Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

Realism and the Mearsheimer-Walt Theory of the Israel Lobby

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ilya Somin wrote in 2006:

In this recent article, Martin Kramer of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy criticizes the famous John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argument against the the US-Israel alliance from the standpoint of their own “realist” theory of international relations. Kramer and other commentators, including the VC’s own David Bernstein, have pointed out numerous flaws in the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis that US foreign policy in the Middle East has been hijacked by a powerful “Israel” lobby. But, to my knowledge, these critics have ignored a major contradiction between Mearsheimer and Walt’s theory of the Israel lobby’s role in US foreign policy and their broader realist explanation of international politics. The former explains US policy in the Middle East primarily as an extension of domestic politics; the latter claims that domestic politics generally doesn’t matter as far as international relations is concerned.
The realist theory of international relations, of which Mearsheimer and Walt are among the leading academic advocates, claims that the structure of a state’s domestic politics has little or no impact on its foreign policy, especially on vital security issues. All that matters is the size, relative power, and geographic location of states in the international system. All states, say realists, either act defensively to maximize their security (as Walt argued in previous scholarship), or possibly try to maximize their relative power (as Mearsheimer claimed in his previous work). Ideology, political structure, and other domestic political forces have little or no impact.
Thus, during the Cold War, realists (including both Mearsheimer and Walt) claimed that, so far as international relations was concerned, it didn’t matter that the Soviet Union was a communist state. A Soviet government with a different socioeconomic system or ideology would have behaved much the same way (in foreign policy) as Lenin, Stalin, and their successors did. Today, they claim that Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation should not concern us much more than the possession of nuclear weapons by France, Britain, or Israel. The fact that the former are authoritarian or totalitarian states and the latter democracies will have little impact on the way they use their nukes (or don’t use them). Early realist scholar A.J.P. Taylor, in his book The Origins of the Second World War, even went so far as to argue that Adolf Hitler and Nazi ideology had little impact on the course of German foreign policy in the 1930s; any other German government would have behaved similarly, given the same international situation.
The “Israel Lobby” thesis is utterly at odds with realist theory. If Mearsheimer and Walt are correct, then US foreign policy towards a vital region of the world has been “captured” by a powerful domestic lobby whose interests are at odds with U.S. national interests, as realists define them. It has led the US into a major unnecessary war (Iraq) and currently risks another, equally unneccessary conflict with Iran (a confrontation that Mearsheimer and Walt also attribute in large part to the influence of the Israel Lobby). Moreover, this “capture” is not, according to them, an anomaly of the Bush era. It stretches back some forty years, through multiple administrations of both parties, even through Republican administrations (such as those of Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, and Reagan) that had little or no dependence on Jewish political support. Mearsheimer and Walt even claim that “the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel,” as well as the United States, preventing Israel from seizing allegedly desirable opportunities to make peace. If so, this implies that Israeli foreign policy too has been captured by a domestic political lobby.
If a key element of US (as well as Israeli) foreign policy could be so completely captured for so long by a domestic lobby, it turns out that domestic politics matters greatly to international relations and the realist theory must be rejected, or at least radically revised. The US is a democratic political system with extensive checks and balances and many competing interest groups. If American foreign policy can nonetheless be captured by a narrow clique with an agenda at odds with the realist view of the national interest, such capture is even more likely under other forms of government. For example, most dictatorships are dominated by a small group whose interests are often at odds with those of the nation as a whole. A self-interested or ideologically motivated dictator can hijack his country’s foreign policy far more easily than any interest group can capture the foreign policy of a democracy. To take just one example, while it may not be in the national interest of Iran (as realists define it) to risk starting a regional nuclear war after acquiring the bomb, such a step may turn out to be in the interest of the ruling clerical oligarchy, at least as they themselves conceptualize that interest. If so, Iranian nuclear proliferation is a much more serious problem than realists would have us believe.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off

Why Do So Many Jewish Activists Want More Islamic Immigration?

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

Jewish libertarian Ilya Somin writes for the Washington Post and quotes another Jewish libertarian Bryan Caplan to make the case for the obliteration of the West. I hope to God 50 Muslim refugees move on to their block and at least dozen move into their homes so they can enjoy Islam good and hard.

Today, many people across the political spectrum agree that the US and other Western democracies were wrong to severely restrict German Jewish immigration in the 1930s. This is so even though these governments were not responsible for the oppression of Jews in Nazi Germany. Moreover, we condemn 1930s US immigration policy despite the fact that, at that time, it was far from clear that Nazi anti-Semitism would culminate in mass murder on the scale of the Holocaust. Before World War II, only a very small number of German Jews were actually killed. The remainder were subject to extensive discrimination and repression. But in that respect they were probably no more than modestly worse off than many other discriminated-against minorities elsewhere in the world.
Despite this uncertainty, 1930s immigration policy was still deeply unjust. And one of the reasons why is that policymakers knew, or should have known, that German Jews faced a substantial risk of enduring still greater repression in the future, even if that outcome was not yet certain. By blocking most German Jewish immigration, the US and other western nations became partially complicit in the injustices inflicted against them. The US government was not just standing by and doing nothing in the face of Nazi oppression; it was using force to actively impede victims’ efforts to save themselves.
Economist Bryan Caplan extends this logic to other refugees fleeing oppression that hasn’t yet fully materialized. As he points out, German Jews in the 1930s are far from the only people trying to flee potential disaster who were prevented from doing so by immigration restrictions:
When disaster looms, governments routinely evacuate their citizens. At minimum, they urge them to leave the danger zone….
Evacuation policy blends humanitarian and pragmatic motives. If you care about people, getting them out of harm’s way is common sense. But even when governments feel little sympathy for disaster victims, they try to evacuate them anyway. As long as you’re under pressure to “do something” in the face of disaster, it’s vastly cheaper to prevent people from becoming disaster victims than it is to rescue them after they’ve already become disaster victims. Better still, evacuees foot most of their own rescue bill…. People who stay and lose everything, in contrast, are in no position to practice self-help….
[T]he moral and practical logic of evacuation doesn’t stop at national borders. (Logic rarely does). From a humanitarian point of view, letting people leave dangerous countries is only common sense. The fewer people who experience a disaster, the better. From a pragmatic point of view, moreover, allowing an anxious foreigner to emigrate at his own expense is far cheaper than bailing him out after tragic events leave him a desperate refugee….
In practice, of course, the world’s governments brutally discourage cross-national evacuation. Suppose you foresee natural or social disaster for your country. If you wisely try to get out Dodge, the world’s immigration restrictions dog you at every turn. Once disaster hits, you might be able to apply for refugee status. But as we’ve seen, that’s a long shot….
The root problem, of course, is that governments spurn the logic of international evacuation. Instead of encouraging non-citizens to leave dangerous countries post-haste, they impose deadly bureaucratic delays. And when a refugee crisis emerges, safe countries are shocked – shocked! – by the horror. Their complicity – the fact that their own immigration restrictions prevented the refugees from saving themselves back when there was still time – never enters their minds.
Bryan’s point has obvious applicability to the current refugee crisis facing Europe, which arose in part because Western nations were unwilling to accept more than a tiny number of Syrian migrants, until the humanitarian disaster reached truly epic proportions. It also applies to other similar cases.
Even if you don’t support a general presumption in favor of open borders migration, there is still a strong moral case for extending immigration rights to people fleeing repressive regimes and conflict zones where there is strong potential for much greater oppression in the near future. If we reject that position, we also have to conclude that 1930s restrictions on immigration by German Jews don’t deserve their bad reputation. After all, what the US and other western governments did at that time wasn’t much different from what many of the same nations routinely do today.

For some strange reason, Ilya Somin does not say anything about the Jewish state having more Islamic immigration. He does not say anything about taking Muslims into his home.

Posted in Immigration, Islam, Jews | Comments Off

Seth Rogen vomits in a Xmas church service in new The Night Before trailer

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comment: Seth Rogen’s new movie “shows him, a Jew, vomiting in a Christian (specifically, Roman Catholic) church during services. Pure, unfiltered hatred of us dumb goyim on full display.”

Report: A new green-band trailer has dropped for seasonal comedy The Night Before, in which childhood buddies Seth Rogen, Anthony Mackie, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt reconvene for a sacred tradition… the Christmas Eve blowout. Only this time around, they are determined to discover the holy grail of festive fun: the legendary Nutcracka Ball.

The new trailer ditches the swears, but still gives a pretty good idea of just what kind of mayhem we can expect, with Seth Rogen being sick in the aisle of a packed church after a heady cocktail of cocaine and mushrooms. The spirit of Christmas, right there.

Posted in Hollywood, Jews | Comments Off

How Can Jews Remain Distinct But Alive In The Diaspora?

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Mayer Schiller said in 1999: “The State of Israel poses a problem for Jews living in the diaspora. A Jew living in America, France or England but yet somehow says I am an Israeli or a Zionist, that creates a tremendous amount of tension. Herzl envisioned Zionism as Jews leaving Gentile nations and going to live in Israel, not staying in France and England and saying I am a Zionist. Jews living in America, England, France, etc, have three moral possibilities: They can be loyal citizens, they can be Zionists which means to leave [for Israel] or they can adopt the Neterui Karta position of non-involvement in the affairs of the nations.”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* This is a tough problem. How can Jews single themselves out (as they must for racial purity and ethnic solidarity reasons) while preventing goyim from “singling” them (or even noticing, for that matter)? How can Jews remain “a people apart” from “the nations” as the Torah requires, and not have the nations notice?

They could truly be “a people apart” as the Amish are and have no problems, but where’s the money and power in that? The only real answer, as Ted Herzl and countless other Jews have concluded, is to have their own land and make Aliyah. But again, where’s the money and power in being just one more Jew in an entire country full of regular workaday Jews? How satisfying is it to kvell “my son, the [Israeli Jewish] plumber” or ” my son, the janitor.” It isn’t a problem for the Amish, because no work is beneath them, so Amish separation is not fraught with Amish anxiety or conflict with the larger culture.

So how can Diasporic Jews be both “separated” and “integrated” at the exact same time? They still haven’t figured out how to make it work.

* The Israel Lobby was probably the poli sci publishing event of the century. And yet it was that, though none of its facts were up for dispute, or anything particularly obscure. (I keep up with Stephen Walt’s articles over at Foreign Policy and he has to contradict himself in the same breath to keep his job, mentioning the lobby then acknowledging the “canard of dual-loyalty.”) Plenty of people criticize Israel. The issue is really everything other than Israel, or rather what’s behind Israel, Jewish power in America—specifically the character of people who assassinate reputations with impunity. I want to see a Jew with establishment credentials bluntly state that groups of Jews who monitor critics of Israel, threaten their would-be employers, and alienate their family members too—like they did to Joe Sobran—I want to see a Jew say such Jews are borderline sociopaths who deserve to be disrespected and shunned by every Jew with a conscious. That I have yet to see. Though there is that Bobby Fischer movie coming out.

* I’m 100% with Steve here. As I see it, and correct me if I’m wrong:

1) Steve goes out of his way to emphasize that when Jewish people want to make things be “good for the Jews,” that is a normal human desire and there is nothing wrong with it.

2) He goes out of his way to compliment Israel on doing what a democracy should — namely, looking out for the interests of its own people, before those of the rest of the planet.

3) His gripe isn’t with Jewish people trying to make things “good for the Jews,” as such, but rather with the system of taboos, retribution, etc., that makes it impossible to air reasonable criticism in a measured way, and the resulting harmful distortions of intellectual life.

Now, we all know here that words like “hate” and “racism” have been devalued by the Left to the point of being meaningless. And when someone is accused of “hate” and “racism” in the USA in 2015, most of the time it is total BS.

However… when I go to some of those unfiltered content sections, I find things that to me are truly horrible.

Now, I totally support the Pat Buchanan line on foreign policy, and totally agree with all of Steve’s gripes about Jewish taboos in the media … which of course would be enough to get me called “anti-Semitic” by the MSM… but that doesn’t mean that there’s not genuine hate out there, and genuine anti-Semitism, and I find it revolting. I’m glad Steve keeps it out of here.

My rule of thumb is that whenever dehumanizing metaphors come into play, that’s bad news. Our opponents may (some of them) be awful, duplicitous, malicious, hateful people… but they are still human beings. When commenters start using non-human terms, that’s out of bounds in my view.

* The problem is not that Jews are pursuing their natural, human interests, the problem is that other whites are not making their own pursuit.

After all – everyone else is – blacks, Latinos, Muslims, all.

The only thing that makes the Jews look special, in this regard, is that they are doing this despite being white, which then makes them look like hypocrites if they ever engage in mainstream discourse, which of course you have to do to be well known, so then all Jews look like hypocrites (for thee and not for me.)

But all other groups do the same thing, except, of course, dumb, naive Western Europeans.

We need to learn that hypocrisy is not always the worst option and that life throws up complex moral challenges to which hypocrisy is sometimes the best response.

An officer inspecting a parade of soldiers may not be in as good order as they are, but he still needs to pick up their faults.

NW Euros need to get over ourselves and realise this. Life is not a fairytale and sometimes being a hypocrite is actually the noble choice.

We can believe in fundamental human equality and still favour our own because we believe in many things and sometimes they contradict.

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off

German People Don’t Want the Invasion, Traitorous Politicians Admit as Poll Shows 71% Opposition

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

REPORT: Despite controlled media coverage pretending that ordinary Germans welcome the nonwhite invasion of Europe, in reality they are opposed to it and want the invaders deported, some German politicians have admitted.

The admission has emerged in the infighting aftermath within the German coalition government’s about turn over its “open borders” policy—even though these same politicians deliberately forced through “refugee” policies which they knew the German people opposed.

The current German government is comprised of a “center-left” coalition between Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), its sister party in Bavaria, the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU), and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).

The first indication that this grand coalition had cracked over Merkel’s declaration that Germany would accept “unlimited” numbers of nonwhite invaders, came with the surprise announcement on Sunday September 13, that the German border with Austria was being closed.

Significantly, the announcement was made by the German Interior Minister, and not by Merkel who, as late as Friday, September 11, was still insisting that anyone was welcome in Germany.

Posted in Germany | Comments Off

Stasi Veteran Will Now Police German Facebook

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

REPORT: According to Vice Chancellor Sigmar approximately 1 million migrants will arrive in Germany this year alone and Chancellor Merkel says there is no limit to how many they will take in.

Politically incorrect Germans who voice their skepticism can look forward to censorship – at least on Facebook.

Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas, has had quiet enough of the uppity Germans who have the gall to criticize the ongoing population replacement so last week he sent an open letter to Facebook demanding that the social-media company commence systematically erasing “xenophobic” material.

On Monday Facebook sent a delegation to meet with the Minister who has set forth a plan – namely that a special task force scour Facebook and delete comments deemed inappropriate by the State.

“The goal is to ease identification of criminal statements” – says Heiko Maas to Bild.

The task force’s members are appointed by the government and Facebook, but the the left-wing organization Network against Nazis (“Netz gegen Nazis”) will also be represented.

The network was founded in the year 2007 by the Antonio Amadeu Trust, led by the Jewish-German left-wing activist Anette Kahne who, during the years 1974-82, worked as a secret agent for the East German Security Service known as Stasi.

Today Anette Kahane works as a professional anti-racist and last year proclaimed in an interview with RT that European countries must open their borders and adapt completely to immigrants from the third world.

“You have to really change the policy of immigration inside Europe. This is very important, you have to adopt the educational system and adapt all the self understanding of the states. They are not anymore only white or only Swedish or only Portuguese or only German. They are multicultural places in the world.”

That an ex-Stasi informant will be tasked with monitoring and censoring Facebook has been criticized by the site PI NEWS.

“25 years after German re-unification former East German citizens will, together with their West German brothers and sisters, be monitored by old Stasi cadres”.

According to Simon Wiesenthal who spent half a century hunting Nazi criminals the Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo.

“The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control 17 million.”

And as John Koehler, author of Stasi – The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police, points out:

“the Stasi spent four decades perfecting it’s machinery of oppression, espionage, international terrorism and subversion whilst the Gestapo lasted only twelve years.”

Source: Fria Tider

Posted in Germany | Comments Off

Prison for man who helped place noose on civil rights statue

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

Good thing we’re getting tough on crime. Pfft. I wouldn’t want this harsh punishment for someone who did the equivalent on a Jewish symbol or any other symbol.

Why would whites treat civil rights activist statutes with respect? “Civil rights” aka promoting the rights of the fringe over the core has destroyed white America by destroying the cohesion and confidence of white people.

Chaim Amalek: “This is about maintaining social control over a potentially hostile population.”

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A former University of Mississippi student who admitted helping place a noose on a statue of a civil rights activist is going to prison.

U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills sentenced Graeme Phillip Harris on Thursday to six months in prison beginning Jan. 4, followed by 12 months’ supervised release.

Harris pleaded guilty in June to a misdemeanor charge of using a threat of force to intimidate African-American students and employees, and prosecutors agreed to drop a felony charge.

“No one should have to endure threats or intimidation because of their race or the color of their skin,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta said in a written statement. Gupta leads the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.

Prosecutors say the Alpharetta, Georgia, resident and two other former students placed a noose and a former version of the Georgia state flag containing the Confederate battle emblem on the statue of James Meredith sometime before dawn on Feb. 16, 2014.

Harris admitted to undertaking the plan after a night of drinking in the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity house. The fraternity closed its chapter in the aftermath.

Davis Hill, Harris’ lawyer, had argued he didn’t deserve jail time in a Sept. 2 court filing, saying that Harris had joined a fraternity which fostered racist behavior, was attending counseling to deal with alcohol problems and had admitted guilt.

“Graeme fully recognizes the folly of the conduct and attitudes that bring him before this court,” wrote Hill, noting Harris had written a letter of apology to Meredith. “He has grown, improved and become more serious as a person.”

Hill wrote that the seeds of racial bias were planted when Harris transferred to a Georgia high school seeking to play quarterback, only to have a black head coach pass over him for a black quarterback. He wrote those seeds bloomed at Sigma Phi Epsilon, where he said incoming pledges were taught to keep alive grudges over Ole Miss’ purge of Confederate symbolism such as the Colonel Reb mascot and the display of Confederate battle flags at sporting events.

Posted in Whites | Comments Off

Letting In Refugees For Moral Reasons

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Israel imported the Ethiopians in the aftermath of the UN resolution that Zionism was a form of racism. Germany suffered a image disaster with the Greeks ect. Now it mounts a PR blitzkrieg by letting in people who are obviously going to be a millstone round Germany’s neck . The refugees are being let in for purely moral reasons, Merkel has made it clear

“Those who are not fleeing political persecution or war but are coming to us out of economic need will not be able to stay in Germany. However difficult their personal life may be, this is the truth and we don’t shy away from saying that,” she said.

* Germany is hoping that if she feigns sufficent passion for Ahmet and his extended family, everyone will forget about how cruel she was to Aaron in her youth. Germany is desperately trying to talk herself into something, all the while suspecting that this may not end happily. But Germany doeesn’t talk about that.

* Germany also has Daddy Issues. And a tribe of grief-therapists who characteristically compound the shame father Adolph brought upon his children. Cause of course the point of a grief-therapist is to make sure every bit of grief that money can buy is evoked. And nothing assuages a guilty conscience like giving away a fortune to wretched beggars.

Come to think, maybe the much-anticipated Jewish backlash against settling these ravenous Muslims in neighborly Europe is never going to come, because their grudge about Adolph etc. yet has a more visceral hold on them than the relatively remote possibility that the pitchforks will be coming out, and watching Germany abolish itself cannot in good conscience be opposed. Of course, that would presume that Jews care more about Jewish history than German or French or English history, or that they have a nice and tidy second home somewhere else.

* When I consider how cruelly the Germans murdered and persecuted a nation that was and is, in fact, their closest genetic relations – the Poles – on, believe it or not, the grounds of ‘race’, and also the persecution of the German Jewish population – which was probably the most assimilated Jewish population anywhere, and was in many cases culturally and phenotypically indistinguishable from the German population, then you see German paralysis and stupidity in this present crisis in a different light.

* Mass child abuse over the whole of Western Europe.

1. Children brainwashed from birth by schools and media that being racist is the ultimate sin; and if their parents are SJWs from them too.

2. Predators from certain ethnic groups who specifically target girls around 11-13 years old because they’re easier to manipulate and who specifically use the anti-racist brainwashing as a tool of that manipulation.

3. Adults and institutions from the native population who refuse to protect these girls from these predators – the way they would if the predators were white – because accusations of racism are more important.

* Simon Sheppard writes about a concept called Affection Beneath:

Men love women; women love children; children love pets. You can “love down”, have affection for that beneath you but not above. Women cannot love men like men love women. They can only truly love children and pets.

But in the global pecking order, immigrants are “beneath” European women, somewhat like pets or children. And since they have such animosity towards their own men, it’s like giving the finger to them. And they can “rescue” an immigrant.

I wonder just how long all this would last if there were 500,000 unaccompanied, single reproductive age women pouring across the border that were the equivalent in looks and bodies? “We want our jobs at Jezebel writing click bait!!”

A single woman typically can’t even get a travel visa unless she can prove some sort of tie that binds her back in her country like children left behind and owning a house.

If you want to jump start an economy let about a million single women in. Even better, give them free boob jobs. The local men would rise to the occasion (no pun intended) and find a way to pay for these women, establish households, create all sorts of new commerce. And all without welfare. If the birthrate is so awful, why not import a bunch of “birthers”?

* There’s a pragmatic case to be made against preventing watershed events in history, and that case is always worth making. But in the long run we’re all dead. Only a certain regard for the past is going to make people care about a far-off future that descendants they will never know are going to face, care about it like a duty that has nothing to do with pragmatism. Point being, I don’t think a lot of Jews feel that kind of attachment to countries that have always been Christian, and for so long were proudly Christian. When you think about it, Jews must be in the grip of one very powerful sentiment to not speak up while anti-Semitic hordes barge into their resident countries. I don’t think which sentiment that would be is a big mystery. Jews are famously vested in their own history, which begins with the tradition of a profoundly vindictive God, and Nietzsche said Man made God in his image.

* Germany tried to get out of an abusive marriage years ago, but she got beat up really bad.

Now she suffers from battered person syndrome.

It’s no surprise she is seeking gratification from abusive men below her social class.

* Remember the case of the fake asylum seeker from Africa who knowingly infected scores of Polish women with HIV because, as many admitted, they thought it might be racist to turn him down or wear a condom.

A metaphor for what is going to happen now to Germany?

Simon Mol had been a sports journalist on a free trip to Poland when he claimed political asylum from persecution in both Ghana and the Cameroon, then made a good career out of telling all Poles that they were racist. Really; exactly that.

He was ugly and domineering, the women said. There is also a suspicion that he was attempted to rid himself of HIV by passing it on to others, as African folk medicine suggests.

He rejected requests to take an HIV Test as racist whilst knowing he was HIV positive: “The accusation of being HIV positive is the latest weapon that as an African your enemy can raise against you”.

**When I looked this up a few years ago there were a number of polish blogs that discussed it in English. A Polish newspaper went to Africa to discover what a fraud he was. (He died of HIV eventually.)

* I don’t mind if the old broad gets a new boyfriend AND goes over to his home to hangout. The problem is this old gal wants to bring her new vibrant boyfriend to our neighborhood. He will eventually move in with her and then invite all his cousins and homies to come over and crash. Once that happens, there goes the neighborhood.

Posted in Germany | Comments Off

Mark Zuckerberg’s Attack Ad Against Donald Trump

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* UK pollster YouGov reported that 92% of Americans feel illegal immigration is a problem. In the disinterested view of Mark Zuckerberg, Trump must be insane to systematically alienate 8% of the electorate.

* There is certainly some concern trolling going in here. That said, there is a baffling number of political scientists (including experts on electoral behavior) who honestly believe that California Hispanics were swing voters before Pete Wilson decided to turn against immigrants. Unlike the belief that Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 — which more people are willing to admit was probably not true — the myth of the pre-1994 California Hispanic swing vote will probably never die.

* White culture considers it shameful to go on public assistance.

It might be that the best thing for the country at this point is to end that cultural norm among whites.

* The reason why California is a Dark Blue state while Texas is Dark Red is because of the different behavior of white voters. In regard to Hispanics, California and Texas are virtually identical: in 2012 they were 38% of the population and 26% of the eligible electorate. In both California and Texas, Hispanics voted 70-29 for Obama over Romney, which makes mush of the moral tale of heartless Pete Wilson versus heartful Rick Perry. (Romney did slightly worse with them nationally, 71-27.)

However, whites vote differently. Romney won the white vote in California, but only 53-45, while carrying whites nationally 59-39. In Texas he won the white vote 73-26.

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration | Comments Off

Ann Coulter & The Jews

Posted on September 17, 2015 by Luke Ford

Karol Markowicz writes for the Forward: Whether or not Ann meant to be insulting to Jews — the Anti-Defamation League called her comments “borderline anti-Semitic” — the fact is that Jews in America always have to straddle the line between wanting Israel to be mentioned a lot by politicians and hoping they won’t mention it too much.
Anti-Semites already believe that Jews have too much influence in American politics. A so-called friend to Israel like Ann Coulter pointing out the importance of Israel to the candidates in a presidential debate isn’t a positive thing. Her tweet implied the long-running canard that while Jews represent a small percentage of the population, their role in influencing policy is outsized. And, of course, why is it outsized? The dark undercurrent in the answer is that it’s due to money.
The hashtag #istandwithann trended after her comments, and the tweets were a hodgepodge of typical anti-Semitism, which questioned whether Jews could even be loyal to the United States. Her comments opened the door for Holocaust-deniers, Israel-haters and plain old Jew-haters to point to Ann’s comments as a mainstream affirmation of their beliefs.
American Jews are in a tough spot where Israel is concerned and Ann Coulter, who “likes” Jews and Israel, only made it tougher.

MIKE EMAILS: “[Ann’s] tweet implied the long-running canard that while Jews represent a small percentage of the population, their role in influencing policy is outsized. And, of course, why is it outsized? The dark undercurrent in the answer is that it’s due to money.”

I beg to differ. It is due to superior “intelligence”, “cooperativeness”, and “culture”, which (of course) lead to “money” and “power” … a fact the native Australians, Americans, and Africans learned to their eternal regret.

There is nothing “dark” about it whatsoever. It is Darwinism in action.

Posted in Ann Coulter, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off