The Providence St. John’s Santa Monica Experience

Posted on March 29, 2017 by Luke Ford

Luis Pierce provides this Google review: “The only reason I’m not giving it five stars is because I had to walk across dozens of people in the waiting area from the bathroom with my urine sample, which was a bit embarrassing. Other than that, I was treated respectfully, the staff were organized and efficient. They have shelves of condoms and lubricant if you need it. In and out. That’s how it went.”

Posted in Santa Monica | Comments Off on The Providence St. John’s Santa Monica Experience

What’s Happened To America?

Posted on March 29, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* A lot of savvy young people of the internet generation now know how this stuff is engineered, though — the information is in, we were born in it, and this is why so many young white men are way more to the right than Steve’s commentariate. We know why it’s happening and we know who’s doing it, and we don’t BS around it like a lot of boomers still do. There’s a reason why the same trends were present in Russia up until recently; because the same people who were in charge over there are now in charge over here. This is about people: who is running the show, in charge of crafting the youth culture, and able to promote their policies and agenda. Presently in the US, that is an alien elite who wants to see us destroyed. So we are dying…

* It used to be that social observers could, with some justification, conflate class with race. But given the rather precipitous drop in life quality indicators – including, er, life itself – for lower status whites, that is no longer a tenable position.

In other words, the author of the piece above fails to realize the rather wide gulf that now exists between upscale whites and downscale whites. The latter, especially in Appalachia, are essentially the forgotten people of America. Their communities have been devastated by idleness, substance abuse, decline in religiosity, destruction of marriage and other social institutions, yet they are not endlessly valorized in the media as blacks and Hispanics are. Indeed, they are told that they are the enemy of the good in this country.

Some of the underlying causes are due to mass immigration of menial laborers, but much of it has to do with other reasons, such as the shift to the polarized high-tech/service dual economic structure, the decline of marriage and religion, the disintegration of civic society, including its most basic structure – family, that existed as social glue even (or especially) in poor areas.

Put another way, the “progressive” evolution of American society in the last 20-30 years has been catastrophic for the left side of the IQ bell curve among whites. Blacks were the first to suffer from this “benevolent” poison of the Left; now whites with lower IQ profiles are undergoing the same change. In some ways the trends are worse for downscale whites, because the exceptional ones from downscale white communities can pick up and move to upscale white areas and assimilate themselves easily (the way upscale blacks can’t or won’t). This essentially leaves the worst-off behind with few role models and leadership to rescue the communities from their plight.

I get to observe this firsthand, because I live in both a super zip area and West Virginia (though I should stress that my area of WV is relatively intact and affluent as far as WV goes). My super zip is full of bright/hardworking people from WV who fled their declining communities and built new, affluent lives for themselves. Most of them are crystal clear that they hold their former communities in low regard and intend never to return.

Interestingly, what new “menial” jobs there are in parts of WV are not geared to downscale white men, but to downscale white women. A prime example is a call center for, say, Verizon FiOS. Verizon used to staff several call centers with blacks. They couldn’t do math (deal with billing issues) and they often angered customers with poor customer service. At some point Verizon realized the customer service and retention issue this was causing and started to staff/relocate its call center to WV with white women without college degrees (but with high school diplomas), because these women were comprehensible, pleasant with the customers on the phone, and smart enough to resolve common billing issues on their own.

On the one hand, this is good news – it means money in the pockets of those who need it; on the other hand, left out from these new jobs, of course, are less educated white men, which exacerbates some of the current problems – downscale white women have better jobs and more money than the downscale white men, hence the latter make, literally, poorer marriage partners. So this helps to perpetuate the dynamic of single parenthood, idle men, etc. – again, a repeat of what blacks have suffered.

It’s not certain what can be done at this point. Curtailing mass immigration would help, certainly, but that will be far from enough. In any case, economic aspects are only a part of the problem.* It’s not clear how the social aspects are to be addressed, as social capital is famously easy to consume but difficult to replenish once depleted. One thing that is clear is that the lower class does not do well left on its own devices. Whether black or white, those on the bottom rung of the educational/IQ profile need strong families and social-religious institutions that enforce salutary social norms (e.g. chastity, thrift, work ethic, soberness, etc.).

*One educational suggestion that I get behind is to replicate the German model of three-tiered secondary school system, i.e. dramatically cut down the number of those who are headed to universities; increase technical (non-college) education, including apprenticeships, for the swollen middle portion; and provide practical, useful basic work skills (e.g. basic communication/English) for the menial labor class at the bottom.

* There are ZERO laws in the US granting white people a privilege.

In high contrast, there are thousands of laws, including especially federal laws, that grant whole classes of victim cult freaks an undeserved privilege.

When a victim cult freak refers to white privilege, it is actually referring to the benefits white people derive from hard work, honesty, and independence.

A victim cult freak panoply:

Women are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veteran are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
2-party System Dependents are federally entitled because of Independent oppression
Aboriginals are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
National Socialist are federally entitled because of Local-state Government oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Crooks are federally entitled because of Law-Abiding people oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Fascist oppression

Posted in America | Comments Off on What’s Happened To America?

NOHO SCHOOL BUDGET CUTS DUE TO HIGH WHITE STUDENT PERCENTAGE SPARKS OUTRAGE

Posted on March 27, 2017 by Luke Ford

How long will whites put up with this discrimination?

NEWS: NORTH HOLLYWOOD, LOS ANGELES (KABC) — Outrage has grown at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, as the school faces layoffs and increased class sizes due to a law limiting funds for schools with a higher white student body.

The Los Angeles Unified School District provides more funding for schools where the white population is below 30 percent.

In a letter to parents, the district noted the highly regarded middle school had been above the percentage for the past couple years.

The racial formula was a condition imposed by court decisions dealing with desegregation in the 1970s.

Parents, however, remain frustrated with what the cuts might mean for their children.

“When your class sizes are getting larger and you’re taking resources away from students, I mean ss parents, you do want your kid to go out to college,” one parent, Rosemary Estrada, said.

In an attempt to lessen the budget cuts, the district changed the school’s spending formula to one based on the number of students.

“Thankfully we’re going to keep our librarian. We’re going to keep our nurse, but we may lose a few teachers, but not as many as we once thought,” said Sheila Edmiston, one student’s parent.

Several jobs will still be lost and class sizes could grow. For many parents, the race-based reason of “too many white students” has made the cuts more difficult to swallow.

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off on NOHO SCHOOL BUDGET CUTS DUE TO HIGH WHITE STUDENT PERCENTAGE SPARKS OUTRAGE

Why Are American Pundits More Conformist Than British Pundits?

Posted on March 26, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I do think the cultural element may the the ur-source for the other differences. I say this because it is not just the pundit class who are less conformist. The British are less deferential to judges than we litigation-whipped Americans are. British are more cynical and dismissive of their politicians than we are, the US having too many secular cultists who cannot distinguish between the political and the religious. In the workplace too, British can be–or used to be–surprisingly candid and irreverent to their supervisors. They weren’t insubordinate, just extremely cheeky by US standards. Perhaps it was sort of safety valve for the class system? Since no one expected the class system to change, verbal fusillades from the inferior class harmlessly told the Establishment of their temperature without creating an obligation to do anything.

* In this country, the side switchers have tended to be people published in low circulation fora who had other income streams or could count on a ready stream of philanthropic funding (extended before or after switching sides). Right to left have included Garry Wills (academic posts), Edward Luttwak (in a way, and, again, academic posts), Michael Lind (misc. philanthropies), David Brock (sorosphere &c), and Damon Linker (whatever crumbs he gets). Left to right have included Irving Kristol (misc. philanthropies), Norman Podhoretz & family (American Jewish Committee), Seymour Martin Lipset (academic positions), James Q. Wilson (academic positions), Charles Murray (misc philanthropies), Richard John Neuhaus (misc. philanthropies, ministerial backstop), and Joseph Epstein (Phi Beta Kappa Society, academic post). Tacking one way and then another over the years have been Nathan Glazer, Robert W. Tucker, and Glenn Loury (f/t academics all).

* An American is his job, so it’s dangerous to be Mickey Kaus because you won’t get hired again by your former friends. The identification of job and status is not as extreme in UK. I remember Toby Young making this point about conformist Americans.

* Brits just like to argue. Debating is a national sport in Britain. Perhaps because their social life revolves around the local pub, where people gather to drink pints and talk for hours.
Another factor could be the great tolerance for individual quirks and excentricities, and for different opinions. Whereas conformity is a virtue in America, in England it’s perceived as a weakness and lack of character. There’s no greater sin than to be boring and conforming. Excentricity is feted and revered, unlike in America.
Of course, PC of late has greatly eroded UK’s freedom of speech and stifled debate.

* The British were a mono-culture until recently, with shared white ancestry. If you’re part of the in-group, you can say what you please among the other in-group members. They’re like your family, and you tolerate more obnoxiousness from your relatives than you would from a stranger. It’s only been recently that out-group members have appeared in Western cultures, and that certain cynical in-group people have been using them as a wedge to divide their own white group against itself.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why Are American Pundits More Conformist Than British Pundits?

Tablet: “Jew Who Called in Bomb Threats Was Anti-Semitic”

Posted on March 26, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Only because he got caught.

If he hadn’t got caught he’d have been a mensch for helping to keep other Jews at the proper level of paranoia.

* Jews were not only not “terrorized” (Tablet) by the bomb threats, they were ecstatic to be targeted by what they imagined were Trump-inspired Alt-Right Nazis. It’s safe to presume the 19-year-old Israeli saw matters this way too. He was spreading joy, not terror.

*There is certainly a species of contempt among some Jews towards gentiles in general and against other specific groups of gentiles (e.g., Arabs, blacks). So just for the sake of the argument, let’s stipulate that there is this phenomenon called “anti-Gentilism” and is found (obviously) in the non-Gentile, that is, Jewish community.

Is the guy who made “Mad Men” “anti-Gentile”? Having never watched the show, but having read about his remarks, and his apparently carefully nursed resentments, I guess so. So now what? Is this really a widespread phenomenon?

On the other hand, were these phone threats made for the purpose of encouraging hatred of gentiles? I really don’t think so.

I mean I suppose someone could write “The History of Anti-Gentilism”, however, by definition, it would consist of nothing more than miscellaneous Jews saying and doing nasty things to non-Jews. So such a tome would probably be considered “anti-Semitic.” Next up, Talmudic quotes that say nasty things about Jesus and Mary.

I mean exactly what is the scope of Anti-Gentilism? It is not going to be same as Anti-White, which is already a word. It is not going to be the same as Anti-Christian, because that word also exists. What is being proposed is a new word describing a special kind of resentment Jews have for non-Jews. Okay, I’m fine with that. Except that I don’t think the phenomenon is that widespread and I still don’t think it applies in this case for the reasons given.

This goes to the idea that a “hate hoax” is identical to a “blood libel.” I would say this is wrong on three levels. In the case of a “hate hoax” I cannot think of gentiles being arrested, imprisoned, and put on trial for a hate crime that was later shown to be a hoax (I’m sure there must be some, I will let someone fill me in.) Certainly it did not happen in this case. But secondly, non-Jews (aka gentiles) do not feel that kind of group solidarity with other gentiles. I mean, both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were gentiles. So, for that matter, so is OJ Simpson and Pablo Gomez, Jr. Finally, third, the reason we do not feel solidarity with these individuals is that no one is saying to us, “As a gentile, please explain Pablo Gomez, Jr. to me.” What, am I collectively responsible for everything any gentile does? To this day, anytime a Jew does anything wrong, any other Jew can expect someone to come up to them and expect them either to justify or condemn whatever it is.

I suppose the best one could argue is that “hate hoaxes” bring shame and scorn to all gentiles in a case like this, and to all whites in the case of hate hoaxes perpetrated by blacks (whites in this instance include Jews), and so on. But the problem is that the members of all of these splinter groups that are constantly lecturing straight white males about their wickedness are mostly gentiles themselves.

So anti-Gentilism has a certain utility in describing a certain type of Jewish resentment. And yet the term is still too broad. The Weiner guy, after all, didn’t resent all gentiles: just the straight white male Christians he went to school with.

Speaking as a straight white Christian male: I was not overly concerned about these threats, and I didn’t feel any responsibility for them, no one asked me to speak out about them, and I don’t feel any outrage at this spurious blot on my gentile escutcheon. If I were a more sensitive and self-absorbed person, I might write about how I lost sleep for weeks, my cheeks burning with hot tears as I thought about the terrible shame I felt that these crimes were being committed by a fellow gentile. But I didn’t. I’m just not that kind of person.

* I once lived in a predominantly Hassidic ultra-orthodox community, so I came across more anti-gentilism than I really care to remember. While it may be “logically parallel” to anti-semitism, it wasn’t structurally parallel. They positively revel in ignorance of gentiles and, if necessary, feign it. They make bizarre comments like “the goyim think it’s fine to steal”, which they pull out of their arse and then talk about something else. If you ask them to name a doctrine of Christianity/Islam/Hinduism they will stare at you blankly. If you ask them the capital of the country they live in they usually can’t answer. Conversely, they are minutely interested in every detail of rival ultra-orthodox sects. They can tell you umpteen completely boring details about the the differences between the Haredi community in Montreal, Lakewood, Stamford Hill, Williamsburg etc. but they couldn’t find any of them on a map.

Anti-semites, on the other hand, love nothing more than to demonstrate their expertise in Judaism. An anti-gentilist would regard the idea of reading a four volume epic on the ways of the gentile by Kevin McHymiestein with bafflement. He would get bored 15 seconds into a youtube video.

In short, the main thing anti-gentilists and anti-semites have in common is that they are obsessed with Jews.

* Calling this person mentally ill relieves him of much of the motive and responsibility of this actions. If the calls were made by someone in the alt-right, I doubt many people would just throw up their hands and say “what are you going to do, he was clearly mentally ill”.

His actions resulted in a few things that many left-leaning Jews would consider beneficial:

1) Raised awareness of anti-Semitism in a major way
2) Donations to SPLC skyrocketed
3) Gave the impression that Trump’s election emboldened an anti-semitic base
4) Forced Trump and his administration to denounce the supposed acts as the worst form of hatred

For all of these elements to come together through some random act of mental illness is just not believable. The odds are that his political leanings drove him to do this, and the use of sophisticated precautions to hide his tracks suggests that he didn’t want to be caught and was behaving rationally.

* It also led Amazon to delete all of its Holocaust Denial titles.

Simple story: a Jewish guy, propelled by the prevailing moral panic among some Jews since Trump’s election, decided to goose the project a bit by making threatening phone calls.

So let’s put him in prison for a few years.

* Peter Beinart’s take:

At a press conference in mid-February, Donald Trump said something that was, even for him, astonishing. He predicted that when authorities discovered the perpetrators of the anti-Semitic attacks that had broken out since his election, “It won’t be my people,” who had committed them. “It will be the people on the other side.” He repeated the thought later that month, reportedly telling state attorneys general that the bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers across the country may be “the reverse” of what they appear and may have been committed “to make others look bad.”

Democrats and officials of Jewish organizations officials were appalled. Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, declared: “We are astonished by what the President reportedly said.” Steven Goldstein, executive director of the Anne Frank Center, which combats bigotry, asked, “Mr. President, have you no decency? To cast doubt on the authenticity of Anti-Semitic hate crimes in America constitutes Anti-Semitism in itself.” When the Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci repeated Trump’s claims, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer called them “absurd and obscene.”

But it now appears that Trump may have been, partially, right. On Thursday, Israeli police arrested a Jewish Israeli American teenager for leveling some of the bomb threats. Earlier this month, prosecutors charged Juan Thompson, an African American who had previously worked at a left-leaning publication, with some of the others. There’s no evidence that either suspect tried to frame Trump supporters or white supremacists. And it’s still possible that right-wingers called in other bomb threats, or committed some of the other anti-Semitic incidents that have erupted since Trump’s election. Still, if two of the primary perpetrators of the JCC bomb scares turn out to be a Jewish Israeli and a left-leaning African American, that will, indeed, turn out to be “the reverse” of what Trump’s critics expected.

Trump’s critics—and I’m one of them—should learn from that.

Many critics have a narrative in their heads: That Trump and his supporters think and do bigoted things.

It’s not just the JCC bomb scares. It’s become commonplace to hear Jewish liberals claim that, in the words of former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Trump has given “license and permission to anti-Semites” and thus “opened the floodgates” for anti-Semitic attacks.

But have the floodgates really opened? According to the FBI, anti-Semitic incidents did rise 9 percent between 2014 and 2015, when Trump announced his candidacy. And New York City has announced that there were substantially more anti-Semitic incidents during the first two months of 2017 than during the equivalent period in 2016. But neither the FBI nor the Anti-Defamation League has yet reported national data for 2016. And defining what constitutes an anti-Semitic incident is tricky. If the JCC bomb threats—many of which appear to have been carried out by an Israeli Jew—boost the numbers, does that really show that anti-Semitism is rising in Trump’s America?

And a February Pew Research Center poll found that Republicans and evangelical Christians—two core Trump constituencies—feel even more favorably towards Jews than Democrats do. Since Trump’s takeover of the GOP, Republican fondness for Jews has actually increased.

If liberals have been too quick to blame Trump supporters for anti-Semitism, they’ve also been too quick to blame Trump’s advisors. Liberals frequently hurl the charge at Steve Bannon or his old publication, Breitbart. But the two Breitbart articles critics most commonly call anti-Semitic—an attack on the Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol that called him a “renegade Jew” and an attack on the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum that called her “a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned”—were both written by Jews.

* Peter Beinart: Who You Callin’ Anti-Semite? Reserve The Term For The Worst Offenders

We’ve been playing this game for months now. First with Michael Flynn. Then with Stephen Bannon. Now with Sebastian Gorka.

Liberals accuse a Donald Trump adviser of having ties to right-wing anti-Semites. Trump’s Jewish supporters defend him. And, not content to stop there, they throw the charge back in the accusers’ faces — claiming that they have ties to left-wing anti-Semites.

You’re an anti-Semite! No, you’re an anti-Semite! It’s not doing anyone any good.

Both sides deserve blame for this dialogue of the deaf. Conservatives need to stop pretending that “supporting Israel” (by which they really mean “supporting the Israeli government”) exonerates Gorka, Bannon, Flynn or anyone else of anti-Semitism. It’s entirely possible to admire Benjamin Netanyahu’s government because it is nationalistic, militaristic and religious and to revile American Jews because most of them are cosmopolitanism, dovish and secular. It’s also possible to love Jews when they’re in their own country, because that means they’re not living in yours. As Yale historian Timothy Snyder details in his book “Black Earth: The Holocaust As History And Warning,” the Polish government was fervently Zionist in the 1930s, since Zionism offered a rationale for moving Poland’s Jews somewhere else.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Tablet: “Jew Who Called in Bomb Threats Was Anti-Semitic”