Ann Coulter: You Can’t Say “Mexican Judge”, But You Can Sure Say “White Jury”!

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ann Coulter writes: Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

The entire media—and most of the GOP—have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association—”La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people—much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago—that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks”—the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Ann Coulter: You Can’t Say “Mexican Judge”, But You Can Sure Say “White Jury”!

‘America First’: Trump doubles down on a term that makes many Jews queasy

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

I expect Muslims to put Muslims first. I expect Bhai to put Bhai first. I expect Japanese to put Japanese first. I expect Jews to put Jews first. Why shouldn’t Americans put America first? If Americans don’t put America first, what should they put first? Israel?

Those American Jews who get nervous about the phrase “America First” are probably Americans who don’t want to put America first.

JTA: Donald Trump is doubling down on “America First.”

After Trump used the term “America First” in late April to describe his policies, the Anti-Defamation League sent him a letter urging him to drop the historically tainted slogan — speaking for Jews and others who remember it as the name of the isolationist movement championed by a notorious anti-Semite to keep the United States out of World War II.

But in a speech Tuesday night following his victories in the last six state primaries, the presumptive Republican nominee for president made clear he’s not about to take the ADL’s advice and abandon the slogan.

“America First,” Trump said, reading from a teleprompter, means protecting American jobs from “unfair foreign competition,” tapping America’s energy resources (including coal), instituting protectionist tax and regulatory policies, loosening regulation, reducing taxes for middle-class Americans and businesses and protecting American workers from immigrants.

“It’s important to understand what ‘America first’ means,” Trump said in his speech, as if directly addressing critics of his use of the term.

At its core, Trump’s policy shares some elements with the isolationism promoted 75 years ago by leaders of the America First Committee.

Created in 1940 after Hitler already had invaded Poland, the America First Committee argued that the U.S. should take a neutral approach toward Nazi Germany, and even do business with it, because the Nazi regime did not threaten America directly. Among its most noteworthy leaders was aviator Charles Lindbergh, who publicly espoused anti-Semitic viewpoints. Lindbergh warned that Jews posed a threat to the U.S. because of their influence over the media, movies and government.

The echoes of the America First Committee in Trump’s own America First policy include but are not limited to foreign policy. Lindbergh argued in 1941 that America shouldn’t help Britain because Britain was destined to lose the war and the effort would deplete America’s defenses. Trump says he would not have intervened in Libya to topple Libyan strongman Muammar Gadhafi (though video from 2011 recently surfaced showing Trump endorsing U.S. intervention in Libya) and he opposed the war in Iraq.

As Lily Rothman has noted in Time, Lindbergh, like Trump, said he had the backing of a silent majority of Americans who weren’t being given voice by a hostile media. Back in 1941, Lindbergh fingered the Jews as the culprits, saying they were pushing the U.S. toward war through their control of the media. In this year’s campaign, Trump believes the media is against him, too – not because they’re Jews but, he says, because they’re liars.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on ‘America First’: Trump doubles down on a term that makes many Jews queasy

Hate-Speech Attack Plan Draws Serious Fire

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Bob Unruh, WND, June 8, 2016:

Religious and secular activists both are taking aim at a new plan by the European Union to require tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter to attack “hate” speech online.

And for the same reason: The vague definitions could give people with nefarious agendas the power to censor speech.

WND recently reported the agreement tech giants Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and others reached with the European Union to crack down on what some regard as “hate speech.”

The Associated Press reported the newly approved “code of conduct” will have the tech companies “quickly” remove “illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

The companies agreed “to strengthen their partnerships with civil society organizations [that] often flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct,” the report said.

{snip}

However, Barnabas Fund, a Christian organization that supports Christians suffering from discrimination or oppression, said the agreement is providing grounds for “serious concerns that the definition of hate speech is so vague it could effectively censor anything deemed politically incorrect, including for example, any criticism of Islamism, mass migration or even the European Union itself.”

The group said it could have serious implications for Christian organizations such as Barnabas Fund that report the persecution of Christians, including converts from Islam.

The Christian organization said that by adopting the policy, the EU “is therefore restricting freedom of the press, something that has existed as a historic national value in countries such as the UK for over 300 years.”

“It is giving Islamic organizations the power to censor any online comments critical of Islam, including those discussing the rapidly spreading persecution of Christians in Muslim majority contexts. Even worse it is doing so not directly, in a way in which it might perhaps be held to account by the electorate, but via commercial companies,” Barnabas Fund said.

{snip}

IT companies will have to set up processes to remove material that draws complaints, specifically material that promotes “the incitement to violence and hateful conduct.”

They are to train staff members on “current societal developments,” but they don’t clearly defines “hate” speech, which drew criticism from the National Secular Society.

“The plans rest on a vague definition of ‘hate speech’ and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion,” the group said.

“The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers on Facebook censoring ‘atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content’ after false ‘mass reporting’ by ‘cyber jihadists.’”

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said: “Far from tackling online ‘cyber jihad,’ the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under ague ‘hate speech’ rules. Poorly trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is ‘hate speech,’ particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.’”

The EU said hate speech is “public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons . . . defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

However, Jones said, “Incitement to violence and incitement to ‘hatred’ are very different things.”

The Index on Censorship noted, “Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.”

When the announcement was made, Bloomberg reported: “A French Jewish youth group, UEJF, sued Twitter, Facebook and Google in Paris this month over how they monitor hate speech on the Web. In the course of about six weeks in April and May, members of French anti-discrimination groups flagged unambiguous hate speech that they said promoted racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism. More than 90 percent of the posts pointed out to Twitter and YouTube remained online within 15 days on average following requests for removal, according to the study by UEJF, SOS Racisme and SOS Homophobie.”

The AP said the company was telling customers to use online reporting tools to monitor speech.

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Hate-Speech Attack Plan Draws Serious Fire

The Donald & the la Raza Judge

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Patrick Buchanan writes: Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?

Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge’s bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent.

Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific?

Just this. First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.

On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.

And who is Curiel?

An appointee of President Obama, he has for years been associated with the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which supports pro-illegal immigrant organizations.

Set aside the folly of letting Clinton surrogates like the Post distract him from the message he should be delivering, what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?

He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.

But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.

Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.

The conservative movement was propelled by attacks on the Warren Court. In the ’50s and ’60s, “Impeach Earl Warren!” was plastered on billboards and bumper stickers all across God’s country.

The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.

Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.

But Trump’s real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge’s ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision’s Jorge Ramos.

Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.

But these things matter.

Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?

Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums.

Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.

All of us are products of our family, faith, race and ethnic group. And the suggestion in these attacks on Trump that judges and justices always rise about such irrelevant considerations, and decide solely on the merits, is naive nonsense.

There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”

When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?

Pressed by John Dickerson on CBS, Trump said it’s “possible” a Muslim judge might be biased against him as well.

Another “inexcusable” outrage.

But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?

When Richard Nixon appointed Judge Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, it was partly because he was a distinguished jurist of South Carolina ancestry. And the Democrats who tore Haynsworth to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.

To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.

COMMENTS:

* It’s not “inexcusable” to bring up the racial or ethnic background of a jury, though. That’s practically de rigeur these days. In fact, the ethnic or racial composition of jury members can serve as “grounds” for an appeal.

* I’ve spent some time at a site for those laid off from Intel. It’s very instructive. Many are angry about the H1B visas. This is called “hate” by those with H1B visas. Yet those same people gloat about the destruction of whites and say they deserve it because they are lazy and stupid. “Ha, ha. You’re losing your country,” the so-called guest workers say. Oddly, they do not see this as hateful or racist stereotyping as many POC don’t think racism can ever be attributed to them.

I think this is all going to plan as far as the one world orders plans for a 1-world sweatshop, but if we are to have any debates in this election about what is best for our country, it needs to begin with the recognition that bigotry is an equal opportunity employer.

* You are right on all counts. Trump should not back down.

I have extensive personal experience with judges and can say that they are arguably worse than elected politicians. They are even more arrogant because they don’t face even a slight chance of being removed from office, which at least some of our elected politicians do.

Judges typically do not even pretend to know and follow the constitution. They legislate without the honesty to acknowledge that’s what they’re doing, without the guts to run for office, and with supreme confidence that they are equipped to dictate how the rest of us inferior people should live. Dems and republican alike, judges strongly tend to side with expansion of state power and with government thugs, whether police or irs agents or dea agents.

And I’ve seen judges be obnoxious, sarcastic, demeaning, insulting, and threatening to their staff and to attorneys many, many, many times in a number of States over the last quarter century or so. Both dems and republicans, but the worst offenders were democrats.

We need term limits for federal judges, an end to guaranteed full-salary pension, and a mandate that congress publish and publicly consider comments by the public, litigants, attorneys, and court staff about how the various judges treat people.

Our judicial system is a disgrace and a comfortable home for america’s enemies.

* In some Commonwealth countries, criticism of the judiciary, as well as criticism of judgments can be prosecuted under the concept of “scandalization of the judiciary.” i.e. creating an air of scandal around a judge or the courts.

It appears that the same impulses drive those who would tell Trump to shut up and not criticize a sitting Federal judge for possibly being biased as a result of his ethnicity. This is not a good trend in a free society.

* “Hispanic” is a misnomer applied by the US Census Bureau. It is a ridiculously broad thing that only leads to confusion.

The majority of Latin American people, including most of those invading the United States, are heavily Native American, which is a race.

Conquistadores like Judge Curiel and other political leaders of the invasion are primarily European, Spanish. Their people have subjugated and exploited the Native American race as a lower class in Latin America since arriving there five centuries ago.

They are perfectly happy to see the United States become part of their two-class, Latin world and serve as a relief valve for Latin America’s economic and social problems.

* The term “La Raza” began in an era when people of mixed heritage (usually indigenous native American i.e. Aztec, Maya, Tarahumara, etc and Spanish, generically speaking) were looked down upon as ‘less than’ so they took the term la raza and redefined it as a positive when compared to the Spanish concept of pureza de raza, usually meaning no jewish or quasi Islam background) often viewed as negative. A lie, this pureza de sangre (pure ‘blood’) when many of these people had jewish ancestry and were actually conversos trying to escape the tyranny of their Spanish/Portuguese brethren. The High Priest of the Inquisition, Torquemada was at the top of the food chain, having to be more Catholic than the Pope. imagine that.

Not unlike the N word (at best, the tonal quality of the descriptive) when compared to the Southern pronunciation and its past context of US apartheid at its best.
La Raza, meaning US , nosotros, la gente (we the people) and positive acceptance of mixed ethnicity. Nothing more or less is meant with the use of the term La Raza. In context, it is Mexican so La Raza Lawyers Organization is just a lawyers group of Mexican American formed when they were not welcomed in the white lawyers organizations!

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Donald & the la Raza Judge

Something’s Got To Give

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Fred Reed writes: From the Drudge Report, America’s thermometer, regarding the disruption a campaign rally for Trump:

‘NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN AMERICA’…

TRUMP CAMPAIGNERS CHASED DOWN LIKE PREY…

DOZENS PUNCHED…

POLICE ASSAULTED…

SAN JOSE MAYOR JUSTIFIES VIOLENCE…

VIDEO: FEMALE PELTED WITH HUEVOS…

MEXICAN FLAGS RAISED AS AMERICAN FLAG BURNS…

Enough. This can’t last. If people want to demonstrate against anything at all, fine. If they detest any politician at all, fine. If they are vulgar subliterate rabble, let them be vulgar subliterate rabble where I am not. But when they run wild over and over and shut down politics, they need to be stopped, right now, with nightsticks and dogs and long jail sentences.

A country that allows a feral underclass to run unchecked, to attack and beat anyone it doesn’t like, to loot and burn and disrupt political rallies, to block highways and intimidate the citizenry, will not last. It is time to put an end to it. If we still can.

Look at them. They are the muck at the bottom of the national drains, stupid, half-educated at best, without regard for notions of law or democracy. Many couldn’t spell democracy. They need to be stopped, hard.

They do it because they can. They know there won’t be consequences because governments are afraid of them. They sense it and do as they please. They will do so increasingly. They are in charge, and they know it.

These things are no longer incidents in the cute “culture wars,” half amusing and half-exasperating. We see something more like Weimar Germany, with organized mobs making targets of politicians and breaking up rallies. It is a deliberate, conscious assault on what America is supposed to be and to a reasonable approximation, was.

Somebody needs to take command to end this nonsense before it becomes irremediable. But is it possible? There is no nice way to do it. The scum will ignore niceness. The police would have to beat the living dog-snot out of rioters, charge them with assault, and put them in slam for the maximum. Controlling them would require martial law in cities in insurrection and the shooting of arsonists and looters. Universities would have to expel without recourse of misbehaving college children. These would take stomach, which we do not have.

It is probably too late.

Yes, there is a culture war. Behind the rabble, and supporting them, are the media, New York and Washington and Hollywood, the open-borders crowd, the racial lobbies and etiolated epicenes of academia, Obama and Hillary and the Neocons and Wall Street.

Asserting control would not be easy. The cities are powder kegs. The rioters hold too many hostages. If police shoot one black criminal, a city burns. Politicians know it. If Latinos become another hostile racial group, Katie bar the door. We face as part of the larger conflict a tricorn race war of, now, low intensity. This makes no sense as most of all races just want to live in peace, but the civilized inevitably get sucked into hostility started by extremists. White nationalists are spoiling for a fight, as are Black Livists and an indeterminate number of Latino hot-heads.

Latinos are key in what is coming. There are at least 55 million in the US–I suspect the numbers are deliberately understated by the government–and most, being legal, are not going away.

Cracking down appears to be beyond the powers of governments whose politicians will temporize, back away, make polite noises, and hope it doesn’t blow on their watch. If we have Hillary, she will do nothing. It is not clear that Trump could change much, though he would try.

The new Brown Shirts. Trump supporter being attacked by the mob. There is a large racial element in the social battleground no matter how much we pretend otherwise.

The new Brown Shirts. Trump supporter being attacked by the mob. There is a large racial element in the social battleground no matter how much we pretend otherwise.

Race is only a part of the onrushing disaster. America is no longer a country, but a riot of hostile races, sexes, and political extremes, of self-serving politicians and extractive corporations of the extremely rich who have no attachment to the US. The mild competition between Republicans and Democrats of the Fifties has given way to hard Right and weird Left who bitterly hate each other. They are irreconcilable.

Somebody has to win. There is neither a desire for compromise nor room for it. Those who regard universities as centers for infantilism, inclusiveness and narcissistic political theater cannot live side by side with those who want rigorous schooling for the qualified. It is one or the other. A belief in free discourse is not compatible with firing people who say things offensive to the sacred sensitives. No happy mean exists between affirmative action and advancement by merit. The ghetto cannot cohabit amicably with the library.

America has become a three-ring circus run equally by Goebbels, Barnum and Bailey, and Caligula. Something is seriously out of whack when the President of the United States insists that boys pee in the girls’ room, when the National Basketball Association threatens to pull the All Star game from North Carolina unless it allows integrated urination. Does basketball now dictate to the states? Arrayed against these are people who believe in what was once called common decency. They do not want their daughters of twelve years going to a ladies’ room in which predictably will be hanging out men of doubtful intentions and intense interest.

Underlying all is the clash over dictatorship of the proletariat, the rule of the underclass. The culture that approved taste, learning, careful English and manners confronts the the slums which increasingly prevail. Filth and illiteracy are not just tolerated but exalted.

Lyrics from the gutter, specifically 2LiveCrew, a rap group.

“Bend over and spread em, girl, Show-w-w me those pussy pearls, Rub that ass and play with that clit, You know I like that freaky shit” and so on.

Today’s America.

The intellectual and moral level of these bottom-feeders is not compatible with civilization, yet the country is bathed in their outpourings. To take it out of passive voice, the music industry of New York bathes the country in it. There is no nice way to escape because the courts will uphold the industry.

The conflict is between freedom and social totalitarianism. Remote bureaucracies with whom localities have nothing in common write their children’s textbooks and decide what morality they should be taught. People who want a say in the schooling of their children, who want to choose where and with whom they live, find themselves pitted against a political ruling class with power to decide almost every aspect of their lives.

Something has to give.

COMMENTS:

* America is like one of those novels where the first few chapters are great but becomes unreadable and you just want to get it over with and read the ending already.

Let’s just rip the bandaid off now.

* The authorities will do nothing because they approve of these attacks. See the mayor of San Jose. Many of the people who were assaulted were attacked directly in front of lines of armored police. We are approaching a situation similar to Weimar Germany, where factions engaged in political street warfare until one side won the war and imposed a dictatorship.
There are two major differences today in the US. First, in Germany the socialists and fascists were in equally dire economic straits and existential despair, had little to lose, and were desperate for change, therefore they went at each other with equal abandon. Here the fighting is one-sided. In the US people like Trump supporters are law abiding folks who still believe in the rule of law and civility, are trying to cling to a middle class life and afraid of losing it by fighting back. The brown shirts attacking them have no such inhibitions and know they have the backing of the power structure including government, the media and the legal system. There isn’t going to be any crackdown. The people who could order it, like what they’re seeing.
For their part, the victims won’t respond in kind until they have been driven to the wall and realize they are about to lose everything anyway. I think we are still a long way from that, but we’ll see after eight years of Hillary in the White House and maybe another stock market collapse.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Something’s Got To Give

Martin van Creveld, Pussycats: Why the Rest Keeps Beating the West—and What Can Be Done about It

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Martin Van Creveld writes: In the kingdom(s) of the West, something is rotten. Collectively, the countries of NATO are responsible for almost two thirds of global military spending. In terms of military technology, particularly electronics, communications and logistics, they have left most of the rest so far behind that it is no contest. Yet since at least the end of the Korean War back in 1953, almost every time they went abroad and fought non-Westerners they were defeated and had to withdraw without achieving their objectives. As happened, to cite but two recent cases, in Iraq and Afghanistan; and as may yet happen if and when Islam keeps spreading into Europe, as it is doing right now.

What went wrong? How did the ferocious soldiers, who between 1492 and 1914, brought practically the entire world under their control, turn into pussycats? Readers of this website will recognize some of my earlier attempts to answer these questions; now those answers have been extended and put together in a single book.

Chapter I, “Subduing the Young,” focuses on the way Western societies raise their scanty offspring. Protecting and supervising them at every step; depriving them of any kind of independence; forcibly preventing them from growing up; and, if they refuse to sit still for so many hours as to drive any adult out of his mind, pathologizing them and dosing them with Ritalin (a close relation to cocaine, incidentally). Briefly, in the words of a recent American best-seller, turning them into “excellent sheep.”

Chapter II, “Defanging the Troops,” shows how the same is happening in the military. Troops may be, and routinely are, ordered to go to the other side of the world so as to kill and, if necessary, be killed in turn. Depending on the army in question, though, they may not be allowed to be in the streets after 2300 hours, drink a beer, wear uniform in public (lest they become a target for terrorists), watch pornography (lest the sensitive souls of their female “comrades” be offended) or visit a brothel. Briefly, they are not allowed to be men; notwithstanding that proving their manhood has always been, and always will be, one of the most important factors that make soldiers fight.

Chapter III, “The War on Men,” examines the way in which the forces are being feminized affects, indeed infects, their fighting power. In theory female and male soldiers are treated equally as they should be. In reality the former are privileged in many ways. First, the system of “gender norming” means that the standards required from female soldiers during all kinds of training, courses, and tests are lower than those men must meet; with the incidental result that everyone’s training suffers. Second, when it comes to pregnancy and delivery female soldiers enjoy privileges male ones do not have. Third, various factors have created a situation where, in quite some militaries, it is now easier for a woman than for a man to gain a commission with all the advantages that the latter brings. The further removed any arm of service from the front, the truer this is. Worst of all, though everyone knows these facts, no one is allowed to mention them even unconsciously; meaning that the entire military is based on a lie so big as to undermine the foundations on which it is built.

Chapter IV, “Constructing PTSD,” looks at the history of post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD, as it suddenly emerged during the American Civil War, is not so much a medical phenomenon as a cultural one. It is the product of a society which tolerates it and, all too often, encourages it and even celebrates it. It does so partly because the idea that war is bad for the soul is taken very much for granted; and partly because of the fear of litigation. Whatever the reason, things have got to the point where American troops returning from places like Afghanistan are now obliged to undergo annual testing for PTSD. Instead of feting its heroes, society, treating them like damaged goods, does what it can to humiliate them.

Chapter V outlines the emergence of modern societies which, exalting rights and forgetting about duty, have come very close to delegitimizing war itself. Especially in Europe, to use armed force for any purpose, specifically including self-defense or correcting a manifest wrong, has become almost taboo. For soldiers to express their pride, let alone joy, in their profession has also become intolerable.

Posted in Feminism, Military | Comments Off on Martin van Creveld, Pussycats: Why the Rest Keeps Beating the West—and What Can Be Done about It

Chaim Amalek: ‘When Moshiach comes, every day will be like an inner party.’

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek: “And no, the goyim will not be invited to attend. They will have their own, inferior parties, but ours will beat theirs because at ours, we will learn torah all day long.

“The only woman I ever met in New York who could be called a racially conscious White woman with a nationalist outlook was mentally ill. She heard voices in her head. Voices that she claimed were of alien reptilian invaders from outer space. Yep, for the racially conscious white man, the pickin’s are pretty slim. But the women are not.”

I email a Jewish friend Yggdrasil’s review of Eyes Wide Shut.

He responds: “I used to read him years ago. Is he still publishing new stuff? I thought he retired or stopped posting stuff? With the changes in the white identity/white nationalist movements in the past couple years, is he still relevant?”

Luke: “I think he has retired but I think his work is still relevant. What would you say are the important changes in the white nationalist movement the past couple of years?”

Friend:

I think that much has changed.

The old line “intellectuals” including William Pierce, persons such as Yggdrasil, Willis Carto, Tom Metzgar, David Duke and Edgar Steele have either died, retired or been pretty much bankrupted or marginalized.

Certainly we have never lived in a time where racism or anti Semitism engenders such a vitriolic public reaction as now.

However, privately, more and more whites are aware of the disparity in criminal behavior, educational achievement and interracial crime emanating from non Asian minorities against whites. The ubiquity of cell phone cameras and the willingness, primarily of blacks, to post acts of violence they film on the web and the ability of whites who are the victims of this violence to communicate it to others via the internet, means there is a vast number of persons who are exposed to this but who used to rely on the mainstream media as honest gatekeepers.

It is on this contradiction between what information persons see they are allowed via typical television and newspaper reporting and what they see unfiltered on the web that spurs newer and younger white identarians.

I don’t know how many persons read Steve Sailer, but I definitely sense his influence is growing, probably because of his association with Unz rather than running his own blog. I often see themes he has raised being repeated, without attribution by Ann Althouse, Glenn Reynolds, and even Powerline.

None of these persons wants to be associated with Sailer, because they know that will allow at least some of their readers to dismiss what they have to say, however, there are some persons, such as Rod Dreher, who does cite Sailer.

It would be easy to dismiss the Alt Right as direct descendants of David Duke, but the writers and thinkers under the alt-right umbrella are smart enough to know that would allow critics to “point and sputter” and dismiss them as mere knuckle dragging racists. Instead they focus on scientifically sound and empirically established racial differences ranging from athletic ability to IQ. They are willing to discuss that different cultures have different values and that different cultures have a right to practice and enforce their values in their home countries, but that the United States is a powerful country at least in large part because of its culture and they don’t like this culture to be subordinated to cultures with antithetical values.

The issue of Jews is one that divides many of the white identatarians. You see that for yourself. On the one hand you have Kevin MacDonald and the whole Occidental Quarterly crowd who clearly believe that Jews are (to reduce it to its basest terms) a parasite that in a healthy host thrives, but then like a true parasite, gradually weakens and hollows out the host until it collapses while the Jews move on to a new friendlier host. Others, such as yourself, recognize and condemn the power of Jews for their failure to recognize that it is in their best interest to keep the host strong even if it means allowing the host’s culture to dominate.

Which way the dominant thinking in the Alt Right goes will be very important both for the future of the Jews in America and for America itself.

A guy like Milo is a diversion. He is a good writer and very intelligent, but his power rests in his willingness to challenge PC norms. I seriously doubt that many in the Alt Right think that the way he tries to avoid being labeled a racist, that as a gay man he enjoys sex with black men, carries much weight. Instead the Alt Right enjoys the way the left responds to his provocations.

I am concerned that with the passing of Phil Rushton, Arthur Jensen, that there are fewer young scientists who are willing to follow in their footsteps and face ostracism. It is important for the sake of intellectual freedom and scientific advancement that taboos on race related studies be shattered.

I hope that Trump whether he wins or loses will force American politics to deal honestly with the issues of the impact, economic and social, of unrestricted immigration and also to deal more honestly with the issue of what sort of assimilation will be required of Muslims who want to come to America.

I hope that Trump will also lead more Americans to understand that what may be good economic policy for the elite does not translate to good economic policy for the rest of us. This is a variation of the old Wall Street v Main Street divide among the Republicans, although now it applies to Democrats as well where the elite can espouse free trade (formerly a Republican provision) open borders, social justice and environmental justice, and provide a sufficient welfare state to hold the loyalties of the poorest, while squeezing the middle class. (Steve Sailer’s war of the high/low against the middle.)

Posted in Alt Right, Anti-Semitism, Jews | Comments Off on Chaim Amalek: ‘When Moshiach comes, every day will be like an inner party.’

Your Skin Is Your Uniform

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Vox Day writes: Everywhere you go, from San Jose to Melbourne, the race war will find you. Vibrants don’t give a damn that you are a good anti-racist. They could not care less that you deplore racism with every bone in your body. They are totally indifferent to the guilt and shame you feel over the actions of your ancestors. They understand, as you do not, that there is no such thing as racial equality, there is no such thing as a “proposition nation”, and there is no such thing as a Brotherhood of Man.

They hate you for the very simple reason that you are not them. And they will attack you, unprovoked, every chance they get.

A 14-year-old Melton boy has been bashed relentlessly in a shocking unprovoked attack at a Melbourne shopping centre. The horrific assault was captured on video by cowards who encouraged the violence instead of stepping in to stop it.

With his hands in his pockets, 14 year old Haydyn Wilson is kicked in the face so hard he falls to the ground.

He can do nothing but cover his face while the group of five continues to inflict shocking violence.

The screams in the video are coming from his girlfriend who witnessed the terrifying assault but could do nothing to stop it.

Homogeneous nations come out of heterogeneous ones. The demographic lines have been crossed, and now there will be no peace until the white nations are either a) predominantly white again or b) extinct. See: Rhodesia and South Africa.

Choose one. There is no other option. The situation is only going to get worse. Not only is there no virtue in virtue-signaling, because there is no virtue in denying reality.

There will be peace through segregation or there will be war for dominance and control. The various races can be friendly and respectful neighbors or they can be locked into a violent death struggle for power over one another. Whites from Australia to America must accept the simple fact that the fruit of the equality doctrine is a poisonous one.

And those who profess to believe in racial equality, civil rights, and immigration are going to have to come to terms with the fact that THEY are the party responsible for the evils that are already beginning to come to pass. The violent nationalists who WILL address the problems you caused are no more to blame for the necessity of their terrible actions than white blood cells can be blamed for the diseases they attack.

COMMENTS AT VOX DAY:

* An acquaintance of mine in my former home town was murdered by blacks last week. If I have the story straight he was collecting rent and 2 men attacked him. He was shot and they tried to cover up the crime by burning his body in a garage. He left behind a wife and 4 young kids. He was a good man and a Christian. We had some mutual friends. War is coming wether we want to believe it or not. Prepare yourself.

* A cousin of mine was murdered by blacks at a party 2 years ago. They hit him from behind, knocked him out on the first hit, and proceeded to stomp on his head. Dindu didn’t realize that stomping a person’s head could result in death, and therefor thinks he did nothing wrong.

* Why do you rule out Brazilification – a relatively peaceful descent into third world squalor where whites wall themselves off in wealthy enclaves or rural heartlands but are generally subsumed through mongrelization with the foreign hordes? There is 50 years of precedence for this but none of violent resistance in recent (post 1965) US history. I hope you’re right but it seems the outcome will depend on various political, ideological and demographic factors rather than being the natural reply of a race that has been driven from most of its main cities and the Southwest without much of a fuss.

* The German classicist, Prof. Werner Jaeger, encapsulated the Doric philosophy in the Laconic style: “Life is War”. He writes:

“It is simple enough, the Dorian ideal of arete taught by Tyrtaeus’ poems and by the Spartan and Cretan institutions. It is this: Life is War.”

From Plato’s Laws: Clinias the Cretan, a true philosopher, to wit, when the Athenian stranger asks him what is the basis of their laws:

He meant, I believe, to reprove the folly of mankind, who refuse to understand that they are all engaged in a continuous lifelong warfare against all cities whatsoever.”

Change out the word “city” and replace it with “race” and you get the picture. The goal of the Enlightenment is over—the supposed atheist utopia building “Enlightenment” and all of its proponents MUST BE repudiated. Real World events such as Lebanon, Yugoslavia and what is going on in this country have shown that a country must have homogeneity of religion, race, culture and any subset must be ghettoized, or live in federations such as Switzerland. The Jews must be suppressed and discriminated against.

Now, the only thing that matters is racial/national preservation. Life is War.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on Your Skin Is Your Uniform

Is this like the eternal struggle between Jews and goyim?

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Maybe different groups have different interests?

The Atlantic:

The Very Long War Between Snakes and Newts

The two have been locked in an evolutionary arms race since before they even existed.

In the mountains of Oregon, there are newts with so much poison in their skin that each could kill a roomful of people. There are also snakes that eat those newts; they’re completely resistant to the toxins. The two are locked in an evolutionary arms race. As the newts become more toxic, the snakes become more resistant. One team of scientists has been studying this evolutionary conflict for five decades, and they’ve now shown that its seeds were planted 170 million years ago—before either snakes or newts even existed.

We know about this ancient conflict because of a young undergraduate student named Edmund “Butch” Brodie Jr. In the early 1960s, he heard a local legend about three hunters who were found dead at their campsite, with no sign of theft, struggle, or foul play. The only thing amiss at the scene was a dead roughskin newt, which the hunters had accidentally boiled in their coffee pot. These dark-backed amphibians have vibrant yellow-orange bellies, which they display to predators by arching their heads and tails over their backs—a clear sign that they’re poisonous. Perhaps those poisons killed the hunters.

Butch tested this idea by collecting newts, grinding up tiny amounts of their skin, and feeding the extracts to other animals. Everything died. The newts proved to be absurdly lethal. Another team of chemists showed that they carry tetrodotoxin (TTX)— the same poison found in the skins and livers of pufferfish. It’s ten thousand times more toxic than cyanide, and among the deadliest substances in nature. Each newt seemed to carry enough to kill any predator hundreds of times over. Why were they be so ludicrously toxic?

Butch found a clue when he checked one of his traps and found a common garter snake devouring a newt. Overcoming his mild phobia of snakes, he collected some and found that they resisted amounts of tetrodotoxin that would kill far larger animals.

While Butch focused on the newts, his son, Edmund Brodie III, became fascinated by the snakes. Together, they showed that throughout western America, places with mildly toxic newts also had mildly resistant snakes. Meanwhile, hotspots with unusually lethal newts also had snakes that withstood staggering levels of tetrodotoxin. The two species were locked in a beautifully coordinated arms race of toxicity and resistance.

But what set off the starting pistol? How did the first snakes survive their encounters with the first newts? To find out, the team needed to understand how the snakes came to shrug off the poison.

Tetrodotoxin kills by corking molecular pores on the surface of nerve and muscle cells, which act as channels for sodium ions. If these ions can’t traverse the channels, muscles can’t contract and nerves can’t fire. Paralysis ensues, breathing ceases, and death follows. In 2005, the Brodies found that garter snakes avoid this fate by changing the shape of their sodium channels, so that tetrodotoxin no longer plugs them.

Posted in Evolution | Comments Off on Is this like the eternal struggle between Jews and goyim?

Terror Attack In Tel Aviv

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Luke Ford

Israeli resident Brad Salzman posts on FB: A terror attack in Tel Aviv last night wounded 20 Jews and killed 4. Not looking forward to all the sadface hashtags and FB posts whining about how Israel is a victim and Arabs are celebrating. If Israel is a victim, it’s because it is letting itself be victimized. If Arabs are celebrating it’s because we don’t do enough to show them that we won’t tolerate these attacks. Why aren’t more Jewish citizens carrying around firearms to protect themselves and each other? Remember that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Posted in Guns, Israel, Terror | Comments Off on Terror Attack In Tel Aviv