also use the term “Altright.” I would doubt that these writers go out to drink with the Philonazi blogger Matt Heimbach, who also claims the Altright moniker.

Like David Horowitz, David Goldman, Rudolf Giuliani, and dozens of other commentators, I find the charges leveled against Bannon to be outrageous slander. I am also horrified by the double standard in play when Bannon, who may or may not have complained to a now divorced wife about Jewish students in a private school, is depicted as the reincarnation of Hitler. At the same time, attacks on Jews or other ethnic groups coming from the Left are given short shrift by the media.

Disparaging descriptions of blacks, Latinos, and Catholics that have emanated from Hillary’s staff (and which have been revealed by Wikileak) occasioned a yawn from the mass media here and in Europe. And so has Hillary’s hateful obscenity about her husband’s Jewish campaign manager, which has never received the same critical scrutiny as Steve Bannon’s totally fictitious anti-Semitism and racism. What would happen to Bannon’s or any Republican’s career if, like Hillary, he referred to someone as a “f-cking Jew bastard”? Presumably that person would not be the darling of the media establishment and the presidential candidate of George H.W. Bush, Robert Kagan, Max Boot and Alan Dershowitz.

I intend to raise these questions the next time someone calls on me as an expert on the Altright who can document Steve Bannon’s possible connection to neo-Nazi websites. Perhaps the interviewers would be interested in knowing what Hillary and John Podesta said about certain groups. Even more relevant, they might want me to explain how it came to pass that the Democratic National Committee is about to nominate as its new director Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim convert and close friend of Louis Farrakhan. Ellison is entirely explicit in his anti-white and anti-Jewish views and unlike Bannon, does not require reinvention to be turned into what he’s not. The fact that Ellison is heartily endorsed by such presumed idealists as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is not likely to hurt the reputations of either social justice warrior.

Posted in Alt Right, Paul Gottfried, Steve Bannon | Comments Off

Who Should Be Secretary Of State?

Posted on November 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I’ve met a few career Foreign Service officers over the years. The one common trait seems to be a sort of problem-fixing mentality towards the world. I got the impression of a vast diplomatic force that doesn’t seek to secure our interest, smooth any ruffles, and get the hell away from the rest of the world, but rather, looks for nails to hammer down, things to rearrange better, and in general, schemes to embark on.

* Trump’s relationship with the #NeverTrump wing of the GOP should be cordial but distant. Mitt Romney, John Kasich, John McCain, and the Bushes should be on the sidelines and grateful for the opportunity to be there because he could and should just exile them from the party instead. Trump doesn’t need them and as it turns out, neither does the GOP. They’re from a bygone era of the GOP that the public entrusts Trump to move on from, which I believe he will, even if there are a few neocons in his cabinet.

It’s up to us to begin building up Trump Republicans/paleocons who have the experience and connections necessary to fill these prominent roles when they are needed to.

Posted in America | Comments Off

More Hysteria: ‘It is happening here’

Posted on November 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Joel Bellman writes: “As shocking as it still seems to me now, we are facing the imminence of President Donald Trump, the candidate who vowed to crack down on our free press, encouraged violence against protesters at his rallies, emboldened racists and bigots and personally recirculated some of their propaganda, defended the use of torture, promised if elected to deport millions of residents and bar entry on religious grounds to thousands more, and vowed to prosecute and jail his political opponent.

“It no longer seems such a stretch to believe that it is happening here.”

If Joel Bellman really believes that, then why is he still residing in the United States? Of course he doesn’t mean it. He just slings nasty slurs out of habit.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off

LAT: Publishers are reeling from Trump’s win, but the news is not all bad

Posted on November 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Los Angeles Times: The morning after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Paul Bogaards awoke with “a feeling of despair and dread or worse.” The director of public relations at Knopf Doubleday emailed that to his staff; he also told them that if they needed to they could take the day off, but that he was going to work that day…

Bogaards’ message about the power of books was meant to fend off a sense of foreboding widely shared in New York literary and publishing circles. By and large, people in publishing had expected Hillary Clinton to win the presidency. Mainstream publishing “exists in a bubble, in the same way that the media exists in a bubble,” Bogaards told The Times.

“We are, for the most part, a bastion of the liberal elite,” he added ruefully. That Donald Trump will be president of the United States has shaken that community to the core…

“Pretty grim,” is how Dayna Tortorici, co-editor of the small leftist intellectual magazine n+1, described the mood in its offices in Brooklyn. “We’re still reeling.” n+1 had been in the middle of closing an issue when the results came in late on Nov. 8 — and stopped. Several articles in the issue were predicated on the expectation of a Clinton presidency.

Posted in America, Books | Comments Off

Left-Wing Jews Are Embarrassing Judaism

Posted on November 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Dennis Prager writes:

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Jews and their clergy at various synagogues around America were gathering to sit shiva — the Hebrew and Jewish term for the seven-day period of grieving that Jews engage in after the loss of an immediate relative — because Donald Trump was elected president.
Consider for a moment how childish and narcissistic this is, using the sacred ritual reserved for the death of one’s child or parent as a way to express disappointment over a presidential election.
And of course, there were the irresponsible, over-the-top outbursts by Jewish columnists and academics. Take Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who devoted his column after the election to writing an open letter to his 12-year-old daughter.
“As I watched the returns at Donald Trump’s celebration here Tuesday night,” Milbank began, “the hardest part was trying to reassure my seventh-grade daughter at home, via phone and text, that she would be okay.
“She had expected to be celebrating the election of the first female president, but instead, this man she had been reading and hearing horrible things about had won.”
The man’s 12-year-old daughter “feared her own world could come apart” because of the election result. He reassured her, however, that her world would be fine, especially since she would be receiving so much love at her upcoming bat mitzvah.
Milbank’s daughter’s trauma was more than matched by the reaction of a Jewish adult, Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine. On Nov. 8, he tweeted, “This is the worst thing that has happened in my life.”
Chait was 31 years old on 9/11.
A response to his tweet by a woman named Bethany S. Mandel pretty well summarized the maturity level of Chait’s comment. She said: “I took my mom off life support at 16 & dad hanged himself 3 yrs later. I’m sorry this election was so hard for you.”
I am sure Ms. Mandel would join me in paying Mr. Chait a shiva call.
Speaking of 9/11, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said on Bill Maher’s show that Trump’s victory is “a moral 9/11.” He suggested that Trump becoming president might be worse than 9/11, for 9/11 happened to us, but “we did this to ourselves.”
Paul Krugman, Friedman’s colleague at The New York Times, wrote that he now realizes that he “truly didn’t understand the country we live in.” Never have truer words been written. It’s tough to understand those for whom you only have contempt.
Add similar comments made during the election by other Jewish leftists in the media and academia, and you get the picture.
How are we to understand this?
Here’s one explanation: When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx — the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis — and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.
If left-wing Jews want to sit shiva, they should do so for their religion, which, like much of Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism, has been so deeply and negatively influenced by leftism.

Posted in Dennis Prager, Jews | Comments Off

LAT: Banc of California to review alleged ties to fraudster after investor’s demand

Posted on November 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

When a Bank is called Banc, it is usually a division of the original Bank, and often the persons in control want it for their own sketchy investments, but it is a weird business and it is always amazing how someone as known as Jason Galanis could get what he did.

I find it interesting that Barry Minkow is one guy exposing this. I am not so sure about his rehabilitation either. The Times writer (Lobel?) who originally teamed with him to expose scams quit after it became clear to him that Minkow was using his position to make money by shorting stocks and then publishing negative information about them.

Los Angeles Times:

Banc of California, a fast-growing Irvine lender that’s been rocked by allegations that it is connected to a convicted con artist, has started an investigation into those claims for the second time.
This time the bank has hired an outside firm, a move likely aimed at appeasing a major shareholder who argued a previous investigation into allegations of connections between Banc of California insiders and fraudster Jason Galanis was handled by a law firm that was too cozy with the bank and its executives….
Banc of California has been dogged over the last two months by allegations of connections to Galanis, including what Lashley described as “a significant amount of interconnectedness” between Galanis — who this summer pleaded guilty to securities fraud charges — and bank insiders or their family members, including Jason Sugarman, an advisor to the bank and the brother of its chief executive, Steven Sugarman.
Some of those connections were raised in a Sept. 7 Bloomberg story following the bank’s announcement that it would pay a reported $100 million for the naming rights to the soccer stadium being built by new Major League Soccer team L.A. Football Club — a team owned, in part, by Jason Sugarman.
Banc of California’s stock started sliding after that story, then cratered when an anonymous short-seller — an investor who has bet against the bank — wrote a post on a financial blog alleging connections and outlining them in detail, concluding that Galanis had gained control of the bank. Lashley said he does not agree with that conclusion, and the bank has denied the short-seller’s claim.

BARRY MINKOW OCT. 26, 2016:

Aurelius recently exposed purported ties between Banc of California and Jason Galanis, a convicted fraudster who, along with his family members and acquaintances, has been tied to numerous stock frauds over the past few years (find the Gerova conviction here, the Penthouse settlement here, and the current Tribal Bond allegation here). The connections between BANC management and Galanis caused a massive collapse (almost 30%) in BANC’s stock price, which speaks to how much fear the market has when it comes to paper-trail connections between Galanis (a serial fraudster) and public companies. I too have been researching Jason Galanis as his name recently came up in a loan that I was researching regarding BofI Holding (NASDAQ:BOFI).
In this report, I will show a series of connections between BOFI and Jason Galanis that I believe date all the way back to the original Gerova fraud (2010), and carry on as recently as 2015 as a result of BOFI’s involvement in a $7 million loan to Jason Galanis (now delinquent and the subject of messy foreclosure proceedings that involve the Department of Justice). Investors ought to ask/wonder how this loan is being reflected on BOFI’s balance sheet and/or if management will speak to said Galanis ties during the next earnings call.

May 12, 2016: Jason Galanis ‘Porn King’ of LA ‘Ripped off Impoverished Sioux Tribe In $60M Scam’

A man once dubbed ‘Porn’s New King’ was arrested in Los Angeles on Wednesday on charges he scammed a Native American tribe and others of more than $60 million.
Charges against Jason Galanis, 45, and six others were announced by US Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan. Defense lawyers did not immediately comment.
Prosecutors said Galanis, his father John ‘Yanni’ Galanis, Gary Hirst, Hugh Dunkerley, Bevan Cooney, Devon Archer and Michelle Morton lied to the Oglala Sioux tribe from March 2014 through April about how proceeds from its bonds would be invested.
They said the dealings occurred with the Wakpamni Lake Community Corp., an economic development corporation arm of the Oglala Sioux tribe of the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota.
The government alleges that Galanis and the others spent most of the proceeds on homes, cars, travel, designer clothing like Gucci, Prada, Valentino and jewelry.
It said they duped investors into buying the bonds as well. Galanis was charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud and investment adviser fraud.
‘Instead of investing the proceeds in a way that would provide capital for development and help cover the interest payments, the defendants allegedly pocketed most of it to pay for their own personal expenses,’ Bharara said in a statement.
‘The defendants’ alleged fraud has left devastation in its wake: a tribe with tens of millions in bond obligations it cannot pay, and investors out tens of millions, left holding bonds they did not want.’
Diego Rodriguez, head of New York’s FBI office, said: ‘The alleged fraudsters named in this case didn’t just see an opportunity to steal money when they thought no one was looking, they allegedly hatched a plan to scam a municipal entity from the start.
‘The most egregious fallout from this scheme is that the bondholders now hold worthless securities, and the tribe can’t make the interest payments due.’
Galanis was labeled ‘Porn’s New King’ by Forbes magazine when it reported in 2004 that he had bought the nation’s largest payment processor for Internet porn.
According to the New York Post, this is the third time in nine years that Galanis has been accused of masterminding a financial fraud scheme.
Galanis and his 73-year-old father were arrested in September and ‘charged with operating a pump-and-dump that netted them nearly $20million,’ the Post reported.
In addition, he was accused of using nearly $500,000 of the proceeds to pay for legal bills related to his pump-and-dump case.
‘The defendants also allegedly duped unwitting investors into buying the bonds by hiding material facts about them, including their lack of liquidity,’ Bharara said in a statement.
Court papers allege that the father-son-duo worked the Sioux scam prior to their arrests in September and still continued on with it after they were released on bail.
A trial for that case is scheduled for the fall of this year.

REPORT JUNE 9, 2016:

It was a headline writer’s dream: “Man once dubbed ‘Porn’s New King’ is charged in tribal fraud.” The Associated Press’s May 11 story by Larry Neumeister said six men and one woman were charged in a Southern District of Manhattan Court for defrauding an “arm of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota for over $60 million.”
Leading the alleged fraudsters, said U.S. Attorney, Preet Bharara, was Jason Galanis. Galanis earned his title as “Porn’s New King” via a March 2004 Forbes Magazine article that said he led a group of buyers for a company named Internet Billing, or iBill. Forbes reported “IBill is the largest processor of credit-card payments for the purchase of dirty digital pictures. It is literally the engine of paid Internet porn.” Forbes also reported that Jason Galanis is the “son of John Peter Galanis, the notorious white-collar crook who bilked investors of $400 million before he was thrown in prison…”

Oct. 18: Why Shares of Banc of California, Inc. Are Plunging

Banc of California may have some very troubling ties to a family known for fraud.
Jason Galanis is the son of John Galanis, whole stole millions of dollars from banks and investors in the 1970s and 1980s, and even fraudulently took control of the Columbia Federal Savings Bank.
Fraud appears to be a family business, as both men have lengthy histories of involvement in white-collar crime. The father and son duo recently plead guilty to charges stemming from their role in taking control of Gerova Financial, a reinsurance company, and later defrauding shareholders.
As recently as May, Jason and John Galanis were charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice for their involvement in a Ponzi scheme. The blog post points to evidence that the Ponzi scheme was run out of the same office building as Banc of California’s headquarters.
The post draws a number of links between Jason Galanis and Banc of California’s CEO, Steven Sugarman. Perhaps the most troubling involves an entity known as COR Capital. In 2010, COR Capital led a major investment in the bank that would become Banc of California, and Sugarman was installed as CEO. The author details evidence suggesting that Galanis controlled COR Capital, drawing a direct link between Banc of California’s CEO and a serial fraudster known for financial industry crimes.
With so many Galanis-related entities proving to be vehicles for fraud, any relationship between Banc of California and the Galanis family is cause for deep concern. The market seems to think so, too.

OCTOBER 18: BANC: Extensive Ties To Notorious Fraudster Jason Galanis Make Shares Un-Investible

In 2010, COR Capital (“COR”), an obscure investment firm most visibly known for its associations with Pink-Sheet stocks, led the recapitalization of a Los Angeles based regional bank named First Pactrust (“FPB”). In 2012, Steven Sugarman, COR’s Managing Member, became the CEO of the bank and began a “transformational” growth strategy fueled by a combination of (oftentimes related party) acquisitions and loan growth.
Growing its balance sheet by a factor of 10x and now having crossed the critical $10 Billion asset threshold, the renamed Banc of California (NYSE:BANC) has touted itself as a “community reinvestment” lender. The bank has cultivated relationships with politicians and celebrities to project an air of success and credibility as California’s Bank. Investors have increasingly adopted these promotional narratives and BANC’s shares had doubled over the past year.
The PR effort hit new highs in August when BANC agreed to pay $100 million, roughly 10% of its market cap, for soccer stadium naming rights to the LA Football Club (which just happens to be part-owned by Steven’s brother Jason Sugarman and Jason’s father-in-law Peter Guber).
With our interest piqued by yet another related party transaction, we conducted exhaustive due diligence into BANC’s leadership team, collecting tens of thousands of pages of publicly-available state, federal, and international documents. Taken together, these form to assemble one of the most ominous fact patterns we have ever seen.
Our research establishes that BANC’s senior-most officers and board members have a broad mosaic of extensive and indisputable ties to Jason Galanis. We believe this introduces a significant un-discounted risk that notorious criminals gained control over the $10 Billion taxpayer guaranteed Banc of California.
Jason Galanis and his infamous father, John Galanis, have a long history of secretly gaining control of banks and public companies via front men, looting assets, and leaving unsuspecting investors and taxpayers with hundreds of millions in losses. The mere presence of a bank leadership team associated with Galanis should send diligent investors running for the hills.
We see striking similarities between BANC and Gerova Financial, a $1 Billion NYSE listed financial institution that collapsed on the revelation of Galanis’ secret control. Like BANC, Gerova’s executives had significant ties to Galanis and touted their community reinvestment efforts with politicians to establish credibility. In the end, the promotion was a diversion from a giant fraud that left investors with devastating losses.

Posted in California, Los Angeles | Comments Off

Defending Marc Gafni

Posted on November 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Kerstin Zohar Tuschik writes on FB: This is my last post for the time on this thread. I will offer several final responses.

I do not think that the smear campaign is only a function of Marc’s gifts. That is one factor. Reality is always multi-factorial. We have – with an incredible group of thinkers, scholars and teachers – engaged in a year-long process of information gathering and research at the Center. One of the things we looked at is why there is always a “group of victims.”

Sometimes it is because there is genuine predation and horrific abuse happening. After all, where there is smoke there is fire.

At other times however that is not the case. To cite one paper written at the Center, “Where there is smoke there may be fire or there may be a smoke bomb or where there is smoke there might be an ember that is fanned into a fire by a combination of malice, hidden agendas and woundology,” or a series of other dynamics.

We are well aware at the Center of who the people are, of their multi-year and at times multi-decade connection to each other that has never been exposed. We are well aware of how the layers have been added on to this anti-Gafni meme over a period of thirty years.

Memes like this are created when facts are ignored, complexity is ignored, hidden agendas abound. This is characteristic of the post-truth and post-fact era which allowed Trump to win the US election. It is also true that when perpetrators disguise themselves as victims and rescuers (as in Karpman’s triangle in psychology) what is actually driving the story is harder to see … until it is finally pointed out.

Obviously there is a group of people that are in close touch with each other, that support and mutually reinforce each other in creating what elementary cognitive psychology has long called “false pattern recognition.”

We are well aware that people from different stages of Marc’s life are connected to each other and have engaged, along with some new figures in a highly orchestrated and organized smear campaign.

That there is no seeking of restorative justice, that the language is always about intense demonization, that facts are regularly distorted, misstated or lied about, says a lot about the possible motivations at play. There are obviously not one but seven or eight major factors playing out in this smear campaign.

At the appropriate time and place I will add my voice to many who will – if it turns out to be necessary – analyze what happened and why in the public space.

For now, I will simply post a link to the facts section on Marc’s website which has a lot of really important information: http://www.marcgafni.com/resp/

Marc has for many years owned any mistake he made, and always been willing to meet and create resolution for anyone who felt hurt. Taking a mistake, then turning it into a story filled with outright lies and distortion and then making that your victim identity for decades, supported and egged on by many of the people who have attacked Marc for years, many of them key actors in the false complaints, the smear campaign and more, is to say the least not okay.

At what point does the alleged victim – telling a false story about what happened – become the abuser? Again this is precisely the dynamic described in Karpman’s victim triangle.

Marc has spent part of the last year preparing a full response with what is – if I may be blunt – devastating insight and substantive information in response to every one of the either false or highly distorted stories including some of them referenced in this thread. If he is further attacked he will respond fully. He is committed to – if necessary – breaking the silence and at the urging of many of us at the Center, sharing all of the context and all of the objective information – some of it new – that has come to us at the Center from many parties over this past year. The level of fraud that has been committed by some of the key parties, in so many different ways is astounding.

Yes, I work for the Center and that also means for and with Marc. Does that mean that what I say is somehow less trustable? I don’t think so. I honestly would say: to the contrary.

With all the material online about Marc, it is impossible for anyone to get close to him without having to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. That definitely happened to me, when I started to get involved with the Center in 2011.

I have been working with Marc Gafni on an almost daily basis for years now. And I must say that nothing I have experienced even vaguely resembles the picture of Marc that has been painted in this smear campaign or the earlier campaigns that are recycled here.

And the picture that all of us working with Marc are somehow mindless sheep that are brainwashed by him is just ridiculous. Nowhere else in the world so far have I encountered a more mindful, intelligent and loving tribe than at the Center for Integral Wisdom. Even in the midst of this attack, our only concern has been how we can respond to this with integrity, truth, and love.

There are dozens of people, all of high integrity and high discernment, working actively with Marc and the Center. I interact with them constantly. The atmosphere is clean, open and premises on radical autonomy and Unique Self integrity.

The quality of discourse in this thread however is so ridiculous that it is embarrassing and disgusting. If I ever have felt victimized by anything in relation to Marc, then it is by threads like this that are hurting my innermost sense of integrity, truth, and justice. This is why I am leaving this thread now that doesn’t even deserve to be called a conversation. Goodbye.

FORWARD: Marc Gafni Tells His Story — and Experts Respond:

Over the last year, I have been attacked in the press and on Internet blogs, falsely accused of everything from sexual harassment to plagiarism. My character and work have been demeaned. These attacks have unfolded as a series of articles reaching back to the end of 2015. I believe that these articles are the result of a highly orchestrated smear campaign.

I want to directly address a particular false story by Sara Kabakov that is being used in an attempt not only to destroy my reputation, but now has become the basis for a wider organized campaign to destroy the reputations of peers and colleagues.

The series of articles and blogs I’m referring to, particularly ones published in Jewish press, cite the alleged “molestation of Sara Kabakov, starting at age 13, by her former Rabbi and spiritual guru, Marc Gafni.” They present this claim as if it were an established and self-evident truth. It is not.

Speaking the truth about this story is not just crucial for me personally, it is also important for the evolution of public culture in the Internet age. Fact checking and fair process are at the core of democratic society. How we manage conflict tells us much about who we actually are as human beings and as a society.

Our culture must protect against all abuses of human rights and dignity. That includes racial and class-based abuse, sexual harassment and all forms of physical and emotional abuse. At the same time, we must be alert to all forms of defamation and cyberbullying in any form. Cyberbullying and false complaints create trauma, sometimes leading to suicide and always deface human dignity.

This response, which contains detailed refutations of the false and distorted claims being circulated about my actions and character, is the first in a series of articles I will be providing various media outlets who have published erroneous stories about me.

These issues have been extensively and directly addressed on the Facts page of my personal website. However, it now feels necessary to go one step farther.

What follows is my direct response to the assertions made by Sara Kabakov in her opinion piece published by the Forward on January 13, 2016. I am writing about this relationship for two important reasons. First, her story significantly distorts key details about our relationship. And secondly, as I mentioned above, her claims are being actively and intentionally used in some of the most malicious elements of the smear campaign against me.

Sara’s Forward article describes a highly distorted and often outright false narrative about our relationship from 36 years ago. In this article, Sara introduces herself as “the woman Gafni molested when she was 13 years old,”

At the time I met Sara, I was a 19-year-old boy. I was not a rabbinical student, as Sara stated in her essay. I was a college freshman, and not a rabbi, or the man who writes this response today. I have also never been a spiritual guru as Sara has labeled me. I was a teenager in a relationship with a younger teenager. Moreover, I was not then, nor am I now, a “child rapist,” “statutory rapist,” or a “pedophile,” as many have claimed through various media sources. These claims result from the ongoing recycling of falsehoods about this relationship 36 years ago.

I met Sara toward the beginning of her freshman year of high school. I was one year out of high school. Our relationship began some time later, in the early winter of 1980. Sara now says that she was 13 during the time of our relationship, but, according to what she told me then, she was 14 during the time of our relationship. Her 14th birthday was November 30. Our relationship began in December.

The first sentence of her article significantly disguises the fact that ours was a relationship between two teenagers. The portrait of me as a sexual predator is made much more credible when in her Forward article she is twice described as a 13-year old before mentioning my actual age at the time of our relationship.

Relatedly, Sara claims that when we met, “he offered to tutor me in Talmud,” a subtle distortion that sets up a formal authority relationship, which also strengthens the abuse narrative. Such a relationship never existed. It is true that we discussed the Talmud — I was an Orthodox yeshiva student, and discussing Talmud was what we did. But I was never her tutor in any sense.

Of critical importance is the fact that, 36 years ago, I hadn’t any awareness that her being a minor was an issue. We were 14 and 19 — teenagers, who had no knowledge of such things in New York, when, culturally, such topics were far less discussed than they are today. Indeed, either these words or this topic ever came up between us — not even once during the few months of our relationship. It was just not in our cultural awareness.

As a committed Orthodox boy, I was conflicted about my feelings versus following what I thought at the time was God’s law. I had strong feelings for Sara. And, at that time, she claimed to have the same feelings for me. What once was a mutual expression of teenage love has somehow, over the course of many decades, become, for Sara, a story of abuse. This is the heart of the matter.

In describing the start of our friendship, Sara states: “He proceeded to tell me how ‘special’ I was, and that he really liked me.” This is true. I was falling for her and we shared our feelings with each other directly. She then says that I suggested we “keep our friendship a secret,” and that I was “grooming [her] into being silent and fearful.” Nothing could be further from the truth of my recollection. Our friendship was not a secret, and I never suggested it be kept as such.

It’s true that, as Sara states, I stayed at her house on Shabbat, with her parents’ permission and their full knowledge. I also stayed over many times during the week, which she does not mention. Their house was like a second home for me, and I had a good relationship with her parents. Again, there was nothing secret about the fact that we were close friends or that we spent a lot of time together. We never shared that we were dating — but not because I asked Sara to keep a secret. We naturally did not share it with parents, as is the case in many teenage relationships.

So, as others have asked, was this relationship one of teenage love or abuse? I recognize that even for open-minded readers — that is, anyone who hasn’t already assumed that the story told by Sara, or the organizers of the larger smear campaign is true — this question is impossible to answer definitely. There are two opposing narratives, and there is no easy way to directly establish the veracity of either. This is why, a decade ago, the last time Sara’s claims were used to mischaracterize me, I did the only thing I could do to demonstrate that the story I am telling here is not a lie.

I took a polygraph — the results of which are available online — to affirm my claims. It was completed by Gordon H. Barland, PhD, the former director of polygraph research for the Department of Defense. I answered five questions about aspects of my relationship with Sara and the nature of our physical contact, which was nothing greater than teenage necking. The polygraph contained two questions about our mutually positive experience at the time, and three questions regarding the nature of our physical contact. No deception was indicated for my answers to all five questions. In fact, Dr. Barland assessed the probability of deception at less than .01. He concluded that I had answered each question truthfully.

Orthodox law and practice prohibits all physical contact before marriage, including even holding hands. In her article, Sara correctly says that each time we had physical contact, I would express deep remorse through an act of Teshuvah (repentance), because I knew that such contact was in violation of Jewish Orthodox law. This is true. I spoke to the man who had been my rabbi in high school the year before, and he affirmed the “absolute biblical prohibition, according to Maimonides, of any physical contact between unmarried people.” At 19, I did not know how to resolve the contradiction between our very limited contact and what I was being taught was immutable divine law.

Despite distorted details as to why Sara and I broke up according to Sara’s account, I broke up with Sara because I was committed to Orthodox law and practice which prohibited any physical contact, even holding hands, before marriage. I was internally tortured to be out of integrity with Orthodox law. As a 19-year-old Orthodox Jew, I understood this law as a direct divine obligation, one which I had transgressed. Decades later I realize that my shame at not having been able to fulfill the law must have been devastating to Sara as well. I deeply regret this.

We broke up and Sara later wrote me a beautiful love letter, which arrived about six months after the breakup. It looked tattered and was covered in postmarks and other stamps, like it took several attempts before it was finally delivered. Sara’s letter said that we were each other’s one true love, spoke of the depth of our love, that we were intended for each other, and that it would be tragic for us not to spend our lives together. I cried for what felt like two hours after reading it. I was devastated, and I can still remember my sadness.

I called her immediately. The call was answered but she would not come to the phone. In that moment, I wondered if she thought I had ignored her letter, which very well may have arrived months after she wrote it.

In other publications, Sara has denied sending this letter. In the polygraph mentioned earlier, two questions directly concerned the letter and its contents. “After your relationship with Sara was over, did she write you that you were her one true love?” and “After your relationship with Sara was over, did she write that you were meant to be together forever?” I answered both questions as “yes,” and no deception was indicated. Again, Dr. Barland concluded that I had answered truthfully.

We are left with two very different stories about our relationship, and I am left with a very difficult question: When and how did her story shift from teenage romance to one of abuse? It pains me greatly to even write this essay, but the current smear campaign has so heavily relied on her allegations that I am left with little choice but to reflect on this at a deeper level.

In retrospect, I deeply regret my involvement with Sara. I take full responsibility for my role in this youthful mistake. I apologize with all my heart for any pain I may have caused her in our youthful relationship.

As always, I stand against any form of sexual harassment or abuse. Sexual abuse, like all abuses of power, is a pervasive problem. I stand against all practices and behaviors that seek to shame victims who chose to speak out. In speaking out, I have no intention to shame Sara. My intent here has been to respond to allegations made against me — as is my right as a human being. Twenty years of this tale has had profoundly damaging and traumatic effects on my life, on my children’s lives, and on the lives of my partners and friends. Sara cannot hide from this truth nor her own profound responsibility in perpetrating gross and horrifically damaging falsehoods, by claiming that she is being subjected to victim shaming.

Wrongful accusations, leveled by an individual or by a group, in a trial-by-Internet atmosphere are regressive. I propose another vision. I will conclude with my dream, which I hope is not an impossible dream: What if the result of this campaign was the seeking of a higher clarification? What if, over time, all the parties, with all their narratives, could sit together, compare facts, talk, and seek genuine truth and reconciliation?

Posted in Marc Gafni | Comments Off

Twitter’s Alt-Right Purge

Posted on November 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

David Frum writes: Politics remains welcome at Twitter, as its most famous user, the president-elect, can attest. What Twitter is saying is that some and only some speech will be policed, by standards that can only be guessed at in advance.

That’s socially undesirable for a lot of reasons, but consider just this one: It’s precisely the perception of arbitrary and one-sided speech policing that drives so many young men toward radical, illiberal politics. On campus especially, but also in the corporate world—and now on social media—they perceive that wild and wacky things can be said by some people, but not by others. By useful comparison: On the very same day that Twitter suspended the accounts of some alt-right users, DePaul University forbade a scheduled appearance by the broadcaster and writer Ben Shapiro. Shapiro is not an alt-rightist; in fact, the Anti-Defamation League reported last month that Shapiro is Twitter’s single most frequently targeted victim of anti-Semitic abuse by alt-rightists. But Shapiro is a scathing polemicist and provocateur—an alumnus of the same Bannon-Breitbart empire that incubated Milo Yiannopoulos—and DePaul expressed worry that his appearance on campus might provoke violence.

The culture of offense-taking, platform-denying, and heckler-vetoing—now spreading ever outward from the campuses—lets loudmouths and thugs present themselves as heroes of free thought. They do not deserve this opportunity.

It’s a crazy fact of American life that as of today, a neo-Nazi has more right to build an arsenal of weapons and drill a militia than to speak on Twitter. Maybe we should try it the other way around.

There’s not much American constituency for Richard Spencer’s vision of a United States subdivided into segregated countries for each racial group, or for debates about whether Jews and Italians should count as “white,” or for fantasies about overturning democracy and returning to rule by kings and lords. But there is a real constituency for debates about immigration, about crime and policing, and other racially charged issues.

Over the past two decades, Americans have constructed systems of intellectual silencing that stifle the range of debate among responsible and public-spirited people. They’ve resigned hugely important topics to the domain of cranks and haters. If the only people who’ll talk about the risks and costs of a more diverse society are fascists, then the fascists will gain an audience. So long as they refrain from incitement and harassment, the right way to deal with social media’s neo-Nazis is not by taking away their platforms, but by taking away their audiences, by welcoming a more open and more intelligent discussion of what Americans yearn most to hear about.

Posted in Alt Right, Censorship, Twitter | Comments Off

The Goodwhites Are Wearing Safety Pins

Posted on November 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments: Hey, don’t know about your parts, but where I live Goodwhite women are freaking out, even to the point of setting up meetings to grieve and push for women political candidates.

One interesting aspect of their kvetching is that they are wearing safety pins to show support. A quick look on the internet showed that this is happening nationwide.

When you think about it, this is genius. Goodwhites have finally figured out a way to physically distinguish themselves from us Badwhites so that minorities and other Goodwhites know who’s who.

Of course, I might warn them: Beware of what you wish for.

While I quite doubt that it will happen, it’s possible that this election is causing people to draw lines, to choose their side. Personally, I say say bring it on. But, again, I doubt it will go that far.

* It would be a real inconvenience to the Secret Service, although I like the idea of Soros’ minions freezing their butts off in January and annoying the DC locals, who voted for Hillary. Nonetheless, if the left tries to turn the inauguration into one big riot, I’d be furious. However, I think they’re going to try it. If Trump has an ounce of sense, he’ll invite plenty of active-duty military personal and National Guard units from various states to attend the ceremony. I’m afraid he’s going to need them.

I also worry that Soros and his gang are going to try to Walkerize US cities all the way on up to the inauguration, and even try to block Trump from occupying the White House. If it comes to that, the US army may have to ignore Obama’s last few weeks of tenure and intervene to make sure Trump arrives in office okay. I have not forgotten what happened to Scott Walker in Wisconsin. If leftists try the same antics on a national scale, they’re really going to make themselves some serious enemies. Soros and his minions need to be in jail on treason and Rico charges.

They can’t impeach Trump at this point, not with the Senate in Republican hands, but if the Senate flips in 2018, they’ll try to go after him.

* Steve, I wish you’d point out that the MSM is ignoring a very public assassination threat against Trump by the CEO of a small but successful tech company on the west coast. Earlier today when I checked on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, WaPo and NYT headline pages, they had nothing at all about it. They did, however, have stories about racist remarks against Michelle and an article about a cop flying a rebel flag…and I admit, those are a lot more important.

The NBC national news main page still seems to have nothing on it at this point, but they may have the story buried somewhere…maybe next to the recipes section. The guy is now saying it was a joke, but when did that excuse ever stop racist songs at frat parties from becoming gigantic news stories? We’re talking about assassination comments after a very contentious campaign.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Trump’s Appointees

Posted on November 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* While there are some very good Trump appointees (Bannon, Kobach, Stephen Miller), these will most likely be outweighed by Kushner’s influence through DJT’s paternal affection for his daughter.

* I’m not talking about some civil war fantasy. I simply mean European Americans doing what Jews (and Mormons) have always done. Set up European American business groups, charities, schools/cultural centers, lobbies, think tanks, etc. Look out for your own. Promote your people’s interests.

When a politician, member of the media, academic or business person from another race/ethnicity/religion says something disparaging against European Americans, you fight back and you fight back hard. You also don’t forget. I want that guy (or business or organization) to still be having problems a decade or two later because of that comment.

Give European Americans who want to preserve their people and culture some place to go, some place that will protect them. If a guy gets fired for standing up for European Americans, get him a job. (For example, Jason Richwine would have immediately found a job in a think tank in my world.) You also let those European Americans who don’t want to preserve their people and culture know that they aren’t welcome. No violence, just exclusion.

A peaceful European nation within a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious country. How that country-in-name-only goes won’t be that important. We’ll have our nation that insulates us.

One needs only look at the demographics of the children being born today to understand that the United States is finished as a middle-class, civic-minded country. Trump or no Trump, European Americans – my children – need to do what races throughout history have done: Look out for their own and push for as much self-determination as possible under the circumstances.

Time to build a new European American nation.

* So, as white ethnics became more Anglo-ized, they were more vulnerable to fads and fashions since they lost their roots. So, Anglo-ization hastened Liberalism.

Look at Ortho Jews who cling to culture. More likely to be conservative.
But waspized Jews became more Liberal.

In a way, the pressure to Anglo-ize is still present. It’s just that wasp power, in fusion with Jewish power, is less about Anglo-ness than about PC-ness, MLK-ness, and homo-ness that are the new religion of America.

America today applies just as much assimilationist pressures as in the past. It’s just that today’s Anglos are more eager for newcomers to worship Harvey Milk than George Washington.
These PC Anglos do NOT want newcomers to cling to their original culture as such conservatism goes against PC.

PC multi-cultism has NO TOLERANCE for newcomers who say “I reject ‘gay marriage’ as an affront to my cultural values.”

Multi-cultism only tolerates and celebrates superficial stuff like food and costumes. It has no interest in the actual moral and intellectual underpinnings of other cultures.

Anglo has gone homo and pressures all groups to ass-imilate to homo-worship.

* Why is there a concerted effort to delete from the history books all traces of America’s origins and who stands to benefit from it? It’s not rational. You can pick any great non-white leader in history, Gandhi certainly, probably even MLK, and find evidence for racism in their beliefs. In the case of MLK, if not racism, misogyny or worse (rape).

All great people who accomplish something did something sinful or horrible. That’s no reason to commit suicide.

Who stands to benefit when the last vestiges of the USA belonging to the grand Christian European heritage are wiped out? I mean the fight is on and they are winning because when I typed that last statement I guiltily asked myself, “wait, does it make me a racist or white supremacist or something for typing that sentence?” I find that I have to remind myself quite often about the existence of Japan and China and other nations that are organized around the interests of a common people in order to continue to exist: My self doubt is then assuaged. Of course a commonality among people is a basic requirement for an organized nation state even to be justified, let alone succeed. This is obvious, right?

Off topic but did anyone watch SNL’s opening Requiem for Hillary the past Saturday? The SNL cast clearly took Tuesday’s results hard. In a skit with a surprise appearance from Chris Rock the cast joked about how much they’ve been in a bubble and the people on the coasts know nothing about how people in the interior feel about politics. But this was long obvious to all of us. I guess there never was much hope in these east coast types ever having anticipated the fissures in American society that would be introduced by extremely rapidly changing demographics. They still thought that America would look past this huge divide to elect Hillary out of solidarity with Destiny, or the Right Side Of History, or something.

Does the cast of SNL and others like them still not get that this over-arching desire to have the first black president, the first female president (even to the possible detriment of other societal issues caused by the affirmative action candidate. Hillary would’ve done permanent damage to the middle class’s ability to stand up to the globalist oligarchs, for instance) is a fairly quaint feature of our culture? Since we are in the throes of dismantling all remaining vestiges of the privilege granted to this distinct European-American people by our forefathers and effectively advertising to the world “We are an equal opportunity immigration destination”, we will ironically not much longer be able to grant “privilege” to any of our nation’s prerogatives, whether they be progressive or conservative in nature, let alone those that are unique, quaint and basically unnecessary to our nation’s survival like having a female president.

* Yeah, one of the most interesting things to track in the aftermath of this election will be the fate of the media. It has become well and truly unhinged. Breitbart will certainly rise in importance. But it clearly needs to clean up its act so that it can be seen as a broad, reasonably balanced source of news, rather than as a purely partisan outlet. There’s of course a place for such outlets, but there is much such a publication can’t do that needs to be done. Fox News is perhaps a good model for a broader Breitbart, with, of course, necessary changes to reflect a Trumpian take on politics.

Some of today’s prominent media outlets must be awfully concerned as to their place in the new Trumpian world. The NY Times must wonder what its access and influence might be in a nation controlled at all political levels by Republicans, and by Trump at the top. And it can’t stop itself from engaging in the most egregiously partisan behavior — it’s too deeply in the grip of its own dogmatic beliefs.

Even a publication like People must wonder where it’s going to go for the stupid things it does. No First Family would be better suited to be fodder for its high society porn, given the beauty and appeal of so many of the Trump family. But they went all-in on a vicious attack on Trump, with the frumpy reporter from People declaring that many years ago he forced his tongue down her throat — while not of course in any way pursuing it at the time — and the magazine declaring its full support of her. I’m sure when they published this attack, they all held it unthinkable he might ever win. I wonder how much regret they have now?

* The irony of Beinart’s tweet couldn’t be more obvious.

Beinart wants to signal to the world that Jews are emphatically not on the side of other whites. But, then, how is it in any way surprising if those whites see Jews as a group to be a force arrayed against their interests, and deeply resent them?

If one wants to communicate that Jews shouldn’t be treated as opponents of other whites, that such a belief is a “canard”, the last thing one would want to do would be to suggest that Jews are united as a group against the interests of other whites.

But here we have Beinart doing just that.

* How about denying WH press credentials to NYT, NPR, Wapo, NBC, MSNBC, etc? Their questions will be nothing other than have you stopped sodomizing four year olds today. Let them use the pool report.

DJT is too much of a gentleman to do this, but I can dream.

* If Trump has any sense, he’ll loan the MLK bust permanently to the Museum of African American History and Culture where tourists can look at it, and put Churchill back in his office. That way he doesn’t have to see MLK’s ugly mug, yet all the tourists will be thinking Trump’s honored blacks (because they got to see the MLK bust with their own eyes! SJW squeal!). That would solve the problem. Any future president who has funny ideas about putting MLK back in the White House will have to deal with the shrieks of outrage from SJWers about it being stolen from its proper place in a museum honoring blacks. In the long term, it can be quietly donated to the museum and forgotten about.

* Satire is a more common art form in societies such as Monarchies and Dictatorships where more direct confrontation is ruthlessly crushed. Perhaps we are now at that stage regarding the media, Universities, and corporate employers where they have become so powerful that constructive criticism no longer matters. This is one reason Milo is so devastating. It immediately gets past the normal filters and goes straight into the blood stream. It seems to work better on liberals too for some reason.

* Actually, if you have followed this blog with anything but an ethno-centric obsession, you would know that the only reason why Sailer has a #antigentilism hashtag is because Sabrina Rubin Erdeley is obviously Jewish and when she wrote her article about “Jackie” she also very obviously slurred UVA, and moreover described the putatively predominant blue eyed blond flavor of the campus. In similar ways he quoted a poem “University” by “Karl Shapiro” which also showed a distinct animus towards UVA, and couched it in terms of hostility to blacks, Jews, and Deliverance-level incest, and he has also observed other Jewish creative people demonstrating not only a weird hostility to non-Jews (e.g., the guy who made “Mad Men”) but also an equally weird sense of persecution among Jewish Americans (Peter Beinart’s tweet quoted elsewhere).

Is there something — here? — WRT to Jews having this odd obsession with non-Jews? “Anti-gentilism” may not be the best choice of words but it’s the only thing we have at the moment.

So #antigentilism

along with #HavenMonahan are default hashtags having to do with #UVA, which is why they were listed in the article.

* * The Democrats and left are screaming about Bannon, which makes me think Trump and Bannon set up the early announcement of his selection – to a position not requiring any Senate confirmation that Trump controls completely, and which no President would ever accept such interference in making – as a naked power display to show everyone how little power the “race card” crowd and the mainstream media has anymore. The Times kept Bannon on its website front page for two days before they got the message.

The Republican Establishment is trying to lay down markers and see where they stand in this new world, leaking word of “turmoil” in the transition process to the press, and McCain trying to grab the reins on Russia and Putin.

Everyone is now trying to figure out where they stand in orbit around Planet Trump.

* Steve Bannon is not one of us, although the media insists he is.

He’s a Tea Party guy, having made a flattering movie about Sarah Palin. There are a few of his speeches online. It’s basic 2009 Tea Party rhetoric: unfunded entitlements, the Constitution, and American exceptionalism.

But I suppose the media has to vent their rage at someone.

* Trump should be judged almost exclusively on what he does with immigration, with the balance being made up of his trade policy. As much as I’d hate to see the Neocohens’ reign of terror in foreign policy continue, that is a bargain I’d be willing to take if it turns out nothing better is possible. Trump has a lot of runway to burn before he gets even close to Bush country. In fact, he has already single handedly destroyed TPP and averted socialized medicine, and that’s before he even assumed office. He’s so far ahead of Bush that they’re not in the same dimension.

* Paul Kersey: The Beck stuff mentioned above is fascinating, because he met with Facebook in early part of 2016 as part of the whole “conservative sites being blocked by algorithm” story; obviously, Beck sold his soul as his empire was tanking (went all-in to stop Trump and pissed off his readers), and was promised to be the voice of the new, respectable conservative opposition in a post-Trump world after Clinton defeated the ‘bigot’.

With the GOP remade (all those loyal to Trump purged) and the Alt-Right discredited forever, Beck could go back to shadowboxing the egalitarian left in complete control of the government. Remember all that Wikileaks has shown us; I bet Beck has been in talks with CNN, Clinton’s inner circle on this scheme since at least early June, when Beck laid off 40 percent of his staff.

But, because of hubris, our enemies overreached: they never could imagine that America still had a heartbeat. Thus, the purge of the Alt-Right (which was already planned) on Twitter today.

Thus, Glenn Beck going on CNN and attacking Richard Spencer, Steve Sailer and Alt-Right, trying to connect them to Steve Bannon.

His comments on 3 percent of Trump voters being Alt-Right are chilling (watch the Beck/Cooper interview).

Glenn Beck got a fawning article in New Yorker (published Nov. 12, but leaked BEFORE the election), which described his reinvention, signaling he was “safe” opposition in a Post-Trump world safely controlled by the MSM/Clinton.

But it all backfired.

Now, with Trump’s victory destroying the plans of reinventing Glenn Beck as useful opposition to President Clinton, he must be the “good” conservative attacking Bannon.

Regrettably, I’m close to a lot of this nonsense. Conservatism is a f’ing scam, far worse than the Conservatism Inc. Peter Brimelow describes.

It’s a racket unworthy of… any more of our time.

But for what it’s worth: Bannon is a really, really good guy.

* Trump is deliberately provoking his enemies. I’m certain he wants them to react to his aggressiveness in a crazy and asinine fashion, and they’re obliging him. It’s pure pecking order. Trump is signalling that he’s King of the Hill, and that liberals are not. I suspect this is something he learned at the military academy. Neutral bystanders will look the situation over and see Trump being perfectly cool while his enemies are shrieking their lungs out and making idiots out of themselves, and the bystanders figure out who’s the alpha here and they side with Trump.

Trump is beginning the process of turning liberals into Untouchables, and they sense it and don’t like it. They were on top with Obama. Now they’re like Cinderella after the ball, a ragged mess whose glittering coach is now a pumpkin, trudging back home to life as a charwoman.

Young liberals are still living in their mommy’s basement, they’re deeply in debt for college, they have trouble finding work, and their Obamacare didn’t work out too well. Obama failed them and they know it, but they don’t dare admit it to themselves because that would mean they screwed up by voting for him, and that liberalism doesn’t work. They’re displacing a lot of the anger they feel for their life situation onto Trump.

* I’ve seen a lot of complaining about the possible cabinet picks throughout the Alt-Right-osphere, with no small number of people openly lamenting that Trump has betrayed the principles that got him elected already. However, to that I can only reply that Trump has to draw from a rather small pool of applicants. How many people do you think exist that simultaneously

A) Have the necessary skills and experience to move Trump’s agenda forward?
B) Would be willing to serve in a Trump administration?
C) Are known to, and trusted by, Donald Trump himself or his closest advisers?

These criteria trim the list down considerably. If you add to them the further requirement that the candidate must have lily-white hands and no fingerprints whatsoever on the foulness that is currently Washington, D.C., the number of potential applicants drops to essentially zero. Donald Trump is going to need to leave at least some of the Washington machinery intact while he’s getting established in the White House and consolidating his power.

As I’ve said numerous times before the election, getting Trump to the presidency was only the opening skirmish of the battle. The real war begins now—the long war to root out and destroy the Left. Trump is by no means the last president we’re going to need. He is himself more of a transitional figure, an agent of change yet part of the old guard, a Moses not a Joshua. Perhaps in 10 years’ time we will have politicians who openly talk like Viktor Orban. In 20 years we may have our own Perons and Putins. That’s what I’m hoping for, anyway. But we have to prepare ourselves for a very long march. This is only the beginning.

* Secretary of State is an upper class job, which would seem to exclude Giuliani, Bolton, Gingrich, and Rohrabacher, who is a buddy of Sammy Hagar.

One possibility is that Trump could pick an elderly elder statesman as Secretary of State for, say, a year to get his Administration up and running. Recently, SoS’s have served 4 year terms, but Reagan fired Alexander Haig, who had sounded good on paper, midway through 1981 and replaced him with George Schultz and that worked out okay.

I don’t know much inside baseball about foreign policy, but former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) seemed to be less enthusiastic about Invade-the-World policies than most foreign policy experts back in the day.. He’s in his early 80s now. But if he’s still spry maybe he’d want to be Secretary of State for a year. Sam Nunn (D-GA) is in his late 70s.

Nunn’s probably too hawkish, but he also thinks about the foot soldiers who would have to execute his policies. One of his major accomplishments came in the late 1970s when he repeatedly grilled the Pentagon about what drill instructors were telling him: that there was something wrong with new enlistees in the “Stripes” era military. Finally, in 1980 the Pentagon realized that they had screwed up the scoring of the AFQT enlistment test and had been allowing a lot of morons to enlist. They renormed the AFQT/ASVAB in 1980 using the NLSY79 sample (that provided the core of “The Bell Curve”) and presented new President Reagan with a much more competent military as the 1980s progressed.

That’s a real service to his country that Nunn provided.

A year ago a friend and I were kicking around the feasibility of a Trump Administration. Our fantasy pick for Secretary of State to give Trump maximum initial credibility was Mitt Romney. But then Romney and Trump decided they hated each other. So maybe Romney’s Mormon rival and doppelganger Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to China? Huntsman endorsed Trump, but then wimped out in September.

Posted in America | Comments Off