Was Gandhi A White Supremacist?

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Mahatma Gandhi was arguably a white supremacist. Gandhi’s rise to fame was in South Africa fighting for rights for wealthy Indians.

He firmly believed, “that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”

He had deep contempt for the blacks, which he called Kaffir, as a race, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised – the convicts even more so…. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!”

He preached, “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do… by advocating the purity of all races.”

Of course, the dominant elites of today paint a completely different picture to suit their goals.

* I’d like to see a movie about the super racist, black hating, caste system supporting, ultra violent Gandhi who in his seventies slept naked with teenage girls and personally administered them enemas.

* People with experience on the ground considered the total disbanding of the Iraq government and social structure to have been a huge mistake, resulting in, at the least, the insurgency costing thousands of American lives.

But, consider this: virtually all the actions of the George W Bush and Obama administrations have had the objective of replacing rather secular governments in the Middle East with an Islamic government. Afghanistan is excluded, of course, as it already had an Islamist government.

Can we conclude that such uniform direction is simply the result of stupidity?

* Poles, at least, contributed enormously to the USA. Very many eminent scientists etc are/were of Polish descent, although you don’t hear about it. Poles are not a boastful people.
Likewise, there were/are many eminent Sicilians who contributed to the USA in all sorts of ways, yes, including crime – I got that in first.

* Try comparing a list of eminent Polish Americans with one composed of, say, Mexican Americans.

* Both men and women can have unrealistic standards but society has changed so that women don’t have to suffer the consequences of having unrealistic standards as much as formerly. When I was married, my wife complained about us not having enough money to buy a house or for her to quit work. We eventually broke up and she went off looking for a better guy. She never found the better guy and ended up on welfare. Meanwhile, as I got older I made more and more money and am now very well off. Even though my ex-wife is no longer married to me, I am still supporting her and a lot of other women like her through my taxes. I may want a super model but if I can’t get one on my own I certainly wouldn’t expect the government to provide me with one. Many women, though, would certainly go for having the government force men they aren’t married to be their economic provider. All you need to do is look at the voting patterns of unmarried females.

Plus one of the downsides of feminism was that it gave women the idea that they had a right to be happy, and if they weren’t, it was the fault of some guy.

See all the happy talk from divorced women in their 40s and 50s on any dating web site. Makes you wonder why they’re divorced if they are as special as they describe themselves. Delusional is a better word.

* Rothkopfs’s words:

“The best protection (as the United States has demonstrated) is to institutionalize the concept of tolerance and diversity and to work tirelessly to ensure that the powerful impulses to segregate and divide are quashed. It is not easy. But it has made the United States the most successful experiment in cultural diversity in history — though only after a series of horrific errors, including slavery and the genocide against Native Americans and the devaluing of the role of women, were ultimately remedied. We’re not there yet.”

The atrocious, atomized, cultureless, homogenized, a-communal, faithless, greed-besotten sewer that is contemporary America is what he thinks is paradise. He might as well put an “I love Wiemar” bumper sticker on his car.

* It’s a racket. They identify as white when it suits them – as in when they’re writing pieces about how “We” whites need to share power and opportunities with other groups who haven’t earned them by objective standards. It’s usually framed as an admission – in other words, the author is admitting on behalf of whites that “we’re all awful and have unearned privileges” and therefore need to accept the aggressions of other groups passively. But when it suits them they consider themselves a “model minority.” Grandpa was excluded from the Country Club (the same one that excluded Catholics) after all. So all of the tacit, off the books networking and chauvinism and favoritism is remedial while in the very next breath they preach the false gospel of diversity, grievance, and affirmative action.

See an example of the weaselly, unctuous doubletalk and twisted logic.

Note that Judaism isn’t about honoring a covenant with God, worship, a code of moral behavior binding upon the individual, taking up the mantle of your dead forbears and passing it down to your issue or the like – rather, it’s about engaging in left wing agitation and punching down at badwhites. The only heartening thing about the piece is the comments.

* This end-part of the documentary is worth considering:

“… major flaw in the Spartan system. Its pathological elitism… Sparta was running out of Spartans… Spartan numbers were dangerously low. It produced a body bag syndrome.”

Today’s West is very different from Sparta, of course. Spartan society was very repressive and exclusive. The modern West is libertine and inclusive, especially with open immigration. Also, if only pure or near-pure Spartans could be citizens of Sparta, the modern West is more like the Roman Empire that granted citizenship to lots of different peoples.

But in a way, there is a common theme between Sparta and the modern West.
While the official ethos of the West is about equality and the People, the actual socio-economic reality plays out differently. There is a huge discrepancy between the Said and the Done. More than ever, white people are more elitist than ever. And because their standards are so high — like with the high IQ couple in the opening of IDIOCRACY — , they can only accept the best and feel contempt for everything else.

(Google uses the Frederick Douglas doodle as ‘virtue signaling’, the equivalent of aristocrats wearing golden crucifix necklaces. It speaks egalitarianism but serves elitism. Indeed, the reason why such elites be so full of put-on compassion for blacks is because they can afford no to live close to them. But those who’ve seen the reality come to know better.)
Educated whites are all about best jobs, best lifestyles, best schools for their kids. They may want to have kids, but not if the kids will get in the way of their success. And competition is more fierce than ever because of massive immigration. In many top schools, whites are squeezed by Jews, Asians, and affirmative action.
So, they cannot take it easy at all. When people like Zakaria and Chua berate white folks for not being competitive enough, they leave out the fact that Asian competition has increased the pressure on everyone.

Also, with generations of Americans who only knew affluence, good isn’t good enough. The greatest generation knew poverty and war, so good was good enough. Boomers were more indulgent, but even they knew something about hardships from listening to their parents. Also, they had an idealistic streak that said life isn’t all about money. But since the rise of Gen X, it’s been money, money, money, status, status, and status. It’s like what they say in RISKY BUSINESS.

Also, because white folks have no pride left cuz of the cult of ‘white guilt’ and PC, they can only find meaning in status and money; they no longer own the morality and righteousness.
Also, as racial segregation has come under attack, whites can no longer breathe freely and take for granted the living in safe white communities. They come under threat of integration with the Negroes. So, whites must make more money to ensure that they and their children can afford to live safely away from crime and social pathologies. Even as Libs are ideologically for racial integration, in terms of what they actually DO, they want to out-compete others so that they don’t have to live next to dangerous blacks. Also, having money and power means you can use Section 8 to drive out Negroes or use Stop-and-Frisk to pressure Negroes to behave.

Also, globalism threatens the middle class and working class. There was a time when white people without too much smarts or credentials could hope to get a decent playing manufacturing job and raise a family. But it is now much more difficult. To be average and normal is to be nowhere today. You have to win and at least be upper middle class. Everything else is nowhere. Since you have to work so hard to make it and rise up, you put family and having children behind. Also, since your children have to do really well to have a good life in the New America, you only want to have kids with high-IQ spouse and send the kid to the best schools. So, you might say all the nice-sounding libby-diddy egalitarian-inclusive stuff, but you cannot tolerate a spouse who is beneath your standards and you cannot feel inclusive about having a kid who is anything less than the best. (Of course, if you’re really well-off like Chelsea Clinton or the Romney’s, you might adopt some African baby as virtue-signaling).

Also, globalism has boosted radical individualism above all else. While proponents of globalism talk of all of humanity co-mingling and loving one another, the fact is it is difficult to maintain any kind of meaningful community with too much diversity. It’s one thing to be a German who feels part of German community. But if Germany were to fill up with tons of non-Germans and if these newcomers were to be considered ‘Germans’, the meaning of Germanness would go out the window. So, is a working class German supposed to regard marauding gangs of Africans and Muslims as fellow German brethren? Really? How can any German find meaning from German-ness from such lunacy. Some might suggest that Germans should just reject the very idea of Germanness and just see themselves as part of the ‘human race’. But the human races, ethnic groups, religions, and nationalities are too different, varied, and at odds to encourage and sustain any real kind of ‘brotherhood of man’ utopianism.

As globalism undermines meaningful nationalism, the ONLY game left is ultra-individualism to ensure that ‘me, me, me’ will make it and remain above the fray of increasing problems from diversity. This is what the EU elites are about. They talk about cooperation and diversity, but they are all about ultra-individualism so that they themselves won’t be affected by the global tide. They are perched on their individualist hills of privilege and don’t get swept up like the rest of the population. Globalism turns into ‘every man for himself’.

The best and most meaningful social unit for modern man is nationalism with strong borders. Over time, people within the borders develop a sense of common identity and unity. They have a balance of individualism and communalism. America used to be like this. Though globalists offer the promise that open borders will lead to more communalism and cooperation, the result is the very opposite. It is asking too much for a people of a nation to identify with ALL THE WORLD. For one thing, most peoples around the world look different, think different, have different interests, different histories, different narratives, different taboos, etc. Despite all the rhetoric, there is no unity but just a lot of division and distrust. In the current West, Nationalist communalism has been dealt a fatal blow, and Globalist communalism(“It takes a Village” nonsense) remains forever out of reach and impossible. So, what is the only game left? Ultra-individualism to make it to dry land while the rest of the world comes under the globalist deluge. It’s like the privileged couple in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

I would worry less about icebergs melting and seas rising than about borders melting and demographic third world tides rising and crashing into richer nations. The tsunami of the black sea from Africa and brown sea from India especially seem daunting, especially when the Indian government says it plans to export 300 million dotkins to other nations!!!
It’s like someone refusing to fix the broken plumbing and demanding that OTHER apartments take the water to relieve the room with the broken pipe.

Of course, Jews understand that nationalism and ethnicity are the best foundation for communal feeling and cooperation. It seems to work for Israel. Also, Jewish birthrates seem to be stable in Israel because there is a sense of common Jewish identity and purpose. Rich Jews tell middle Jews and poor Jews that they care about them and that they are all in it together. Rich Jews offer incentives for middle Jews to have kids and raise families. And even if middle Jews and poor Jews don’t have much, they have pride and meaning in being part of a Jewish nation who are taken care of and led by Jewish elites who care about Jewishness. It is not about ‘every Jew for himself or herself’. There is Jewish individualism but also Jewish communalism.

In a national-and-racial America than a globalist one, white elites would reach out to white masses. White elites would pursue policies that favor the interests of white masses. Thus, white masses would feel confident and proud. And they wouldn’t feel they must win, win, and win to have a meaningful life. You wouldn’t have to a total winner. Even if you’re a middle-class white or working class white, you would feel as a part of an identity, history, and community. It’s like South African white elites used to take care of their own, like Zionist Jews in Israel did.

But globalism says the white elites must not favor their own race. On occasion, white Americans may favor their own nation IF AND ONLY IF the national interests ‘coincide’ with those of globalist Zionists. So, Americans can be PROUD to be American in their patriotic hatred of Russians and Iranians(who pose no threat to white Americans and are targeted by the West ONLY BECAUSE Jewish elites don’t like them). So, whites can be patriotic American nationalists who hate Russia… but they better shut up about out-of-control immigration that is doing far greater harm to the US.
This goes for Negroes too. Negroes would actually do much better to find a way to work with white folks. White folks have most to offer to Negroes. White folks feel most conscience toward blacks. But globalism and mult-culturalism have convinced blacks that they should just growl at whites while allying with immigrants. But it’s the immigrants who are taking black jobs.

Anyway, if we ignore the bogus rhetoric and focus on the actual reality, globalism has increased pathological elitism among whites, especially white Libs. Whites can no longer be assured that this is their country or that elites care about them. If anything, elites in media hire punks like Zakaria who gloat and say, ‘you whiteys are dying off, haha’. White masses can no longer rely on white elites doing what is best for white people. And since the economy has been globalized, ‘American’ businesses will move capital and jobs all over the world to stay afloat and to maximize profits. At this point, even patriotic Americans cannot keep their factories in the US since they will lose out to others who send factories to nations with cheaper labor. Things have gotten so hectic that all white men and white women must work, work, and work to ‘thrive’. Thrive Mind is the New Hive Mind. So, forget about family and kids. They get in the way.

So, whites better win, win, and win cuz the game is now only about winners and losers with nothing in between. And the game is purely economic since whites are not allowed to have racial, national, historical, or cultural pride. In the past, one could be a white person with little but still find meaning in being a proud white man or an American. Now, such isn’t allowed. And this isn’t only true in the West but even in the third world and non-West. Latin American elites are now just cucks of US-style globalism. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, and etc are all following suit. They too suffer from white disease. Globalism, ultra-elitism, materialism, and PC have destroyed their birthrates. In Vietnam, young generation is raised on homo worship than on national pride. Russia resists but has come under tremendous economic and political pressure to go whole hog on globalism. Poland and Hungary resist, but they don’t have the firepower of globalism as controlled by US and EU dominated by Kosheria.

People in the advanced world have grown accustomed to the good life and can’t conceive of life’s meaning without more and more affluence.
Not long ago, the good life was buttressed by some degree of nationalism. The French were pretty nationalistic well into the 60s. Germans even through the early 90s believed in unique German identity.
But PC and globalism undermined nationalism. So, there is no meaning to life other than money, money, money, and status, status, status. Nationalism was supposed to be replaced by PC multiculturalism and worship of ‘diversity’, but it is near-impossible to feel meaningfully ONE with the entire world. I mean what does a Hungarian have in common with a Mexican, Zimbabwean, Kenyan, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Bolivian, Iranian, etc? The only meaningful identity for him would be Hungarian and then European. But such an idea is considered ‘far right’ and ‘neo-Nazi’. Worse, what kind of identity and meaning is ‘white guilt’ and ‘white shame’ and obsessing incessantly about Nazi in every cupboard and everything-is-’racist’?

When ultra-individualism and pathological elitism are the modes of white people in the New West, birth rates will naturally plummet. The successful will have kids ONLY IF they can be assured that their kids will be the best and go to best schools. Unless your kids win in life, they have no value.
But birth rates will also decline among other whites since they see no meaning to life except in winning. Knowing that they cannot win and will be deemed losers, what’s the point of marrying and having kids? And when even modestly stable lives are often beyond the reach of many white folks, why take a risk with family? (Some women have babies out of wedlock with ‘bad boys’ because they see it as ‘winning’. Since rappers, athletes, and punks dominate pop culture, a lot of trashy women have been Kardashianized. They become economic losers by mating with such lowlife punks, but since bad boys have the alpha-male winner style, even poor trashy women think they are winners by having the kids of top warrior thugs. It’s a jungle-tribal-primal concept of winning. Some white libs combine economic victory with primal victory. They make good money and win economically, but they also want a taste of tribal-primal victory, so they invite negroes to hump their wives in acts of ‘cuckoldry’. Even as they lose to the Negroes who do their women, they feel as victors cuz they can afford to provide such jungalo pleasure to their women and know that the women will remain married to them cuz they got the money.) There was a time when just being white, proud, and American was enough to want to have families. And even though every parent wants his or her kid to do well, there was love for kids and a sense of value in having them simply because it was deemed to be meaningful to be white, proud, and American. But such feelings are gone. Furthermore, too many white guys grow up tarded and think culture is getting tattoos on their ass, and too many white girls think culture is ‘twerking’. When many lower-class do have kids, it is as single mothers with men who don’t even stick around.

Indeed, libertine-ism has increased both extreme vulgarism and hyper-elitism. When US had a culture of shame, even the lowly folks knew it wasn’t proper to act too wild and crazy. This had a restraining effect on the masses, even the Negroes, most of whom were married and maintained family life. Since acting like pimps and whores were out of question, most men and women got married to enjoy sex and to have kids.
But libertine-ism has turned lowly blacks and whites into animal-beasks with no sense of moral vision.

The culture of shame also had a restraining effect on the rich who were frowned upon if they acted too out-of-control with their riches. But in our libertine era, not only do the lowly folks act like total animals but rich folks act like decadent self-indulgent kings-and-queens like Herod in JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, especially with homo-worship as the new religion of the West.

When winning is now so much about flaunting what you got — vice-celebrating as well as virtue-signaling — it isn’t good enough to win little. You have to win big. I suspect Bernie-Sanders-Socialism of upper-middle class folks is really about the resentment of the affluent for the super-affluent.

When it comes to the likes of Rothkopft, we should do as they do, never listen to what they say. Rothboy will never ever suggest for Israel what he suggests for the West.

In a nutshell, how the ‘best’ feel about the rest under globalism:

* The reason that men want to become elite (i.e. to acquire wealth and power) is to gain access to hot females. For them and their sons. Period. So Jewish male’s pronounced success at becoming elite led them to interbreed with shiksas, but not the reciprocal. The medieval Jews in Europe bred so successfully that they began taking prole jobs, at which point the prole natives (80%+ of the population) really got restless. (Leading to the Pale of Settlement, leading to Jews outreproducing to the point they were legally barred from buying farms to compete with indigenous slaves, leading to famine among Pale Jews, leading to the Bolshevik revolution…)

Jews have been very successful at becoming elites. But, because they’re easily distinguishable from most Europeans, most of the time, both in attitude and appearance, the Europeans whose elite they join automatically resent being partially ruled by outsiders. Welcome to humanity, that always has been and always will be how groups of discernibly different humans behave regarding resource scarcity competition.

Regarding your point about mate poaching leading to host-population backlash, you’re right. That and various other things Jewish elites do (arising from their intelligence and personality genes) pisses off the non-elite gentile host population and leads to “populism,” which Jewish voices typically denounce. Populism ranges from simple things like the 1920s introduction of an immigration moratorium, at the gentle end, to pogroms and Nazis at the really angry end. Remember: to hate is to want something to disappear. When Jewish elites overstep, as they inherently do by outcompeting others for resources (again, the definition of being elite) and not being able to stop themselves when they’ve had enough (e.g. America is sufficiently diluted to forestall the possibility of another Holocaust happening here. Stop the diversity crap!), native peoples who are facing resource scarcity want them gone.

* Like a smart businessman, Trump decided not to devote a lot of resources to Iowa, especially when the polls, until recently, showed him consistently trailing Cruz. Take the example of Mitt Romney, who in 2008 devoted a lot resources to Iowa (including spending a substantial sum on the meaningless “Ames Poll”) and lost by a healthy margin to Mike Huckabee, who, of course, went on to do very poorly in New Hampshire. In 2012, Romney didn’t spend a dime on the Ames Poll and little time in Iowa up until the last moment and initially was proclaimed the winner of the Iowa caucuses until a later recount showed Rick Santorum actually won by a narrow margin. Romney went on to win 39% of the NH primary, while Santorum got slightly under 10%.

I predict that the same result will occur this year. While Iowa and New Hampshire appear to be similar on the surface, with the same percentages of whites and same percentages of Hispanics, evangelicals do not play nearly the role in NH that they play in Iowa. That’s why politicians who do well in Iowa (Huckabee, Santorum) do miserably in NH. The polls have been showing the same pattern this cycle. That’s why I expect both Cruz and Rubio to do far less well in NH than they did in Iowa and Trump to win by a very healthy margin.

* DSA was founded by Michael Harrington, who was an old-timey Midwest Dorothy Day/settlement house type socialist. (He was born in St. Louis.) He became an ex-Catholic but reviled the pro-Stalin/pro-commie Catholics and Jews who were pushing Bolshevism. He was vehemently anti-Communist. He warned strongly that as people evolved past the need for religion, the values of “Jewish and Christian” western civilization not get lost. To my knowledge he never left his adopted home borough, Queens. (Link)

He was brilliantly prescient on the matter of globalization and western civilization. But I wrote him off in the mid 1980s as he refused to consider emerging research on genetics and race/intelligence. But I think he was probably a very good man. Just, like many Irish Catholics of his generation, not well adapted for anything after the 1970s.

Bernie was more the kind of NY Jew who did the civil rights tikkun olam thing in the ’60s…but fled to the Jewish agrarian heartland to the north as soon as he could, and stayed there. I view this as his pronouncement on how he feels both about white mainstream culture AND black/Puerto Rican culture.

To this day Bernie doesn’t know what to do about blacks, while the rest of us have had to muddle along in the Cibbil Frights Moooovement, right up to its apotheosis of vehement anti-white racism, without being able to look away politely and be jetted off to our next opportunity.

He is most certainly a communist in principle, if no longer in fact.

And like all SJWs he’s good at hawking ideology, not praxis, and doubles down on failure every time.

* I heard Laura Ingraham state last night on FOX that Rubio will be the Republican nominee. I think the road is far too long and Rubio is not doing terribly well in subsequent state polls (including Rubio’s home state of Florida) to be making such a prediction. But then Laura Ingraham does work for FOX. One other interesting thing I observed last night before I turned off the TV was that ace journalist Megyn Kelly, while trumpeting Cruz’s victory in Iowa, did not once make any observation about the poor history of Iowa winners in the next primary in New Hampshire. Here are winners of the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary the past six contested elections going back to 1980:

1980 GHW Bush Reagan
1988 Dole GHW Bush
1996 Dole Buchanan
2000 GW Bush McCain
2008 Huckabee McCain
2012 Santorum Romney

The history is so clear that it was a journalistic act of malpractice to not bring it up.

* It is really quite amazing that the white male has no real alternative other than the Republican party controlled by the Jewish Neocon warmongers.

* Both Paul in 2012 and trump in 2016 were ahead in the polls and ahead in the entrance polling yet managed to lose Iowa. I am sure the establishment hating both of them has nothing to do with those results, especially the missing precincts in the 2012 recount that included three college precincts that were missing.

* Who wins the general election is mostly determined by the economy, so Republicans will end up winning around 50% of the time and policy positions only change those odds on the margins. What actually matters is who wins the Republican primary.

In Congress this is even more salient. The vast majority of districts in the country are either solid Democrat or solid Republican. So if you’re a Republican, your only concern is about winning the Republican primary. The general election is an afterthought.

If Trump wins the primary, it will show aspiring Republican politicians that there’s a huge market for policies that actually benefit white middle class voters. It’ll only be a matter of time before you have more polished, experienced politicians running on the Trump playbook.

Posted in Blacks, Jews, Nationalism, Whites | Comments Off on Was Gandhi A White Supremacist?

Gay Porn Kingpin Takes on LGBT Boycott Israel Movement

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

Makes me proud to be Jewish.

Who would have thought there were Jews in porn?

From Breitbart:

TEL AVIV – The boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel is nothing more than old fashioned anti-Semitism disguised as political activism, Michael Lucas, a gay pornographic film actor and director, declared in a radio interview on Sunday.

Lucas is founder and CEO of Lucas Entertainment, New York’s largest gay adult film company and one of the biggest gay porn production companies in the world.

The BDS movement is “all about political correctness but basically it’s all about good old Jew hatred,” he said.

“It’s all about anti-Semitism. They hate Jews. Now we have a new word: Israel. It’s really considered after the Holocaust to be very inappropriate and low class to say, ‘We hate Jews.’ So they say, ‘You know, we disagree with the Zionist policies. Israel get out from the West Bank. Get out from Palestine.’ Why the hell and how dare the world tell Israel that Jews should leave Palestine, that Jews should leave the West Bank.”

Lucas made the comments on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” the popular Sunday night talk-radio program broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM. Klein doubles as Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.

Lucas was speaking after over 200 rowdy BDS protesters stormed the gay rights Creating Change Conference at the Chicago Hilton on Friday and used intimidation tactics to cancel an event hosted by A Wider Bridge, an organization that advocates the relationship between the “LGBTQ communities of North America and Israel.”

The National LGBTQ Task Force, which organized the conference, had weeks earlier cancelled the Wider Bridge reception but reinstated it last week after pressure from major Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League.

Israel is “losing the fight in the U.S.,” Lucas warned. “Those anti-Israeli groups are successfully convincing Democrats and liberals that Palestinians are the underdogs. And people usually don’t think for themselves.”

Lucas has been a staunch supporter of the Jewish state, writing opinion pieces targeting Israel’s critics in such publications as The Advocate, Huffington Post and Pink News. He also released a gay porn film titled “Men of Israel,” which was reportedly the first such film shot on location in Israel and using an all Israeli and all Jewish cast. Lucas called the film “a bold move to promote Israeli culture and tourism.”

Writing in Out Magazine last week, Lucas slammed the anti-Israel protesters at Friday’s LGBTQ event in Chicago as “thugs” who were “not interested in dialogue. They comprised an enraged gang filled with Jew-hatred, bent on intimidating and silencing LGBT Jews who have any connection to the state of Israel.”

His Israel advocacy has not been without consequence, however. Lucas says anti-Israel protesters follow him to speeches at universities and stalk him at public events in the porn industry.

“In the gay world I have made lots of people hate me,” he told Klein. “There were a lot of calls from the gay community overall to boycott my films. That was funny. Good luck.”

Lucas slammed his critics as uneducated, explaining they are misusing the word “racism.”

He stated:

People accuse you of racism because you speak for Israel. That’s not actually racism. Palestinians and Muslims are not a race. Such a terrible use of the English language. Speaking for Israel does not make you more popular. It gives you accusations of racism. Of Islamophobia – whatever that means. And you become politically incorrect. It’s all about political correctness but basically it’ all about good old Jew hatred. It’s all about anti-Semitism.

Posted in Homosexuality, Israel, Pornography | Comments Off on Gay Porn Kingpin Takes on LGBT Boycott Israel Movement

What Happened To Trump?

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* A poll conducted a couple of days ago and an entrance poll at the caucases today showed Trump leading, but he’s losing the actual caucus vote. It’s hard to admit being for Trump in public. The other primaries will be decided by secret ballot, where Trump’s opponents won’t have this advantage.

* Rubio wants to increase neocon wars, flood the U.S. with cheap labor (illegals), and support TPP. Ted Cruz wants to quintuple H1B visa workers, support TPP, et al. I say fuck conservative middle America. They had one last chance with a non-politician billionaire. But they’re too stupid to know what’s good for them. I’m a 2%-er living comfortably in Massachusetts. Fuck those evangelical losers with low IQs in flyover country and I’m done caring about them.

* What’s great about those numbers is how much room for growth there is in there for Cruz vs. Rubio. Forced to choose between the two is a Trump/Paul/Carson voter more likely to choose Rubio or Cruz?

68.4% of the vote appears to be going to the Fuck RINOs Party. That’s the number we see over and over again nationwide – polls showing ~70% of GOP voters wanting anyone but an establishment candidate. Win or lose in November this revolt isn’t dying anytime soon.

MORE COMMENTS:

* I think the very fact that Trump firmly staked a claim on what was believed to be a politically untenable position – building a wall and expelling illegal immigrants, confirms that he is sincere in this position and will attempt to follow through. If he didn’t want to do it, why in the world would he campaign on that platform when the conventional wisdom was that it was stance held only by racist Nazi sympathizers? I think Trump was truly convinced by Coulter’s book.

I also think it’s safe to believe in his trade protectionist positions. He is on the record advocating a more pro-America stance on trade deals since the 80′s.

I have no idea if he can be expected to follow through on his rhetoric with respect to guns or abortion, but I don’t really care much. The 2nd Amendment will still protect our guns rights, and nobody has done anything about abortion for 40 years so there’s no reason that Trump will do anything different.

* Iowa has picked the correct GOP candidate 3 of the last 7 contested races so all the losers have something to cling to tonight. Cruz won by throwing bibles around and that means he has zero chance in New Hampshire. But, Rubio will be the darling of the Conservative Industrial Complex now so my guess is they drag him over the line in New Hampshire.

The funny thing to me is we’re going to get Clinton – Lazio 2.0 in the general with Bootsie playing the role of Rick Lazio. If I did not know better, I’d think these things are scripted.

* I’m disappointed, but I don’t think Trump sitting out the debate had anything to do with it. Certainly, there weren’t a lot of Trump voters going to Rubio.

What appears to have happened is that turnout was high, and a lot of that turnout went to Rubio or Cruz, both of whom were energized by fear that Trump might win.

However, Trump had to have done pretty well to keep 24% of the vote, which means he wasn’t asleep at the wheel.

Immigration isn’t a big deal in Iowa, and in fact, shockingly, many learned that the cities are “sanctuary cities”, meaning they’d lose funding under Trump or Cruz.

Trump had a good speech. That shows he’s in it to win it. Let’s hope he comes out hard for immigration restriction. And if there are too many anti-restrictionists out there, then it’s justs not the time.

I don’t think I’ve posted this yet, my Trump post: It’s the Immigration, Stupid.

* Holy shit, look at Bill Clinton. He’s a f–king vegetable. It looks like he’s actually dead and embalmed, and they’re just jerking his body around with strings.

* 8 out of 10 Trump supporters don’t have college degrees and many of them have never voted before. You need an army of volunteers knocking on doors and dragging these people to the polls. Otherwise, they’ll be sitting at home watching TV. Trump should seriously consider investing more in a serious ground game. Being a New Yorker, a celebrity, a TV star, and having enjoyed all the media coverage and favorable poll numbers for the past 6 months, Trump probably underestimates the basic mechanics and nitty gritty of electoral politics.

* Cruz made a good case before the election that, if you want anyone other than Trump to win, you should vote for him in Iowa, because a) he had the best chance of beating Trump there and, b) If Trump won Iowa, the race would be over.

* It would seem that many Iowa Republicans saw Cruz – who is also described (wrongly, to my sense of matters) as an “outsider” – as the safer “outsider” choice to Mr. Trump who is an actual outsider. Cruz’s Iowa ground game was also far more muscular than Mr. Trump’s nonexistent one. All that considered, in national terms I might lean toward reading their numbers as an actual tie.

The real shock is Rubio’s strong third-place numbers. How a Midwestern Republican could vote for Rubio is beyond my power to comprehend. But then Iowa has had some twenty-to-thirty years of LaRazatino meat-processing & stoop labor immigrants whose Chamber of Commerce employers may be more than a little inclined to support a rat like Rubio.

Sanders’s numbers come as no shock at all. For the last two weeks Enemedia-Pravda have been giving Sanders a propaganda boost at the same time as they’ve been boosting Hilligula while also reporting on the latest State Department release of her cavalierly handled “special access programs” e-mails. If Sanders runs away from Hilligula in New Hampshire, look for Enemedia-Pravda to worship Sanders in exactly the same way they worshipped candidate Obama – and to promote Hilligula as Sanders’s top veep choice. To me the most depressing thing about Sanders is this: Sanders is purely the product of forty years of the radicals’ takeover of public edudoctrination of America’s children – including children of blue collar Americans who have been most grievously screwed by Sanders/SJW types.

* Suppose in order to win the nomination, Trump may have to simply remain competitive in the Bible Belt states, and win outright in such states Northeastern/Rust Belt/Upper Midwest/Pacific as NY; PA; New England as well as OH; MI; WI; IL; and also CA; NV; CO; out west. Could that be done?

Because if all the Bible Belt primaries want is for someone to read the Bible to them and not really discuss the issues, then son of a preacher has it pretty easy. Trump’s great ace in the hole or, “Trump” card may just be that he’s from the Northeast and perhaps could use that to his advantage in the West, where social issues/religious language isn’t as strongly appealing in a primary, particularly in CA. As the US’s biggest state ergo it must also carry the most delegates (even though most of the time the primary race is pretty much over by the time CA primary voters go to vote).

* There’s an earlier shot of the three family members on a stage with Bill in the middle. They are all holding hands, and it looks like he actually needs support to stand. He has fallen so far, so fast that it’s impossible not to notice.

It’s not just his physical state that alarmed me somewhat. Did you catch Hillary’s wild eyes in her victory speech? She looked ready to leap from the stage, jump in the cab of a long haul truck, and drive an all nighter to Oregon. Whatever she’s on, it’s the good stuff.

* Iowa was always one of Trump’s weakest states. Unfortunately the chance he might win it, as was indicated by the most recent polls, makes this feels like a loss rather than a solid start. Thankfully he is so far ahead in NH and SC I can’t see those results changing. Ultimately there has been little change in the delegate number he has won, one less than had he won. The result does explain why Cruz started attacking Rubio though.

* Veganism seems to have sapped Bill’s powers.

* Rubio is the new GOP mafia darling since Jebra is a dud. Could there be something nefarious going on? Check out where and by how many votes Rubio surprisingly came in a strong number ONE.

* Rubio’s showing stinks of fraud. None of the polls hinted at anything of the kind, and he’s not the sort of candidate who gets massive grassroots support that might be underrepresented in the polls (e.g. Ron Paul in 2012). And the voting software was provided by a major Rubio donor (Microsoft).

* Cruz doesn’t even have a path to win the nomination. He will get schlonged in any state without a heavy population of evangelicals. Your choices, if you’re supporting a Republican primary candidate, comes down to Trump or Rubio/Bush et al.

But I’d argue you’re wrong about Cruz’s general election electability.

He does very well with “very conservative” voters, hence the Iowa win. But he won’t carry swing states. Take a look at the Obama-Romney map and try to find 270 for Cruz. Its tough.

Trump can win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and he may even put New York and New Hampshire in play. He’s stronger in swing states mostly due to Trade and secular appeal.

* Cruz’s Swaggert performance was quite funny. Mike Savage said on his radio show that “For a moment there I thought Cruz was going to pull a snake out!”

* No surprises here. A lot at risk. The Establishment wins again … as it must to keep the system going. I wonder how much political chicanery went on behind the scenes. We not only have a rigged economy. We also have a rigged electoral system.

The Republicans don’t get it. Imagine running Romney as a candidate for President … someone from among the Wall Street M&A insiders who promises to increase jobs. [?] Imagine running Cruz as a candidate for President … someone whose wife is a principal at Goldman Sachs and who has taken political loans from Goldman Sachs in the past. [?] So obvious …! Why can’t Republicans camouflage their hand a bit better?

I can imagine a third party run that splits the vote. If Trump runs as an independent, Cruz is “toast”. If Sanders runs as an independent, Hillary is “toast”. If necessary, let’s hope both run as independents. Then, no one can credibly claim they were elected to the presidency with something like 25%-30% of the vote. Sometimes a stalemate is best so that the “winner” cannot press the illusion of empowerment.

MORE COMMENTS:

* The truth is that the liberal media-driven campaign has won again. They made massive and concerted effort to paint Trump a second coming of Hitler. And it worked – huge caucus turnout meant that people in Iowa went to caucus in droves with one main goal: stop Trump.

Face it: the tiny number of people who control 90% of our media had won almost every war they waged against core American population: offshoring, trade agreements, immigration, restrictions on freedom of speech, feminism, homosexuality, wars abroad. Guns are the only exception. (But wait, that win will come, too).

* We’ve just witnessed jeb’s campaign blow through a huge war chest for negligible results. Do the consultants working for him suffer any consequences in their careers? Do they have to go work for some small time incumbents in impregnable districts to rebuild credibility? Or can they just blame Jeb as a bad candidate and hop right back on high profile senate and presidential campaigns?

* “baby boomers are truly the worst generation”

I’m one of them and unfortunately there is too much truth in what you say. We erred in not telling our children that the whole inclusion thing was just a passing fad, conceived of and spoken in a fog of pot smoke. “Hey kids, you weren’t supposed to take it seriously.” After all, we didn’t. Although we marched with blacks during protests on campus, just look at who we chose for neighbors when we went to buy a house and start a family. Not a groid in sight.

But our daughters really believed that they were supposed to earn their liberal bonafides by dating black guys. And our sons listen to mono-tonal ghetto music on the radio to the exclusion of everything else. The music put out by modern white guys is tepid and thin, a distant echo of the muscular, melodic Rock of our, the baby-boomer generation. Modern white-guy music is a thin cry of anguish at being ignored by the wider culture in general and white girls in particular.

And our election of rootless Obama, an abandoned, mixed-race, foster child, adopted out to a family of an alien culture and then raised by his Grandparents was and is the perfect expression of our dazed and confused state. We attributed magical powers to him and bestowed honorifics upon ourselves for our open mindedness and magnanimity in helping the symbol of a prostrate race off the mat. But self congratulation is not an adequate map or basis for a plan for moving forwards.

So, we’ll just throw it all at you and leave it to your generation to figure out.

Good Luck!

* Iowans are not natural Trump supporters, even in the absence of the evangelical Christian and ethanol subsidies. Trump, to many Iowans, is an abrasive New York real estate/casino developer on his third trophy wife. His claim to fame is a television program in which he summarily fired a contestant a week. Moreover, his principal policy difference with the rest of the Republican field, immigration, is something that doesn’t yet resonate with most Iowans. Iowa has only limited immigration, so it’s still the smiling Mexican restaurant owner, and not the drug gang that Iowans think of when they think immigration.

So I’m surprised that Trump did as well as he did. It tells me that, even in Iowa, Donald Trump is tapping into an anxiety about where the country is headed. The dead heat between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, also tells me the same anxiety is being felt there as well.

Posted in America, Donald Trump | Comments Off on What Happened To Trump?

Mark Zuckerberg Warns Iowa Ahead of Vote to Reject Trump

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Breitbart: As first-in-the-nation Iowa voters prepare to caucus, open borders financier Mark Zuckerberg weighed in on the race through the president of his powerful immigration lobbying firm, FWD.us.

In a Monday CNBC interview, FWD.us President Todd Schulte made clear his view that Iowans should reject the candidacy of Donald Trump.

Zuckerberg’s spokesman Schulte told CNBC’s Sqawk Alley:

For the first time, a major party [is] putting forth people who are saying they are going to round up and deport 11.5 million people; they’re going to eliminate high-skilled immigration… And look, that may get you a win or second place in the Iowa caucuses. That is just a horrible and fatal position in a general election.

Shulte elaborated just a few hours ago with more attacks on the GOP frontrunner. Schulte tweeted: “Trump’s a hack, runs for [sic] policy specifics. Be it immigration, trade, foreign policy – answer is always he’s a strongman, others are weak.”

Schulte continued: “On immigration, he wandered into something awful that credentialed past apostasies as ok – rounding up every last undocumented immigrant.”

Zuckerberg’s FWD.us is also backed by tech giant Bill Gates. Gates has argued for the unlimited admission of foreign workers authorized to take American jobs.

FWD.us is also backed by other supporters of mass immigration, such as Google’s Eric Schmidt and former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

Todd Schulte was named president of the organization in September of last year after his predecessor, Joe Greene, was reportedly “forced” out after revealing his organization’s apparent view that foreign workers are better than Americans.

This is not the first time Zuckerberg’s lobbying firm has attacked the GOP frontrunner.

Ahead of September’s CNN GOP debate, Zuckerberg’s immigration firm released an attack ad targeting Donald Trump, in which the lobbying group lectured the Republican Party on the need to pass so-called “immigration reform,” by which FWD.us means mass amnesty combined with more foreign workers on visas for big businesses.

Similarly, following the release of Donald Trump’s immigration policy paper last summer, Schulte wrote a blog post on the FWD.us website in which he described Trump supporters as “hard-line anti-immigrant restrictionists” who “rant that immigrants are taking jobs away from ‘real’ Americans.”

The number of immigrants in the U.S. is currently at a record high of more than 42 million. Nearly 1 in 7 U.S. residents was born in a foreign country. In eight years time, the foreign born share of the U.S. population will reach an all-time high. If Silicon Valley’s lobbying efforts prove successful, that record will be shattered with even greater force and rapidity.

Posted in America, Immigration | Comments Off on Mark Zuckerberg Warns Iowa Ahead of Vote to Reject Trump

Forward: Iowa Caucuses Cap Harsh Campaign Dominated by Christian Appeals

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

Nathan Guttman writes:

Mixing religion and politics has, traditionally, been a source of concern for Jewish voters.
“It’s a slippery slope and there are concerns about how much religion is being talks,” said David Adelman, the Des Moines Jewish federation’s top lay leader. “That being said, obviously religion helps shape somebody’s moral direction and if that’s important to people everyone has the ability to ask these questions and vote based on whatever is important for them.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, the candidate least likely to discuss faith in his campaign is the only Jew in the rasie. Democrat Bernie Sanders avoids touching faith issues as much as possible. When asked by voters at a Jewish federation event last fall on the impact of his religion on his politics, Sanders stuck to the notion of “tikkun olam,” or repairing the world, and refused to delve any deeper into his own beliefs.

Israel is a nation-state based on a religion — Judaism, so I don’t think Jews intrinsically have a problem mixing politics with religion. They only have a problem when the mixing is to their disadvantage.

Rob Eshman in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles writes about Hillary’s foreign policy wonk who apparently gets her values from the Jewish religion:

Rosenberger is 35, friendly, direct and familiar, the voice of someone you went to camp with, but probably smarter.
She describes herself as a wonk with a social-activist bent, which she credits to her religious background.
“So if you look at foreign policy,” said Rosenberger, who, like most millennials, is prone to start her most important sentences with “So,” “many different issues have inequality sort of at their core. And I would say that, for me, actually, I do think that comes from my Jewish roots. Passover is my favorite holiday, because I find very much a driving mission for myself in this, the obligation of the Jewish people who have been free from oppression ourselves to root out oppression wherever we see it.”
Rosenberger grew up in the South Hills suburbs of Pittsburgh, where her mother helped found the Jewish Community Center. The family belonged to the Reform movement: Temple Emanuel, travel to Israel with Young Judea, and summer each year at Emma Kaufmann Camp.

It does not sound like Laura Rosenberger has a big problem mixing politics with religion.

I think social identity theory best explains what is going on here. The more you identify with your in-group, the more suspicion you are likely to feel towards out-groups.

Posted in Christianity, Jews | Comments Off on Forward: Iowa Caucuses Cap Harsh Campaign Dominated by Christian Appeals

Marty Kaplan: The idiocy of the Iowa caucuses

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

Marty Kaplan writes: “We’re suckers for the patriotic mythology and gauzy imagery of town halls and high school gyms where candidates get grilled and caucus-goers speak up and get counted. But the power of Iowa and New Hampshire isn’t a reward for the superior candidate-scrutinizing skills that their citizens inherently possess; it’s a consequence of state party officials flexing their muscles over the calendar.”

Ever get the sense this guy just doesn’t like America, particularly middle America? Jews like Marty Kaplan fear populism and nativism and nationalism. They prefer government by elites.

Ever notice that elites tend to think America works much better than ordinary people think? Because the game is rigged against the ordinary hard-working America who doesn’t want welfare and doesn’t want more immigration.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on Marty Kaplan: The idiocy of the Iowa caucuses

EXCLUSIVE: Pollster Frank Luntz Helped Shape Marco Rubio’s Entire Political Career, Did Not Disclose Relationship on Fox News

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Breitbart: Pollster Frank Luntz has been instrumental in shaping the political career of young Sen. Marco Rubio, raising grave concerns about Fox News’ decision not to disclose that relationship before Luntz showcased an extraordinarily pro-Rubio focus-group after Thursday night’s Republican debate.

Breitbart News has learned from a high-level former elected Florida Republican that Luntz crafted Rubio’s messaging efforts when he was a rising state legislator in the Sunshine State a decade ago.

Luntz was paid to guide Rubio’s transition into a statewide political role and he even helped to fashion the famous “American Exceptionalism” speech that vaulted Rubio to national prominence, spending much face-time with the young lawmaker in the process.

Luntz took up a block of time on Fox News immediately after the debate Thursday night to show how his hand-picked focus-group declared Rubio the winner of the Donald Trump-free debate.

Luntz’s post-debate focus group was so skewed in favor of Rubio it was jarring.

“Megyn, you asked probably the toughest question of the debate. You gave the candidates no room to wiggle. You pressed him. And he responded,” Luntz gushed to Megyn Kelly, awkwardly referring only to Rubio before even mentioning him by name. “I want to begin with the most important and impactful moment of this debate. It was your challenge of Marco Rubio. And watch how well he did on immigration.”

Posted in Fox | Comments Off on EXCLUSIVE: Pollster Frank Luntz Helped Shape Marco Rubio’s Entire Political Career, Did Not Disclose Relationship on Fox News

Six Reasons Trump Would Be Disaster for U.S. Jews, Israel and the Middle East

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Haaretz:

He wants to take Israel’s wall and run with it much much further

Trump regularly cites Israeli policies that already divide the American Jewish community as being both successful and replicable for the United States. He cites “the [separation] wall” in Israel as an example of why the United State should build a wall with Mexico, and has repeatedly called for “taking out the families of terrorists,” one long step further from the Israeli policy of demolishing terrorists’ homes. Israel certainly wouldn’t gain reputationally from this emulation: As Ryan Lizza noted in the New Yorker after attending a Trump rally, “I had never previously been to a political event at which people cheered for the murder of women and children.”

There’d be no anti-ISIS alliance

Under Trump, there’s no doubt the ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis would gain momentum, if not combustion. Many Trump’s critics accuse him of doing ISIS’ work for it by exploiting fear of terrorism and drumming up the kind of anti-Muslim sentiment radical Jihadists leverage to gain support. Trump as president would distance Arab world allies: the UAE and other Arab state billionaires have threatened to divest from the United States under his presidency. And we haven’t started on the likely Trump – Muslim world relationship. As conservative pundit, Mona Charen slammed him in in the National Review’s anti-Trump manifesto: “Where is the center of gravity in a man who in May denounces those who ‘needlessly provoke’ Muslims and in December proposes that we (‘temporarily’) close our borders to all non-resident Muslims?”

He’d outsource Middle East policy to Putin

Trump’s new foreign policy approach is based on the United States making ‘good deals’ and getting “paid back” for protection or intervention abroad. This would end the U.S. “getting screwed over” by having to do the rest of the world’s work for them. It’s several steps away from the familiar American traditions of neoconservative or liberal interventionist policy. As part of this U.S. Interests First approach, he has regularly called for letting Putin, Assad and ISIS fight it out in Syria. 

While this line finds a ready audience among some war-weary Americans, U.S. military officials have warned that civilians are bearing the brunt of the over 5,000 airstrikes Russia has carried out since September, which is both further fueling the European refugee crisis and enhancing ISIS’ recruitment message.

Meanwhile, the more the United States gets pushed out of the region, the more Putin and his de-facto allies, especially Iran and Hezbollah, strengthen their position at Israel’s doorstep.

But is it good for Israel?

Donald Trump likes to boast about his pro-Israel credentials. One of his favorite lines on the stump is, “I was even the grand marshal for the [NYC] Israeli [sic] Day Parade.” And if that doesn’t sell you, rest assured, he has “won so many awards from Israel” and has “so many friends from Israel.” He promises he “will be very good to Israel.”

When first pushed on whether or not Jerusalem should be Israel’s capital and the U.S. Embassy should be moved there, he waffled and refused to give a clear answer. Last week, while locked in a close battle with Ted Cruz in the polls in Iowa, Trump in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, pledged to move the Embassy in a bid to poach Cruz’s Evangelical support.

Historically, the American leaders who have historically best served Israel’s interests were fuelled by ideological motivations. Truman recognized Israel, against the urging of the advisor he believed to be the greatest man alive, George Marshall, because of his Christian faith and deep belief in spreading universal values. America’s patronage of Israel has been based more on ideological and philosophical imperatives, with a dose of clear-sighted pragmatism, than any so-called “Jewish lobby.” 

Donald Trump has shown no ideological underpinnings, other than “making America great again,” that would ensure he would support Israel in tough times. He’s already shown little backbone in standing up for other states’ independence against larger foes: When pressed on whether or not he believed Ukraine should be a part of NATO, he said he didn’t care. He feels no nostalgia for backing up strategic allies of half-a-century’s standing: “If somebody attacks Japan, we have to immediately go and start World War III, OK? If we get attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us. Somehow, that doesn’t sound so fair. Does that sound good?” Trump said. Israel’s fate in terms of its military and strategic dependence on the U.S. would be subject to a kind of erratic opportunism based on Donald Trump’s whims and the latest subjects of his bunker mentality. 

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Six Reasons Trump Would Be Disaster for U.S. Jews, Israel and the Middle East

The End of an Era … for White Males?

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* It is kind of like when the villain goes out of his way explaining to the hero in precise detail how he intends to take over the world.

* I know this is kinda concern trolling, but if you don’t want non-ruling-class whites to start banding together behind Trump or some other such figure, surely it would be smarter NOT to constantly harp on how white men are about to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

* This Jew hit pretty much every note. The most scathing hater of Jews could barely produce satire that could outdo this piece.

* The cognitively superior will always rule. White men have nothing to worry about.

* “White men have had a great run. From the rise of the Greeks to the birth of Western-based global empires, they have controlled much of the world…”

Deliberate deception. White men didn’t “control” merely much of the world, as if they were kids playing with remote control cars. They built/invented/designed much of the world. There’s a difference and it’s all the difference in the world.

I’d have a less difficult time with his overall premise if he could at least be honest with his wording. This reminds me of the phrase “male-dominated,” which is the feminist way of sidestepping the truth: That it really means “male-created.”

He who controls words controls thought. Calling people like this on their deliberate sleight-of-hand when it comes to descriptions is important. “Controlled” is not the right word to use and if he didn’t know better then some editor, somewhere, should have piped up.

The irony, of course, is he gets to communicate this on technology built by white men in a country where the idea of freedom of speech was made into law by white men. And if white men “control” anything, he might look to that to ask why.

(I’m choosing only to focus on his opening sentence. I know well there are a lot more questionable ideas here.)

* This narrative that whites have “controlled the world” for millennia needs to be opposed with facts. The global white empires only began around 1450 with the explorations of the Portuguese. Before that whites did not in any sense control Africa or Asia, and of course had no presence (bar a handful of Vikings) in the Americas.

And of course there were long periods of white contraction. For example, the retreat before the initial waves of Islamic expansion.

* If you could go back in time and obliterate a small swath of the inhabitants of the earth’s surface, at around 1600 AD, on a swath from GB, to France, to Germany, to Poland and perhaps also to Moscow, there would be no modern world. Bordering areas included.

The scientific and the industrial revolutions were centered in those areas. Capitalism was invented there. Every military in the world today looks and acts like the military model invented there.

Its not a matter of fashion that businessmen everywhere in the world look like Western men in a suit and tie. Or that solders everywhere look more like British turn of the century solders than samurai. Or that researchers look like German university researchers. Most of the great polyphonic music of the world would not exist. The Japanese would have no 9th to determine the playing time of the CD they invented. There might not even be perspective in painting. If you included present day Italy in the swath, perhaps monogamy, a Roman institution adopted by early Christians I am told, would be rare.

No modern world. A totally different planet if perhaps 20% of the surface area was obliterated by a meter or something in the past.

* Has every immigrant group made “huge contributions” to the United States? I’m trying to think what exactly Mestizo Hispanics have contributed to the USA….certainly not much in terms of technology, physics, chemistry, literature.

* I can’t tell you how many senior lawyers who’ve made very distinguished careers but never had to compete against female lawyers have told me how wonderful it is that there are so many women in the law now.

Not only is this attitude hypocritical, it is fundamentally selfish (as are all anti-traditionalists): It is the equivalent of saying, I was given something wonderful, I was initiated into a learned profession and into the particular customs of my firm or bar or chambers or inn of court, and I took that gift, that inheritance that was handed down to me, and I unalterably changed it and remade it and have given you, my successors and followers, something else, something different, something other. It’s so wonderful–though of course I didn’t experience it–but I know you’ll like it.

Uggh.

* How can (evidently) high I.Q. lansmen be so stupid? Derb did a great Mencken speech where he posited voting should be allowed only to those in the middle bands of I.Q. I believe his reasoning was the smart ones are more prone to romantic fantasies. That would sum up the tribe, or maybe they just loathe white Christians.

* “the real leaders for this new era will distinguish themselves by focusing not just on the social diversity that makes great nations, but on the truth and wondrous benefits of the diversity that actually lives within us all.”

The benefits of diversity and “non-othering” are so “wondrous” that Israel has chosen to generously allocate its diversity quota to white nations. At the same time Jews agitate endless for dilution of white countries.

* Rothkopf’s piece speaks extremely poorly for FP. It is exactly as Steve describes it: pure conventional wisdom (a polite way of saying it is a complete waste of any intelligent person’s time).

Even if one agreed with the political orientation of the article, life’s too short simply to read regurgitations of the conventional wisdom. Let’s be thankful we have the decidedly unconventional Mr Sailer to read as an alternative to FP (and the rest of the MSM).

* If women show their “empowerment” through their ability to reject all the men they don’t want in their lives – and the rejects have to accept this outcome and go away – then why don’t white people show our “empowerment” when we reject the world’s trash we don’t want in our communities and countries?

* And yet I suspect David Rothkopf believes that people like David Rothkopf – i.e. those who belong to Rothkopf’s tribe – will continue to stay on top of things for a long while to come. I guess it’s easier to end up as a member of “The Chosen” when it’s you who gets to do the choosing.

* Why do Jewish supremacist Caucasophobes like Rothkopf get to gloat over their destruction of white culture and civilization? White Americans should take anti-white distopian prognostications like this as a challenge to organize for their self preservation. There are hundreds of Jewish organizations and dozens of Hispanic and African American groups in the US. There are countless Christian groups. When will the white Christianish people unite to against the violence and discrimination they already experience as well as what they can expect in a hellish future like the one this Nazi eagerly looks forward to?

* And yet Bibi wouldn’t lift a finger for Trump. “Distanced himself,” actually. I bet I could go into a West Bank “settlement” (Jewish colony) and ask Jews if Whites should be allowed to have for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel and they’d say “no.”

* “Previously David served as CEO of Intellibridge Corporation, Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. . . . ”

I believe L. Paul Bremmer also served as Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. He also served as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. In that role, Bremmer made two horrendous decisions: (1) he disbanded the Iraqi army and (2) he issued a decree banning all former members of the Baath Party from playing any role in the new Iraqi state. Those decisions were made either because L. Paul Bremmer was incredibly stupid or they were done deliberately in order to sabotage the new Iraq and guarantee that it could not become a functioning country for a long time. Thus, he was either incompetent or corrupt. Hardly a good advertisement for Kissinger Associates.

Of course, Henry Kissinger himself endorsed the Iraq War of 2003 (unlike his former associate Brent Scowcroft, who came out in strong opposition to the war). In 2011, he acknowledged the war was a mistake, but he blamed his decision to support the war on “bad intelligence.” Now, I didn’t graduate summa cum laude from Harvard like Henry Kissinger and do not consider myself as smart as Henry Kissinger or as knowledgeable about foreign affairs, but I was able to scope out that we were being sold a pig in a poke by reading the NY Times and WS Journal and watching network TV news on NBC, with no access to intelligence reports. If I could have figured it out, I am certain that Kissinger could have figured it out. So, it seems that Henry Kissinger was either incredibly stupid in 2003 or incredibly corrupt.

Adding all these examples together, one has to conclude that hiring Kissinger Associates would not give you good advice unless you are looking for ways to do harm to the interests of the U.S.

* He writes of the demise of the white male’s world the way you’d write of a dying tree – a natural and organic process. In fact, there is nothing that has been planned and orchestrated as tirelessly during the last fifty years as the destruction of white countries and the dispossession of their people.

He also talks of white “privilege” as if it were something we just stumbled upon by sheer good fortune, like Jed Clampett finding the oil spouting out of his swampland. Agriculture, science, medicine and technology are all blessings that just fell into our lap.

* Dan Greenfield (Israeli) edges close to it, but always backs away to maintain his status on a neocon organization payroll. It’s unnerving to admit that your community (Jews) depends upon the approval of others (the West, Russia, Iran), that even nukes can’t guarantee. If the security of Jews and Israel depends upon the active existence of right-wing Christians, it causes tremendous theological quandaries for the religiously observant. In with Gospel, out with Talmud. Bridge too far for many…

* There is no doubt that some of the best minds on our side are Jews. My guess is about 20 percent of American Jews probably side with the majority opinion of this blog. But I have no hard stats to back it up.

The problem is that it seems most, if not all, organized Jewish groups are for open borders and such. Additionally most, if not all, high profile Jews and the ones who pony up the big bucks during election time are for open borders as well. So rightly or wrongly this does lead to the perception that Jews in the collective sense are pro open borders, even though we realize there are some great exceptions.

* The first racialist argument that ever appealed to me was when David Duke, of all people, was on Montel Williams or something 15 years ago advocating for his organization NO FEAR – the National Organization for European American Rights. It did seem a clever argument, but it’s so obviously motivated by white racialism that the zeitgeist has yet to accommodate the renaming.

* Don’t forget Peter Sutherland a UN migration chief, chairman of Goldman Sachs, and sometime attendee of the Bilderberg Group. He is quoted as the EU should “undermine national homogeneity”.

* It’s amazing how promise-of-diversity boosting has become so shrill, desperate, as if white-goy haters like Rothkopf realize their window of opportunity is fast-disappearing. The noble project to flood the evil West with very vibrant, colorfully throwback cultures of Gimmestan is crashing on rough shoals of reality. Let’s not forget Rothkopf, a dynamic if somewhat ethnocentric thinker himself, pushed hard for deposing Syria’s regime in 2013, only to be undone by an American public finally on to Israel Lobby strategies. Out of obvious commitment to democracy, he counseled then, as sun set on this brainstorm, that bold Presidents of the past knocked will of the people in a cocked hat and did what they pleased.

Doesn’t the gas-bag sound a lot like the “scientific Marxism is inevitability” prophets who ended up in the Tidybowl of history?

* Rothkopf and Michael Oren (American born Israeli military officer and former ambassador to USA) were roommates at Columbia University.

Rothkopf visited Israel for the first time a few years ago. Rothkopf and Oren then exchanged letters regarding Zionism and Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Rothkopf was critical in his analysis of Israel but did not declare Israel as an apartheid state.

I used to read Rothkopf before “Foreign Policy” was behind a pay wall. Rothkopf hold his most serious hate for white Christians, especially Catholics and most especially German speaking Catholics.

This was back when Pope Benedict held St. Peter’s throne. Rothkopf hated his guts.

* Philip Weiss writes in 2014:

And [Michael Oren] he is a man of action: he throws himself into supporting Israel, to the point of emigrating and changing his name from Bornstein to Oren. He serves in the Israeli army. He is repeatedly arrested by the KGB on feats of derring-do on behalf of the Jewish people in Eastern Europe. He serves in the Israeli government, ultimately as its ambassador to the United States, sacrificing his citizenship here.

While Rothkopf gets on the American meritocracy gravy train. He gets the fattest envelope that rising Jews of my generation could get — a political appointment in the Clinton administration — and that leads in time to a lot of other plums. The Council on Foreign Relations, ceo and editor of Foreign Policy. He writes a forgettable book celebrating the American elite, of which he is now a goldstamped member, and there’s a neurotic edge to this character. He needs a lot of affirmation. He gives too much respect to his old friend.

But the truth of the story is that Rothkopf is the smarter and stronger of the two, he just doesn’t know it yet. And as middle age breaks the two men on its wheel, Rothkopf finally takes Oren on, by visiting Israel for three short days in 2013, and comes away horrified as an American. Still he can’t break his silence, till Oren prods him. What did you think?

David Rothkopf

David Rothkopf

And Rothkopf breaks free in the remarkable exchange of letters that he published yesterday at Foreign Policy, in which he demolishes Oren and exposes him as a flat anachronism, made up of stupid bluster (“We’re surrounded by a sea of supremely armed insanity”) and hectoring lectures (“Do you regard yourself as part of the Jewish people? Do you consider your life inextricably linked to the Jewish story?”) and lies (Palestinians have equal access to water, he claims) with no sense of how the world regards Israel.

In this moment, the Rothkopf character comes into his own. He tells us what he really thinks and he’s the thoughtful and secure one, Oren is provincial. Zionism is “exactly the wrong” response to history, Rothkopf says, and delivers a speech about history that brings everyone to their feet:

The best protection (as the United States has demonstrated) is to institutionalize the concept of tolerance and diversity and to work tirelessly to ensure that the powerful impulses to segregate and divide are quashed. It is not easy. But it has made the United States the most successful experiment in cultural diversity in history — though only after a series of horrific errors, including slavery and the genocide against Native Americans and the devaluing of the role of women, were ultimately remedied. We’re not there yet.

I.e., everything you’ve devoted your life to was a mistake.

I wrote about the letters yesterday but obviously I can’t get over them. Ilene Cohen wrote me to say that Israel is now “cooked.” That when someone of Rothkopf’s stature comes out, it allows others in the elite to come out and declare, Guess what, I was never for Zionism, either. “I’m just a canary in the coal mine, Rothkopf writes,” she said. “There will be more. Kerry was a canary, too. And think about Martin Indyk making that speech at WINEP.”

Cohen also asked a question: How is it that Rothkopf never went to Israel before?

The answer is at the heart of the relationship between American Jews and Israel. Most of us have never been. I didn’t get there till I was 50 years old. Like Rothkopf, I was pursuing the rewards and pleasures of American society and was afraid of what that place looked like.

But there was also deference. We understood ourselves as part of a cohesive American Jewish community that held the breathing tube for Israel, for one part of our community was the political faction that ensured America’s devotion to Israel (in sharp distinction to Oren’s fantastical booklength propaganda that Americans love a religious state). In Rothkopf’s case, the advocacy was direct. He stood up for Israel against its critics. In my case it was passive: Till the Iraq war forced me to get on the stick, I accepted the prohibition of my Oren, neoconservative Eric Breindel, whom I knew in my elite college: You don’t know enough about this to get involved, he told me. I thought he was smarter than I was. And I stayed away.

* It’s true that many non-Jewish intellectuals are lefties. It’s also true that pretty much all Jews (left and right) call for open borders for Europe and the USA while maintaining closed borders and ethnic “othering” for Israel.

Ethnic solidarity for me, not for thee.

But no worries. Move on. Nothing to see here.

* Whether the threat is one associated with Islam or extremism or simply economic competition within a country, the reality is that the expressed fears are way out of proportion with the actual, manifested threats.

In other words, a certain level of civil discomfort and small-scale terrorist attacks are to be expected and tolerated as the mohammedan, Asian, and Hispanic populations in formerly White lands increase. The continued deracination of traditionally European countries–including the United States–is much more important, multitudes more even, than the physical safety and security of those country’s present inhabitants.

* A society is just a collection of people, and the character of a society depends on the character of its people.

* Two possibilities:

1. Not all Jews are racist, ungrateful sociopaths.

2. The smarter Jews realize that a white, gentile, Christian America is the best hing that’s happened to the tribe since the end of the Babylonian exile. And that they seriously, seriously fucked up by overstepping on the diversity crap and importing a ton of Muslim implacable antisemites.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

* A fun exercise:

(1) Rothkopf lists ethnic groups: “the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews … each group has made huge contributions to the United States”

(2) Then in his bio he lists the elite institutions he’s affiliated with.

The fun part: look for a match between lists 1 and 2. Painfully few of his favorite institutions were created by his favorite ethnics. “Huge contributions?” I don’t see it.

Examples,
-Foreign Policy: founded by Samuel P. Huntington [English ancestry] while a professor at Harvard [founded by Englishmen]
-Carnegie Endowment: Scottish-American
-Columbia University: Englishmen
-New York Times: British-Americans
-Princeton University: Scots

Compared to America’s early British population, no ethnic group (and I include my own) has really built all that much in this country. And Rothkopf tacitly admits this in his own status-obsessed bio.

* Minsky married a Jewish female doctor and they had three children.

No matter how nerdy, religious or observant Jews or those at least involved with Jewish life on a nonreligious level (Minsky was an atheist) seem to have little trouble marrying if they want to do so. That’s true of members of most nonmajority religions: Mormons, 7DAs, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc as well.

If Paris is worth a Mass, maybe a wife is worth magic underwear.

* That may still work for Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists, but I don’t think it does for non-Orthodox Jews. A large percentage of young secular/Reform/Conservative/Reconstructionist Jewish women aren’t interested in marriage. And of the non-Orthodox groups, only Conservative Jews would still show strong preference for marrying other Jews if they did decide to marry. Many Reform rabbis will now perform intermarriages, and secular Jews may not care if a rabbi is involved at all. These are my observations as a never-married non-Orthodox Jewish guy in his late thirties.

* He’s got the gay look and a subdued gay voice. Probably homosexual. It figures, deviancy in one aspect of one’s mind corrupts the other parts. This is a person giving foreign policy advice? No wonder we have problems in that area.

* David Rothkopf, M.O.T., celebrating the end of the white man, eh?

I wonder how long Israel would last without the white male American taxpayer giving it $3 billion per annum… and without white male defense contractors providing it with superior weapons to keep the brown-skinned Palestinians at bay. Six months? A year, maybe?

Next time Mr. Rothkopf’s power goes out, or the transmission in his car fails, perhaps he should get some women and some Africans to fix it for him…

* If Rothkopf and other like-minded types were a little more subtle they would actually be accomplishing more of their plans.

But no. Their stubborn ego is unmatched. They have to charge at the enemy’s defenses in broad daylight screaming. Very few people can put up with what is essentially taunting.

* Minsky was a celebrity for most of my lifetime. He advised Stanley Kubrick during the making of “2001.” He hung out with von Neumann and the top sci-fi writers like Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke. He came from a well-to-do family — his father was a New York eye surgeon. He went to Fieldston Ethical Culture private school and got his high school degree from to Phillips Andover boarding prep school. Sure he went bald and wore glasses, but his features were regular and he was masculine looking.

I suspect Mrs. Minsky was very happy with her catch.

Posted in America, Immigration, Israel, Jews, Whites | Comments Off on The End of an Era … for White Males?

Brendan Eich’s Brave New Browser

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla until it was discovered that he had exercised his First Amendment rights as a citizen to participate lawfully in the democratic process, is heading a team building a new browser, alliteratively entitled Brave. It’s intended to block ads and tracking, which seems like a good idea in this Brave New World. You can currently download a 0.7 release for developers if you are into playing guinea pig.”

COMMENTS:

* You should note that their plan is to block existing ads on the site, and then *replace* them with their own ads. They say they’ll generously share 55% of the ad revenue with the site.

I expect people to start writing sites which somehow malfunction if the ads are not present.

* I believe Firefox was hemorrhaging users well before the Two Minute Hate took him out. I think once Chrome came out–a far more nimble browser vis-à-vis Firefox at the time–people starting jettisoning it in droves (me among them).

In any event, I’m curious about this development because Chrome is my preferred browser in terms of usability (Opera’s a close second ), but I absolutely hate having anything to do with Google. (Damn them and their superior products!) Were this to be as fast, stable, and standards-compliant as Chrome, I’ll readily switch over.

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on Brendan Eich’s Brave New Browser