NYT: “Families Don’t Have Borders”

Posted on October 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: From the New York Times, an article about an illiterate Syrian shepherd’s family brought to Canada by naive Canadians who assume that nuclear families are the global norm:

Ms. Hajj, however, often stayed up for much of the night to converse with relatives seven hours ahead, growing weepy and exhausted by dawn. Like many of the relatives, she had never learned to read or write, so they used WhatsApp to volley short voice recordings. Those messages felt like a lifeline, and the ones that were not harrowing were comforting: greetings for the Eid al-Adha holiday among her 16 half and full siblings, and a running whose-baby-is-cuter photo contest. Sometimes she woke her 10-year-old son, Majed, in the middle of the night for technical help.

She was trying to embrace life in Canada, cheering during her children’s soccer matches and soaking up advice on tummy time and solid food for her 5-month-old, Julia. But her husband worried that the infusions of survivor’s guilt were preventing her from fully entering her new world. She often seemed more connected to the electronic constellation of relatives back home than to the Toronto streets she did not know and the English signs she could not decipher. When the sponsors tutored her in English, she often yawned through the lessons.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* An illiterate Middle Easterner with 16 siblings, who yawns through her benefactors’ attempts to teach her English – a real asset to Canada.

* Europeans are quite generous and would have easily been parted with funds to house displaced people. But this attitude that these people should be accepted as permanent immigrants who need to be integrated was off everyone’s lips and tone the second it happened. Why were the Germans worried about giving them German lessons? Because everyone knew they were economic migrants, but were still guilt-tripped! Wars don’t last forever and it’d be a drop in the bucket for the ‘international community’ to pay to repair the main cities. (Not that that wouldn’t defeat the purpose of the war to leave Syria in pieces, but maybe Assad will prevail and the neocns will be content with just taking the Syrian army apart and sowing ethnic strife.)

Additionally was the tacit assumption that as intervention against Assad is something partaken in by many Western countries against the interests and will of the general public, particularly the poor, it was the responsibility of those people to deal with the young male spivs. I mean if the MSM says Assad is illegitimate and therefore needs to be ‘regime-changed’ by an angry mob, what does it say about the leadership of the Western world? It seems like the response to a Democratic deficient shouldn’t be an even more unpopular policy that has permanent consequences and represents an existential threat.

It’s this annoying problem of sentiment that makes people never feel like explaining the constellation of emotional motivations. None of this is effective at dealing with people displaced by the fighting, it is only effective at displacing the native populations of Europe. But nobody ever calls them out how inefficient this is or that it goes to serve a bunch of young male spivs, rather than women, children and infirm.

* As a Canadian, I fully admit there is a special, supercilious naivety about us. I think this may have to do with part of the Canadian identity now being predicated on appearing to be morally superior to Americans. One thing is for certain, with the government increasing immigration and refugee levels, our time for being guileless is running out fast. Unlike previous years, the Canadian government is focusing less on economic immigration and more on family reunification and refugee resettlement. The 2011 census showed that Ontario was just under 5 percent Muslim, this was before the Syrian and other refugee influx. On the ground level there is a noticeable shift in the demographics that is palpable in the larger metro areas.

* The one advantage Canada has is that ‘diverse’ people don’t really want to live where it’s that cold.

* Nice highlight of the insanity of the west’s moral vanity when it comes to refugees. I recently had a conversation with a friend from MN on this subject and he insisted that the US has a history of taking in refugees and it would be against our values to end that practice. The conversation then turned to the Somali population and within a few minutes he matter of factly stated that no one in the Twin Cities can stand them and how they add absolutely nothing to society. This inability to say “no” even when perfectly aware of the consequences seems to have taken hold.

* Then why does the US support Israel as a bordered national family?

Also, the concept of family is about borders. There is borderline around who are within the family.

* These problems are going to require stern measures to solve, and I mean really stern measures.

* “Enjoy every sip of cold water, because I have none.”

Isn’t it fair to say that a lot of clannish relationships are based on moral extortion? You are my cousin, you HAVE to help me (get that job/marry your daughter/beat that infidel to pulp etc.). So it is not good will or, God forbid, love, that drives these relations, but a “toxic” culture of mutual exploitation. I against my brother, my brother and I against our cousins etc. The other counts only as a means to an end, not at the same time as an end in itself.

A commonly decent European just would not say that sentence above, neither to a brother nor to a stranger. Compare also those many cases where fathers are trying to extort goodies from our authorities by threatening harm to their own children (often daughters). That just doesn’t compute to our outbreeded brains, so we think, “how desperate and how traumatized must he be”. Well, he is not that desperate, he just found a cheap way to get faster WIFI.

* Michigan is cold too, and it’s been filling up with Arabs for a long time. They find those Small Business Administration 8a loans to be very warming.

* That article is hilarious. The foster mother had him share a room with her 13 year old son and turned her entire family halal. She wasn’t too concerned about the facial and body hair and upper body strength, but she became a bit suspicious by his ability to strip a rifle at a shooting range.

The real tip-off, though, came when he “put the 13-year-old in expert holds, demanded cash and got calls from unknown numbers.”

* Has anyone here paused to consider that the West needs a massive flood of insufferable immigrants stat?

Recall Ryan Enos’ study relating exposure to diversity and a tendency to dislike it. In places like southern CA, we’ve observed a trickle become a flow become a flood. There was nowhere an inflection point great enough to cause sufficient popular upset to manifest sufficient political resistance to the invasion. The 1994 surge nearly did the job, but not quite.

From the ruler’s perspective, overhauling demographics is like making custard. Pour the boiling cream into the eggs slowly. Pour too fast and you’ve got scrambled eggs.

So too could it be with the West at large vis a vis Sailer’s most important graph in the world. The only chance at an asymptotically European Europe is to make Europeans all aware at once and to a great degree the downsides of all that vibrancy. Viewed this way, Merkel’s boner may have been the vaccination which will ultimately save Europe.

* Mr Sailer, you just cannot win — you cannot reason with these people — so forget this incomprehensible ‘Citizenism’ stuff and come out as a White Nationalist — at least then you’ll be called a ‘racist’ for supporting the worthwhile cause of preserving America as a majority white nation.

* If nations shouldn’t have bonds, why should families have bonds?

And since when do globalists care about family values?

I thought that was heteronormative BS.

If the individual is all that counts, who cares if families are separated among various nations? If national unity is meaningless, so is family unity.

Also, why must families be united in the US? Why not back in their home nations? Tell the people to go back and reunite with family.

Immigration patterns are clearly white supremacist. Ask any non-white person where he/she wants to emigrate to, and you never get an egalitarian answer. They never want to move to black Africa, Muslim Middle East, diverse Latin America, or Asia.

They all want to move to white Europe, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, or the US. They want to live with or under whites on the basis that whites are superior at running societies.
They run from their own kind(seen as inferior) and avoid non-white nations(seen as inferior) and come to white nations(seen as superior or preferable), but they accuse whites of ‘racism’.

Even within the US, non-whites want to move to whiter pastures, not to blacker or browner ones.

When non-whites ask whites, “why aren’t you welcoming of us?”, whites should ask, “why are you so eager to flee from your own kind? Racist against your own people? See them as inferior?”

Posted in Canada, Immigration | Comments Off on NYT: “Families Don’t Have Borders”

The Alt-Right Is Racist, Xenophobic & Anti-Semitic

Posted on October 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Greg Johnson, founder of Counter-Currents.com, says in this recent Swedish podcast: “The Alternative Right was started by certain white nationalist donors and organizers as an entryist vehicle into the mainstream conservative world for the purpose of interacting with it, deconstructing it, and subverting it to convert people to a racial outlook.”

“In the past couple of years, the term has been bubbling up all over. It is a useful term. Why? Because it is vague and generic. You can say you are Alt-Right because you don’t believe what mainstream conservatives believe. You can talk to white nationalists but you don’t have to take on that name. It’s like an intellectual salon where people can circulate around without taking on stigmatized names. They’re playing footsie with it [white nationalism and anti-Semitism]. It’s like a revival meeting. You set up a big tent and your bring people in and preach the gospel to them.”

“This only works if the term is vague and if people who aren’t us show up. The only way a movement grows is by encountering people who don’t already belong to it and getting our message to people who don’t already believe our message. We’re going to be associating with normies. They aren’t awakened yet.”

“There is a tendency in the Alternative Right to not be welcoming of that. Let’s face it — we are a racist and xenophobic movement. There are a lot of [WNs] who are xenophobic about all these outsiders identifying with the Alt-Right… We have to cool it with the xenophobic remarks if we are to make this thing work.”

“Some [WNs] think the Alt-Right is not our vehicle into the mainstream, it is the mainstream’s entry into us. It is a danger. We’ve set up a porous boundary.”

“We’re never going to have an Alternative Right unless we have lots of people showing up to it who are clueless about it. ‘I’m Alt-Right and that means I’m an anti-racist and cultural libertarian and I am sick of Social Justice Warriors.”

“As long as we can make the Alternative Right work for us, great. When not, burn it down.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Alt-Right Is Racist, Xenophobic & Anti-Semitic

Toxic Whiteness

Posted on October 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

ESSAY: I first came across the term ”White Privilege” about five years ago in an article in the Telegraph which was a response to Laurie Penny’s (surprise surprise) attempt to bring the idea into popular discourse in Britain. It was one of those occasions when you knew instantly an idea or policy is bad news, understanding the term itself and the theory of White Privilege was to be made aware that the enemy had been working on a new weapon which was in the process of being tweaked and polished before being rolled out onto the meta-political battlefield.

…And now it has.

White Privilege Theory emanates from the ”Social Science” wing of modern leftist thought, this is the field of study which has given us the tragic and insane ”Social Justice Warrior”. The standard response to White Privilege theory of the Ethno-Nationalist is to reject the entire premise out of hand, non-whites cannot be oppressed by whites if they are no longer living in our countries. Furthermore, the existence of White Privilege Theory as a valid subject within academia undermines the premise of the theory because if the society was directed toward ”privileging” whites above everyone else then why haven’t whites shutdown such studies?.

Like all other forms of Neo Marxist/Critical Theory, White Privilege was born on the American university campus and spread throughout the former white world, there’s even articles being written in Irish newspapers lambasting the Irish for their failure to recognize their privilege and how it disadvantages ‘people of colour’. Whether we like it or not, tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of white teens are now studying Social Science and White Privilege Theory and Critical Whiteness Studies(CWS). But what is it? what are they telling these kids and what will the effects of this field of study actually be on these fragile young white minds?

Posted in America, Nationalism, Whites | Comments Off on Toxic Whiteness

WP: ‘He wants to become a cop. ‘Are you sure?’ his friends and family ask.’

Posted on October 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

All minorities are going to feel ambivalent or negative about the majority and enforcing the majority’s laws. This is nothing peculiar to blacks. It’s just basic social identity theory. There is no solution.

Most non-blacks don’t want to be around blacks, most non-Muslims don’t want to be around Muslims, and perhaps most non-Jews don’t want to be around Jews.

Washington Post:

He had grown up in Baltimore, been arrested, been slammed to the ground by a police officer. And now, all he wanted was to be one.

So Kyle Johnson flipped through his mail. It was a Wednesday in July, and he had just come home from his 5 a.m. shift at the airport, where he spent eight hours moving baggage around planes. A safe job. The kind no one has an opinion about.

He found the envelope he was hoping wouldn’t be there. It was from Morgan State University’s police department, the first agency Kyle applied to after graduating from a community college police academy. If they had wanted to hire him, they would have called.

“Okay,” he told himself. “On to the next.”

The next, if he were being practical, would be his home town Baltimore Police Department. They were hiring, and seeking minority candidates — actively recruiting locals, who would be familiar with the city and its problems.

But just that day, BPD had been on the 12 o’clock news again. Kyle saw it on the little TV in the airport break room. The charges against the officers accused in the case of Freddie Gray had just been dropped, meaning no one would be found responsible for the death of the Baltimore man who was 25 — Kyle’s age — when he fell into a coma in the back of a police van. Two weeks later, the Justice Department would determine that the Baltimore police had been disproportionately targeting and using excessive force against black people.

Already, Kyle’s Facebook feed was full of opinions on this new development in what seemed a never-ending story of never-ending conflict. More black men dead in Minnesota, in Baton Rouge; police officers slain in Baton Rouge, in Dallas. Each time, his friends and relatives fumed about injustice and fear. Kyle kept his opinions to himself. Rarely did anyone seem to have a solution. Except, he thought, the Dallas police chief, who gave a news conference to say: “We’re hiring.”

“We’ll help you resolve some of the problems you’re protesting about,” the chief, David Brown had said.

That’s what Kyle wants: If the battle is between cops and black people, maybe the solution is to be both.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on WP: ‘He wants to become a cop. ‘Are you sure?’ his friends and family ask.’

Josh Marshall: Twitter Has Too Much Free Speech Because It Is So Gentile

Posted on October 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

cvcrwyevyaayyzy

* it’s almost like those rights of Englishman were somehow more genetic than we thought

* Used to think free speech was an incidental casualty of diversity; now I see it’s deliberate.

* The CEO is a homosexual. Homosexuals only make up about 2% of the population. But leadership is to straight?

* I’m old enough to remember Jews being at the forefront of free speech rights. But maybe that was only for obscenity.

* Oy vey. Where to begin…

* the COO and “next CEO” is not jewish enough? Need to have at least 2 jews on the board.

* These people are really drawing a clear line in the sand lately. They’ll regret it when we cross it.

* there must be jewish supremacy in all news and social media organizations. Goy need their guidance.

* if Israel was less Jewish it would stop it’s atrocities against Palestinians. Israel is too Jewish.

Posted in Censorship, Jews | Comments Off on Josh Marshall: Twitter Has Too Much Free Speech Because It Is So Gentile

Jewish Neo-Con Bret Stephens: “The Plot Against America”

Posted on October 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* For the record. The self-righteous anti-nationalist elitist Bret Stephens is not the same (not at all) as the editor of the nationalist journal Amerika.org, one Brett Stevens. (Twitter). (Unz.com archive.)

Same name, just about, but almost political mirror images of one other. (Note that the nationalist Brett Stevens’ family had the name much, much earlier.)

* I think Jews or people with significant Jewish antecedents like Bret Stephens need to admit that many of them are internationalists or humanists at their core. I don’t think it’s anti-semetic to say that and in this they aren’t alone. Many new immigrant groups don’t have any particular connection to America it’s a place to live realitively easy and make some money to them.

The more people like Bret deny this the more of a backlash they’ll receive. There are millions of people who can’t pick up and move to Israel or India if things get sticky here. This is their land their ancestors have fought or lived through all or most of its important wars.

* Bashar Assad has done little more than offer lip service against Israel. He withdrew from Lebanon, and was willing to cooperate with the US for rendition (torture). As far as Syria goes, any of the competitors in the rebellion are unlikely to be as neutral as Assad has been.

Saddam was a horrible leader, I agree, but the solution should have been a coup, not an invasion.

Meanwhile, John McCain has found public occasion to praise Al-Nusra.

* “The GOP’s conversion to being a powerfully pro-Israel and philo-Semitic party is a relatively recent development. No law dictates that it is destined to be a lasting one.”

To put it bluntly, the above is exceedingly inflammatory.

When the crux of your editorial is that some are insane for believing in the Grand Unified Theory of the eeevil Jews, it doesn’t help when you admit to a conspiracy, unless you are rubbing our nose in it.

I don’t see why it is so incendiary to wish that we had a Middle East policy similar to that of Russia. I am not instinctually Anti-Israel, but we are being pushed into the rock (Neocons) and a hard place (1488s).

If a Jewish writer wants to call themselves a “conservative” in America, they need to support conserving America’s historic demographic and religious majority. If they cannot find the moral fiber to do that, they need to move to Israel.

* So Hillary is better than Trump because she called for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are no threat whatever to America. She said this “in one of her leaked Goldman Sachs speeches” – and yet the people who say there’s a clandestine alliance of financiers and politicians are haters!

* Peggy Noonan’s WSJ column this week includes this: “[Trump] was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world.”

No mention from Ms. Noonan of who the ‘they’ is who say that.

* “That’s why it’s utterly unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton.”

How about on the theory that Hillary wants to bring millions of Muslims into the USA and raise taxes on Jews to fund giveaways to NAMs?

I don’t really have a problem with Hillary’s Israel policy, it is her America policy where I take issue.

I want a wall built around the civilized world and the barbarians kept out.

On the tax/migrants issue, Breitbart has a great investigative journalism series on one of the areas where tax/migrant issues intersect: the massive number of refugees who have TB, a disease that has been nearly eradicated among white Americans, but who are now being put at massive risk by third world migrants who have both standard TB and multi-drug resistant TB, or MDR TB.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/13/two-hundred-ninety-six-refugees-diagnosed-active-tuberculosis-minnesota/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/14/27-percent-tennessee-refugees-test-positive-tb/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/30/migrants-bring-multi-drug-resistant-tb-wisconsin/

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/31/syrian-refugees-spreading-flesh-eating-disease-polio-measles-tuberculosis-hepatitis/

Twenty cases of MDR TB, all foreign-born, were diagnosed in Wisconsin over the eight year period between 2005 and 2012, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Every single one of these cases was a third world migrant! Once they are here, if we don’t expel them, we have to treat them to protect ourselves. The cost is about $150,000 per case. Just another way these dull-normal Muslim masses are harming taxpaying Americans.

* My God. Why won’t the Jews just leave us alone?

* For Charles Lindbergh it was “war agitators,” notably those of “the Jewish race” (and the British).

“I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.”

* But let us not ignore that Stephens is deeply uncertain about the conservative Jews. Will they follow Trump or will they follow Stephens? In France, there is a stratum of Jews which has consistently voted for Le Pen – for the last decade, I’d say.

On the other hand, Jewish media are as good as American media in general to keep dissidents mute. So every alternative media would do a good work in giving the dissident Jews a voice. This includes the historical dissident Jews: Jewish Republicans, Jewish supporters of “America First”, of McCarthy etc.

* UK politics have been pretty interesting lately. Labour is in collapse mode right now because while most of its senior leadership is pro-Jewish, its membership is heavily minority and far-left whites who hate themselves, and they installed the Jeremy Coburn, an anti-semite-friendly humorless old Marxist, as party leader.

The elites and long-time party regulars in the party hated him from the beginning, but the hate grew over time and they attempted a coup, which failed when Coburn won the new party member election. At this point, no Jew or friend of Jews will do anything to support Labour anymore.

Meanwhile, the Teresa May has been gaining support as UKIP also is melting down along with Labour and its support going to her. She has been a pleasant surprise as PM, rejecting various schemes to ignore the Brexit vote, and is so popular that polls show if she called a snap election the results would be something like 485 Tory MPs to 135 Labour MPs. She is currently about as popular as Thatcher was at Thatcher’s absolute peak.

* That Bret Stephens reads The Daily Stormer is perfect for both of them. They fuel each other, which is unfortunate for American nationalists. Because there are talented Jews on the nationalist side (Mickey Kaus, Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner, etc.) and there are talented gentiles on the globalist side (Bret Stephens’s boss Paul Gigot, the Clintons, Lionel Barber of the FT, etc.), and there are also plenty of nationalist-sympathetic gentiles who would be turned off by the Daily Stormer crowd.

Stephens knows that, of course, which is probably why he wrote the column. Action-reaction. Good for him and Daily Stormer; bad for most Trump supporters.

* It’s inevitable that the Left will turn on Israel. Just as the Left has turned on whites because ‘white privilege’ is the only possible acceptable explanation for black failure and black aggression, so the aggression and failure of Islam can only be explained as being the fault of Israel. The alternative–blaming Islamic culture and societies for the mess they are in–is just too much for them to contemplate.

As the numbers of Muslims in the West continues to grow, you can expect the anti-Israel rhetoric to be ramped up the worse the Muslims behave, just as whites are blamed the worse blacks behave.

Lawrence Auster’s first law of minority-majority relations comes into play here.

* “unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton”

The WSJ should sack Mr Stephens for reheating ancient anti-Semitic tropes about dual loyalty.

* Proximity plus diversity clarifies the mind and help people realise that it’s The Current Year.

* What happened to American Jews in the 1930′s that they ‘shouldn’t have to relive’? The New Deal? The New York World’s Fair? The “Jewish Seat” on the Supreme Court?

* Once again, just as in the 1920s and 30s, the Rothschild’s international extortion racket is crumbling, and they are facing both a peasant rebellion from within, as well as the rise of peer-competitors (Russia & China) from without. Their only hope, then as now, is total war.

If Hellary wins the election, start digging your bomb shelters, people.

* McCarthy wasn’t an anti-Semite. For him Communist ideology wasn’t a Jewish proclivity but something that could strike anyone of any social background at any time, sort of like tuberculosis in the 19th century.

* Is there a Jewish equivalent of “The Talk”, about gentiles (of which famously Derbyshire wrote a white version)?

* “They meet in secret. Men of immense wealth; a woman of limitless ambition. Their passports are American but their loyalties are not. Through their control of international banks and the media they manipulate public opinion and finance political deceit. Their aim is nothing less than the annihilation of America’s political independence, and they will stop at nothing—including rigging a presidential election—to achieve it.”

Yeah, put that way, it is a pretty good summation.

* Miller and Kushner are directly part of the campaign so they don’t really count. There are much bigger forces backing Trump– Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, Williamsburg Hasidim, et al. and billionaires Carl Icahn, Stephen Feinberg, Steven Mnuchin, John Paulson, et al. If not for Savage and Drudge, Trump wouldn’t have been able to keep this election close. And if not for Savage, Trump’s winning political philosophy wouldn’t exist. Savage has pounded home the ‘borders, language, culture’ theme for decades and Trump is a self-confessed regular listener to Savage’s radio show. Trump has a very basic and singular plan and intends to use the best business skills to get it done. He’s not vexed with highfalutin political, economic, and historical theories and for anyone (like Stephens) to argue that Trump has some sophisticated crypto-fascist plot in mind– and they simultaneous say he’s a shallow-minded clown– is beyond ludicrous. But we’ve seen the MSM tie the bowl of Skittles analogy by Trump Jr. to Jospeh Goebbels’ racist philosophy, so any unhinged and disconnected attack is fair game in this election.

Btw, I think if Trump wins he can only do so much to merely slow the crumbling of America as we know it. I don’t see much chance of America not looking like Brazil in 10-15 years (sans an economic superpower up north to prop it up– esp. the globalist elites).

* It always amazes me how open Jews like Stephens are about asking the question: Is it good for the Jews.

You would think that they might worry a bit about other groups noticing and starting to ask the same question themselves. The fact that these other groups haven’t done so for at least 50 years doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future.

Then again, as smart as they are, Jews have a nasty habit of overplaying their hand.

* While Stephens is warning off the readers of the WSJ from falling for right-populist anti-globalist and conspiracy rhetoric (which he indicates carries anti-Semitic tropes), it is worth recalling that the left is replete with conspiracy rhetoric regarding “the Ruling Class”, “Imperialism”, “the Patriarchy”, “systemic racism”, “rape culture”, “gun culture”, widespread “homophobia”, and on and on. Was Bernie Sanders’ bashing of Wall Street, the Bankers, and the 1% also dog whistling anti-Semitic tropes?

BTW, am I alone in considering Stephen’s conflating of Stormfront with the Alt Right (no matter that Stormfront may be happy to do it themselves) an exercise in tarring folks like Steve or Derb with the 1488 brush? Are HBD or immigration criticism gateway drugs to Neo-Nazism? I’d be interested in Steve’s take on this.

* Bret Stephens has indeed had a stellar career and I wonder if his trajectory is due to his less sparkling stuff getting through irrespective of merit. He needs to run his stuff by someone with the Jew-to Jew confidence and authority to reign him in. I think the European gentiles-as-irrational-persecutors angle dissuades non Jewish higher editorial staff from being more critical of such pieces. As a result of (what I’m presuming has been) a hands-off on Stephens’s white-gentile-persecutors stuff he went further each time. But now the establishment that is virtually 100 percent against Trump is encouraging such pieces and Stevens is happy to oblige.

He thinks the biggest problem facing Israel is Iranian nuclear weapons, and a nuclear threat from Hillary is the answer. No, it’s the Arabs in the West Bank, and Hillary articulating the elite’s settled policy has publicly said they will have to be given the West bank for a (another) Palestinian state. Trump as president would let Israel solve that problem (why right wing Jews support him), but I suppose Stephens’s career would not go so well if he stopped being a tool of the US establishment in their house magazine.

* So, according to Stephens, the subject of discussion is never the real subject–it’s always a cover for what everybody’s really thinking about: the Jews. To discuss immigration is really to discuss the Jews. To discuss trade policy–it’s clearly just about the Jews. American political corruption: Jews again. Media bias: Jews. Increasing plutocratic power: the Jews and always the Jews.

The paranoia on display is embarrassing. Or is this wild speculation and accusation a manifestation of guilt? Of having been caught out pushing the Culture Critique a little too far, too fast?

* Re: Mr. Stephens seems to have had a pretty kick-ass career

Yes, by carefully avoiding in any way anything resembling independent thought or original research.

These are the words of a political hack parroting the party line.

Unfortunately, this is increasingly how one succeeds in the present climate.

It’s no longer the republic of letters; it’s the cartel of letters.

* Mood Affiliation + Victimhood Culture + High IQ Aptitude at Ex Post Rationalization

In the past 6 months we’ve really seen some incredible mental gymnastics justifying why “no, no, no, this is why Trump will actually persecute *my group* the most.” I’m actually kind of sad we only have a few more weeks of this election.

I feel like state of the art has nearly reached the point where authors make these conclusions while entirely foregoing any actual specific references to Trump at all. The field of formal logic may actually lose out on some potential breakthroughs when election mania is over.

Being on Trump’s secret genoice list has become a pretty trendy marker of status in America’s more cosmopolitan corners. Particularly so as his currently abysmal poll numbers make said persecution nearly hypothetical at this point.

* How many “conservative Jews” are there really? From where I’m standing the Jewish shadow government is getting pretty long in the tooth and for the most part are exactly the same people who egged on the Iraq war 15 years ago. They aren’t looking like they have too many successors and the best they can muster are such intellectual heavyweights as Jamie Kirchick and Ben Shapiro. I suspect that Stepehens, much like the Brezhnev-era Politburo, sees the cold abyss ahead of him and wants to do all he can until them.

* If it sounds as if Stephens is off his rocker, that could be because he is. Perhaps not known to the diaspora of white collar knowledge workers and sensitive types nodding their heads along to this scary campfire tale/Reichstag-porn, he’s distinguished himself at various times for anti-social pointless rancor even among his fellow New York editorial attack dogs (I think at some level this must be his objective). Imagine Ted Cruz but without the aw-shucks tweak. Mostly he seems to pick fights & lose them with “media reporters” — strange for a guy who babbles so much about strategy and leadership brio… Though a pre-Murdoch employee at the WSJ, as the bio shows he’s spent his entire working life in the News Corp archipelago.

* I’m ashamed to say that I can barely read the news these last couple months. It just puts me in a a horrible mood. Almost every headline about the election is an attack on Trump or his supporters, and they’re quite often dishonest/disingenuous.

That tweet from Yglesias about packs of people being allowed to beat up Jews and minorities is the epitome. It’s actually respectable these days to believe that Trump would end the rule of law in the United States.

I’m certainly still voting for Trump. Part of the point of the relentless news cycle is to depress his supporters. I’ve just had to go dark from mainstream media sites and social media for a couple of months. I recommend it to others.

* He normally writes like that. i.e. ominous/hallucinatory with a sort of sullen-televangelist flavor

For example, this bizarro-classic of B.S. artistry from June 2010, “Afghanistan: Eyes Wide Shut” (can read via Google News if the link hits WSJ paywall):

“Perhaps the job-secure Gen. Petraeus could press the administration to stop talking about withdrawal schedules and start using the word ‘victory’ with frequency and conviction. Or perhaps the general could, in his usual politic way, speak that way himself. Doing so would reassure our remaining Afghan friends and deter importuning outsiders. It might steady the unsteady Mr. Karzai. Above all, it would persuade the Afghans whose support we need that they won’t soon find themselves on the wrong end of a Taliban firing squad for having once sided with us.”

I’d note that not one person on the National Review masthead or “Fox News All-Star Panel” was extolling such delusional prospects for Afghanistan at the time. The neo-futurismo Johns Hopkins keyboard commandos had taken to dumping on Rumsfeld while touting the wonder-working power of surge-king Petraeus– OOPS…

* There is no firm evidence that banks and the media explicitly collaborate in any way. If it that was the case, we’d see a good degree of unusually inter-tangled business ties. It’s not like publicly traded multi-billion companies don’t have extensive records of their ownership and management. We’d expect to see major Keiretsu-style cross-holdings, or at least major common shareholders. We’d also expect to see it be quite common for executives from one sector to move to another. Wake me up when Lloyd Blankfein is named the next editor of the NYT. Overall banking and media are not anymore inter-tangled than any other random pair of industries in the US economy.

Yes, bankers and members of the media do often share quite common political opinions. At least when normalized to the median American. But that’s because each industry is disproportionately made up of wealthy, educated, coastal professionals. The same political opinions are widely held by pretty much every other cosmopolitan, educated, coastal professional. Regardless of whether they’re bankers, journalists, professors, doctors, lawyers or software engineers.

The reality is far more depressing than the conspiracy fantasies. If there was a cabal using their vast resources to manipulate public opinion, victory seems quite achievable. Stage a political uprising, a la Trump, and expose and castrate the few maestros at the top. Instead political trends ebb and flow in ways that are no more centrally orchestrated than high fashion. The march of political leftism is driven by the distributed cultural consensus of millions. Absent direct occupation and political re-education of New York, San Francisco and LA (a la the post-war occupation of Germany), there’s no silver bullet here.

* First, there is no question that the piece is more effective because it comes from a Jew. No politician actually has ever explicitly said anything like that because none would dare make such majority-as-proto-nazi accusations openly and moreover it would not be very convincing unless they were Jewish. Jeb went no further than saying the ways Mexicans were better. I think that like Erderly, being Jewish means Stephens gets far more leeway, from non Jews at least.

Also, in this case he is a hit man of the establishment with a licence for extremism in the defence of it, but not just another part of it. The non Jewish elite want Jews writing like that about Trump’s potential voters (non elite whites).Stephens had written such stuff before Trump, though not as extreme in its distrust and loathing of the majority non elite. I think many Jews would be likely to advise Stevens to tone it down, but that he is Jewish and writing such an attack piece is probably not a coincidence. Stephens’s function is to be an ideological Pittsburgh Phil, which he is temperamentally suited for. He enjoys his work.

* In the 50s, smoking out Soviet communists was a ‘plot against America’.

Today, working for peace with Russia (no longer communist) is a ‘plot against America’.

* Well, see, it’s the paranoid anti-Semites who are bringing it all on. The paranoid anti-Semites obsess about the Jews, prompting the Jews to obsess about the … Jews. But the very notion that Jews are worth obsessing about is nothing more than a paranoid anti-Semitic fantasy. So the goyim are to blame for Jewish self-obsession – and everything else.

In other words, we goyim should go off and play football, or work on our pickup trucks, or do whatever it is we’re supposed to be doing, while the Jews … do nothing that the goyim need to worry about. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

Hey, Dancing with the Stars is on!

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Neo-Con Bret Stephens: “The Plot Against America”

Jessica Drake – Educator

Posted on October 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment:

* Wikipedia says, “Jessica Drake (born October 14, 1974) is the stage name of an American pornographic actress and sex educator.”

Wow, who knew that getting boinked on camera for a living was a ticket into becoming an “educator”. And here my niece went to school for five years!

* Gives new meaning to the phrase “school of hard knocks.”

* Edge in what? Believability? Do you think Drake’s accusation is more credible than Hayek’s?

* Desirability, dear fellow. 5’8 Anglo vs 5’1.5 swarthy Mexican dwarf. I Still think that 10,000 seems excessive, though. Perhaps Trump was a fan of her work?

Posted in Pornography | Comments Off on Jessica Drake – Educator

The Hamilton Phenomenon

Posted on October 22, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* The Hamilton phenomenon says something weird about the elite psyche. Surely, without the minority angle, nothing about the Founding Fathers would ever seem cool and become a cultural phenomenon. By casting everyone as non-white and making it into a rap video, educated Americans of all political persuasions, Republicans and Democrats, can come together and celebrate a shared history. The dark cast removes the stain of whiteness that is there throughout European and American history.

* Hamilton is a good signal to determine those who are in the elite and those who aspire to be in the elite. I know some people my age (20s) who want nothing more than to see this play. They have the soundtrack, read the Ron Chernow book, and talk about how Miranda is a genius yet they have not seen the play themselves, since they are still broke and paying their massive student loans. It’s really weird to witness but easy to figure out why. Going to or wanting to go see Hamilton is an excellent virtue/progressive signal, maybe the best one out there now since too many people own a Prius.

* Unlike our current crop of pro-plutocrats, however, Alexander Hamilton was most decidedly not pro-immigration:

The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.

* The rock musical Rent (Broadway debut 1996), principally about living with AIDS/HIV, had a very similar vanity-signaling effect on the culture at the time. It was the must-see/hot ticket show for a number a years. It ran for 12 years on Broadway.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Hamilton Phenomenon

Tabletmag: MONDOWEISS LAUNCHES ANTI-SEMITIC ATTACK ON NEW EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF ‘THE ATLANTIC’

Posted on October 21, 2016 by Luke Ford

I am grateful for the headline. That way I know who to root for in the story.

Yair Rosenberg writes for Tabletmag:

Earlier this month, The Atlantic announced the appointment of longtime reporter Jeffrey Goldberg as its 14th editor-in-chief. As the publication’s press release noted, Goldberg has written 11 cover stories for the magazine, and interviewed an impressive array of world leaders, including President Obama, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Britain’s David Cameron, Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Jordan’s King Abdullah.

Across the political and media spectrum, most cheered Goldberg’s appointment. As Conor Friedersdorf, an Atlantic writer who has often differed with Goldberg politically, put it, “[he] subscribes to the core values that enable the finest work we produce.” At the same time, some criticized the choice on account of Goldberg’s prior support for the Iraq war, and his perceived interventionist bent on matters of foreign policy.

And then there was the anti-Israel hub Mondoweiss, which attacked the appointment because it whitewashed the fact that Goldberg was a Jew.

Gosh, that sounds awful. Let me have a look at that awful awful Mondoweiss piece:

Today’s breathtaking announcement by Atlantic media’s owner David Bradley that Jeffrey Goldberg will become editor-in-chief is curious not for the accolades it showers on the star writer — “no greater journalist writing in the country today” — but for the laundering it does of his resume.

There is no mention of his one book about Israel, Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror. No mention of the fact that Goldberg emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces as a corporal. No mention of his Iraq war resume, giving America grounds for invasion with bad reports on Saddam’s connections to Al Qaeda and his manufacture of chemical weapons. No mention of Goldberg’s substantial Israel portfolio. The word Israel appears only once in the announcement, in the delectable phrase, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

It would seem that both the Atlantic and Goldberg are determined to pivot and rebrand. I’m no longer the go-to expert on Israel, no longer the war-drum-beater who told the world that Israel was about to attack Iran, I’m no longer the most powerful Jewish reporter in the country. I’m Jeffrey Goldberg, American editor in a literary line that goes back to Hawthorne, Emerson and Robert Frost. And so much for the fearful anti-semitism of my youth; I’m past all that.

Bradley says that “Jeff’s best-known writing” is “long-form narrative for the print magazine.” Well that’s not entirely accurate. Narrative has never been as important to Goldberg as information and driving an argument. And he is surely best known today for his writing about the Middle East, notably those flat tires in Iraq and his promotion of Israel, like his first and only book.

The media establishment is today a self-protection racket, for all the journalists who supported the greatest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. “In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality” — Jeffrey Goldberg said that in 2002, Yousef Munayyer reminds us today.

Goldberg has appeared at numerous Zionist events, for instance the American Jewish Committee conference, and Zionism 3.0, where he was introduced by Charlotte Halle, English edition editor at Haaretz, as “for many, the preeminent voice among American Jews.”

The word Jew made no appearance in the Atlantic announcement. Here’s the cleansed resume paragraph from Atlantic media:

As background only, here is Jeff’s story in brief: raised in New York, Jeff attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he edited the Daily Pennsylvanian. Beginning his career as a crime reporter for The Washington Post, Jeff moved through The Jerusalem Post, The Forward, New York magazine, The New York Times Magazine and The New Yorker. Jeff joined The Atlantic in 2007. Across his nearly-10 years with us, Jeff has written many of our most-successful cover stories, including this year’s “The Obama Doctrine,” and has interviewed many world leaders on our behalf including King Abdullah of Jordan, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and the former British Prime Minister David Cameron.

For the record, Goldberg made aliyah to Israel in his early 20s (30 years ago) and spent several years in Israel. “The Diaspora was the disease, and Israel was the cure,” he wrote in his book. He felt that a red river of anti-semitism flowed just under the surface of American life, and even after he decided to come back stated that America was “unhealthy for Jews and Judaism.” He came back because he realized he wasn’t all that comfortable with Israeli culture, and because he was journalistically ambitious, which is of course no crime.

Goldberg said when his book came out in 2006 — “I love Israel, with all its flaws. I’m deeply committed to its safety and its future” — and he demonstrated as much with all his reporting that promoted the American involvement in Israel’s battles in the Middle East. Like the famous Point of No Return in the Atlantic in 2010, which pressured the United States to take action against Iran before Israel launched its jets within the next year. That article was one of several that earned him the reputation that even his colleague Robert Wright noted: a “channel” for Benjamin Netanyahu.

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, that is. Just in case you all forgot who Benjamin Netanyahu was…

Not long ago (2011) Goldberg observed, shrewdly (and he’s nothing if not shrewd), that while he vehemently disagrees with the left’s position that Zionism is a settler ideology, the left “has the wind at its back.” Five years have passed, and the wind has become a simoom: we’re in the 50th year of the occupation and leading Israel Zionists talk fearfully about growing fascism in Israel and on September 29, as he was negotiating this job, Goldberg at last cashiered Netanyahu with a piece in the Atlantic titled the “Unbearable Smallness of Netanyahu.”

Seems like Goldberg has chosen just the right time to pivot.

Steve Sailer writes: “Brooklyn-born former Israeli army prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg has been named editor of The Atlantic, capping a memorable journalistic career of succeeding by failing. Goldberg is one of the many advocates of the U.S. Iraq Attaq of 2003 whose careers haven’t been hurt at all by helping plunge his country (or co-country) into an utterly unnecessary foreign policy catastrophe…”

“Unlike Editor Goldberg, I don’t have a co-country. So I take it personally when my fellow Americans get slaughtered due to the conventional wisdom of Invade the World / Invite the World.”

COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:

* In 2002, I read Scott Ritter’s little book on Iraq, which as I recall basically predicted everything that has happened since then: ethnic cleansing and Sunni-Shiite conflict, a dangerous quagmire for US soldiers, and a completely destabilized Middle East and ascendant Islamism. He was convicted later of exposing himself online to a federal agent who claimed as part of a sting operation to be 15. He obviously has issues, but it sounded to me plausible he might have been deliberately targeted by people who knew his peccadilloes and wanted payback for opposing the Consensus.

* David Remnick should write the Jeff Goldberg story: about how a lowly Israeli prison guard fulfilled the destiny of his race by ultimately editing the magazine of Emerson, Holmes, and Longfellow and turning it into even more of a critical studies clickbait factory.

* It is remarkable how, post 2001, some Jews have pushed their own peculiar agenda and their own particular ethnic interests off on this country, without even feeling the need to disguise it much. I guess the rest (the interests of gentiles) is just commentary.

* Goldberg served his country (his actual country, that is) by standing guard over captured rock-throwers, so I’ve no doubt that he’s a very brave man. He also suffered at the hands of “juvenile pogromists” on Long Island (his wikipedia page makes for rather funny reading).

* I don’t see the problem. He clubbed Palestinians over the head to protect Israeli nationalism. Now he’ll be clubbing Americans over the head to prevent American nationalism. All in the name of Jewish Supremacy.

* Interestingly, Jeffrey Goldberg, Stephen Glass, and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, are all Penn graduates and wrote for the school newspaper there. What an incubator!

Although he didn’t attend Penn, “award-winning” journalist and longtime editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, was also a strong advocate of Iraq Attaq; and now almost 15 years later we’re getting advice from him on Russia. It also appears that his wife and son work at the NYT.

I have a feeling that earlier this year, President Obama decided to grant Jeffrey Goldberg all that Air Force One interview time for some of the same reasons that Fidel Castro chose him for a chat back in 2010: Jeffrey Goldberg is just a lot of fun to have around and he gives really great advice…

* Goldberg’s Wikipedia page quoutes him on his hatred for the “Irish pogromists” who made his adolescence on Long Island miserable and how he says that’s why he fell in love with Israeli muscle-flexing.

* In Goldberg’s mind, nationalism is a privilege reserved for Israel.

* As far back as 1965 I became convinced that The Atlantic was a front publication for America’s intelligence community. The content was sophisticated but was always just a little off, a little not quite right. I confess that my opinion was based on nothing more than my reading between the lines of the magazine. Yet, in over fifty years I have found nothing that changed that early opinion. Appointing Jeffry Goldberg editor only confirms my long-standing belief. Move along! Nothing to see here.

* I have no idea how the editor of The Atlantic gets chosen, but of all their regulars, Goldberg has always been the one to write the most blinkered and provincial articles-all Israel, all Zionism, all the time.

Of course, I exaggerate, but as with many other public intellectuals of his tribe, a lot of America simply doesn’t exist in this guys’ mental landscape. And much of their writing is cogitation of a certain specialized hair-splitting type that feels far removed from the historical Anglo-Saxon mindset.

Even in today’s Atlantic, much of Goldberg’s stylistically undistinguised writing comes across as that of an outsider nerd banging on about his special concern, a lot like Coates. Unlike the New York Times, The Atlantic’s print edition still doesn’t come across as (((The Atlantic))).

How did Goldberg get the job? Where do the reins of power at The Atlantic lead and who holds them?

* People have been speculating about George Plimpton’s Paris Review literary mag for a long time.

I would want to be on George Plimpton’s side.

I’ve never seen anybody make the accusation, but Tom Wolfe’s Ph.D. is from Ground Zero of CIA recruitment: the American Studies program at Yale.

* I forgot that Jacob Weisberg was for the Iraq War. And then he spent the next 6 years collecting his “Bushisms” mocking W’s speech.

* I think Mickey Kaus might have been against it. At the least, he was not really for it. Kaus is (to my mind) a sensible guy, and one of the better, more lucid writers, who was ever at Slate – an E-zine that went rapidly down hill after Michael Kinsley left it. Like NPR, it now exists as a parody of itself.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Jeffrey Goldberg | Comments Off on Tabletmag: MONDOWEISS LAUNCHES ANTI-SEMITIC ATTACK ON NEW EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF ‘THE ATLANTIC’

Systematic Racism!

Posted on October 21, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* It’s absolutely the biggest conspiracy theory of all time.

The best part is, it’s actually the current scientific hypothesis for why there are different outcomes between the races! This is how bad the social sciences are in the west. A conspiracy about how white people keep down minorities (except Asians) because they just hate their skin color is the best theory that they can come up with.

It would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the consequences of policies made from this idea.

* What is systemic racism, really? It is the logical result of an absolute denial to accept group-related genetic differences. The logical equation is this: all groups of humans are equal in their abilities and temperaments, humans of groups differ in their outcomes on significant life measures, so some force must be affecting the ability of some groups of humans to translate abilities and temperaments into desirable outcomes on significant life measures. Since that force cannot be genetic, it’s called systemic racism.

The same principle applies in physics to dark matter. Something is affecting the model, it acts in certain ways, so lets just identify it. The difference between systemic racism and dark matter is that systemic racism has an obvious alternative theory, which is a genetic tendency toward economic capability that is largely correlated with continental ancestry.

* Respectable Opinion is full of conspiracy theories. The Holocaust is a conspiracy theory. I’ve read books that all but theorized Hitler communicated with Himmler and Himmler with his subordinates through telepathy. But that’s something regular people accept, and is useful to the ruling class, so it’s okay.

There’s something, a little, little something, to the negative connotation to the label “conspiracy theory.” Because once you start doubting the Narrative, once you swallow the red pill, you have kicked loose from the earth, with nothing either above or below you but the array of Crazy/Evil Opinion. It’s hard. You can easily fall into actual, not pretend, crazy territory. Because you don’t know what to believe. The divine right of kingship? Okay. The dictatorship of the proletariat? Why not?

At least with the blue pill you’re spared the effort, and can choose between preselected options. Like a supermarket. Freedom is hard.

* When are people going to start asking the most pertinent question of all:

“What’s so bad about racism in the first place?”

* To me the pseudo-science of systemic racism resembles a tautology, one that hangs together with the pseudo-legal concept of disparate impact, thus:

Where (you think) there is disparate impact, there is systemic racism. Where (you think) there is systemic racism, there is disparate impact.

All of this is made possible by the tabula rasa postulate, which states that all humans are equivalent blank slates.

In other words, all differences in human outcomes can be explained by racism.

Couple this with the fact that schools are now teaching two additional postulates, 1) All white people are racists, and 2) Nobody else is, and then you arrive at the corollary: Everything is white people’s fault.

Thus the conclusion: All failures of everyone else to achieve as much as white people are disparate impacts caused by systemic racism.

It’s all one big circle jerk.

* Right now, I’m sitting in a diner, waiting for my lunch. The TV set above my head is tuned to ESPN. (Mercifully, the sound is off.)

ESPN has suspended all regular programming for marathon coverage of the Josh Brown (a white football player) domestic-abuse situation. (Josh Brown is a white football player – a kicker.) Josh Brown – did I mention that he is white? – is a wife-beater. Josh Brown, a white guy, needs to change his name, because he is not a noble brown man – he is as white as a bedsheet.

Whites are rapists – look at that drunk swimmer who fingered that smashed girl! Whites are wife-beaters – look at Josh Brown!

Whites are evil.

Now they’re showing a jeans commercial. But I’m sure they’ll be all over the Josh Brown situation when they come back.

* Invisible racism is such a powerful force it operates backwards through time, retarding negroes in the past who had no idea whites even existed. How else to explain Africa always having been backwards?

Posted in America | Comments Off on Systematic Racism!