Comment: Through great good luck, the evil cop who shot the Noble Son of Obama was also black. The totally innnocent yoot, who was only doing the bank robbery ti buy more physics books, did pull the trigger on his weapon. as luck would have it, the Dindu had loaded .380 ammo in his .38 special pistol, so he got a hammer strike but a misfire. naturally the local BLMers are prepping to riot, demanding better training for yoots in weapons.
Posted inBlacks, Crime|Comments Off on The New York Times uses Cincinnati shooting to highlight black-on-black violence in U.S.
It seemed like quick thinking when the Cincinnati Zoo shot to death a gorilla that was manhandling a small boy who had fallen into its enclosure on Saturday afternoon.
But soon supporters of animal rights were organizing a vigil outside the zoo in remembrance of the gorilla, named Harambe, a male weighing more than 420 pounds. Online petitions circulated blaming the mother of the child for negligence. By Monday the chorus of outrage had reached such an intense pitch that the zoo held a news conference to defend itself.
Speaking to reporters, Thane Maynard, the zoo’s director, forcefully rejected the second-guessing of what he called “Monday morning quarterbacks” over the decision to kill the gorilla, one of an endangered species, instead of using a tranquilizer dart.
After the 4-year-old boy breached a barrier to the Gorilla World exhibit and fell into its moat, Harambe seemed to take an intense interest in the child.
“The child was being dragged around,” Mr. Maynard said. “His head was banging on concrete. This was not a gentle thing. The child was at risk.”
Mr. Maynard said a tranquilizer would have taken precious minutes to knock out the western lowland gorilla, while the impact of the dart might have startled him, posing an even graver danger.
Mr. Maynard said the animal was capable of crushing a coconut with his hands. The boy was lucky that Harambe had not done so to him, if only out of carelessness, he said, noting that the gorilla had become agitated and disoriented by screams from the crowd.
Outside the zoo on Monday, the gorilla’s supporters held placards that read “R.I.P. Harambe,” “Because his life mattered” and “In loving memory, Harambe.” Inside, flowers were placed at a gorilla statue.
So this is a case of #blacklivesmatter trumping #gorillalives matter. However, I’m with you, I don’t want to see the headline someday “Last Living Panda Slain After Tot Enters Enclosure.”
I recognize the dignity of human life but if we don’t extend it to the animal kingdom we are not doing it right. Moreover, the human race is nowhere near threatened. Many non-human species are.
Posted inBlacks|Comments Off on Gorilla Lives Matter
* When I was growing up, my father was a Rotarian and seemed to really love it. I felt really disconnected in my rootless suburb a few months back and decided to look up the local Rotary group. I closed the browser as soon as I saw it was all women. I don’t need that headache.
* From Robert Putnam:
* Look at the bright side.
No one for years has knocked on my door trying to sell me overpriced cookies.
* Scouting is definitely an Anglo thing in the United States, and to us, a very typically American childhood activity.
Of course, scouting has been a worldwide phenomenon for over a century, but oddly, it’s not necessarily an “Anglo” thing beyond our shores. It would be natural to assume that the scouting movement strictly followed the British Empire, but the largest contingent of scouts in the world is in Indonesia, which has twice as many as the United States.
While there is a something of a weak correlation with the British Commonwealth, scouting exists in strength in many other non-Anglo countries too.
More interesting is the rapidity with which the scouting movement caught on. Indonesia’s scouts date back to before WW I as indeed do the scouts in most of the other major scouting countries. And in most of them, the girl scouts or girl guides organizations were established within a decade of the boys’ organization.
Note also that there are many other national scouting organizations around the world which are not inspired by or affiliated to the movement started by Robert Baden-Powell—these are mostly in the former East Bloc countries and Communist China. My comments and the links are not about those, just as Steve Sailer’s comments are strictly about scouts in America.
* The only reason we plan on sending our daughters to the Girl Scouts is because they’ll meet nice kids. Increasing the number of poor NAMs would be a deal breaker for us.
* The eradication of male only spaces has a long and storied history. Harvard is now doing its bit by closing down male-only clubs and, in order to be fair, the female-only clubs.
Society was much nicer before liberals launched their war on freedom of association.
* The Judith Rich Harris strategy – parents can have inordinate influence by shaping the peer networks of their children. Your kid can’t fall in with a bad crowd if your kid is never around a bad crowd.
* When social mores were more restrictive those who violated the mores were instantly recognized as unfit for good company. As we eased up on uptight morality and permitted a wider range of behaviors to fall within acceptable society, it became more troublesome to snoop out the misfits who violated the old standards of morals.
* So people with an outsized sense of entitlement and resentment towards the culture that enables them are uninterested in civic organizations? Something must be done!
The article refers to Chinese people as racially homogeneous, but describes Black people as racially diverse, which feeds into my personal theory that in a majority of cases when Liberals say diversity/diverse it is code word for Black people.
The article also says Indians have a positive bias towards White people, but I don’t see that in interracial marriage statistics, as Indians are the Asian group who are the least likely to marry White people.
Even White guys on the Roosh V forum have said that it is a lot easier for a White guy to get a Black girlfriend than it is for a White guy to get an Indian girlfriend.
* Indians are highly endogamous, as Razib will confirm, with nearly 3,000 groups in the Indian sub-continent that do not marry outside their groups, also known casually as sub-castes.
While we in the West have long subscribed to the greatly oversimplified colonial description of Indian societies as belonging to four castes,the reality, in terms of mating, is immensely more complex. Hierarchies can be circular, intersect and so on, and it is only under certain circumstances that sub-caste lines are crossed.
While light skin is desirable in mating in India, actual white people are about as outcast as imaginable. This carries over into the practices of Indian immigrants to America.
Additionally, there has long been a premium on virginity in both the male and the female in arranged marriages.
White American males are automatically suspect on that count at some sub-conscious level, and Indian girls face subtle pressure from their parents to not date white guys as they are presumed to be non-virginal.
I merely recount what I have anecdotally learned during the course of lunchtime conversations with Indian colleagues at work, male and female. Those with actual knowledge should correct the impressions, as necessary.
* A couple of years ago I was at the polls with a friend of mine named Pete. Pete was an older Rockefeller type Republican but despite this, a really good guy. As we always did, we were talking a little inside baseball local politics, when someone who had brought Girl Scout cookies offered Pete and I some Lemonades. Pete ate a few and when the cookies were offered to me I said “No thanks, I don’t support that Lesbian recruitment outfit.” Pete laughed hysterically. I was able to pull up enough material to support the proposition on my phone within a short time that Pete stopped laughing. Unfortunately, he passed away not long after that day.
* Girl Scouts of America is all but a lesbian dating circle. No sane parent would allow their daughter into it, and after the latest shenanigans I wouldn’t be touching Boy Scouts of America, either.
* Girl Scouts are for relatively functional families. It’s like giving vitamins to someone to supplement a generally healthy diet.
Black Girl Scouts, to be effective, would need to resemble a “scared straight” environment, which allows the state to supply it’s ad hoc patriarchal figure, or in the case of the Girl Scouts, a matriarchal figure.
Compounding the problem, the actual parental figure of the black girls, such as it is, would always let the troupe down as a participant, as black folks tend to do amongst each other, or even in integrated settings.
Imagine black girls going to a scout meeting in trashy clothes, gang-type apparel, snide attitudes, and so on.
Girl Scouts are intended to teach girls how to achieve in a modern civilized setting, not how to act civilized from the get-go. They teach self-reliance, contradicting the old-timey negro shorthand of victim/victimization.
* The Philippines was a Spanish colony for 380 years and for all intents and purposes, social stratification follows the pattern familiar to those who know Spanish speaking societies in the New World. The spectrum of their social hierarchy goes from Peninsulares (born in Spain), Insulares (Spanish speaking Filipino pure-blood whites born in the islands) to Mestizos, Chinos, Indios, Negritos,and various combinations thereof.
In other words, there is a social premium attached to being more white, just as in Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela and other Latin American countries. While the Spanish language has largely disappeared after a century of American colonialism and independent self-rule, I have always been struck by how Latin the Philippines is in its feel, when I have visited on business.
This would explain the phenomenon you note.
Pure-blood Indians in India on the other hand, always looked down on the small group of mixed race Indians born of admixture before the British started importing their brides from the British Isles, starting in the 1820s. These people , the Anglo-Indians—also looked down on by the British—Indian in appearance but European in their values and outlook, have almost entirely emigrated to the Anglophone white countries—the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US.
Like a typical African American, for Kamau the whole world has to revolve around Blackness, diggity Black Blackity Black.
Kamau won’t be satisfied until all big cities in The U.S racially look like Jackson, Mississippi.
* I organized and ran a Boy Scout troop for years. It was sponsored by our local Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod). We tried to involve the sons of a local Mexican family that lived in the orange grove down the street. They couldn’t afford the physical and uniforms so I paid for them. I thought this would be a good way to help mainstream them.
When we called the first organizational meeting, a gruffy-looking single man in his 40s showed up. He said he liked working with boys. We fathers took one look at him and said, “No way is this guy going into the woods on overnights with our sons …!” Now, in the interests of diversity, it appears that not only homosexual youth are invite to join, but troops can be led by openly homosexual adult males. (What is the Boy Scout leadership thinking?) The Mexican boys attended a few meetings/events and then dropped out.
I wouldn’t touch the Boy Scouts today, and our church would probably refuse sponsorship. It seems that there is an official narrative associated with supporting diversity … and this includes cultural Marxism, feminism, LGBT, and everything else that affronts traditional WASP/Christian/European values. Reaching out to minority groups with this narrative will not enlarge the base for scouting. What the cultural Marxists miss is that this narrative alienates White males. They are now more likely to drop out than the Hispanics. It is a form of organizational suicide. Let the Boy Scouts (and Girl Scouts for that matter) expire in peace.
* Charlotte Allen: All women’s organizations will eventually become feminist organizations, if they haven’t done so already. (The only exceptions: explicitly anti-feminist groups such as Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum). That means that they will eventually institutionalize the relentless antagonism toward men that is feminism’s hallmark.
Even conservative women eventually succumb. Witness the accusations of “misogyny” leveled at Donald Trump by prominent conservative-movement women. The word “misogyny” is pure feminist-speak. Or the effort to drum Schlafly out of the Eagle Forum–her own organization–because of her support for Trump.
Or the fact that nearly all movement-conservative women jumped onto the bandwagon of feminist condemnation of Todd Akin over his hapless remark in 2012 that few victims of “legitimate” rape get pregnant. Not a single supposedly pro-life woman pointed out that Akin was trying to distinguish between actual rape and the kind of regretted sex pushed by feminists as “rape culture,” and that a single one-off street rape is as likely to result in pregnancy as any other single one-off sexual encounter: it can happen, but it’s statistically more likely that it won’t. Akin indeed killed his candidacy with his poor choice of words, but it would have been nice if a single movement-conservative woman had exhibited a little understanding of what he was talking about instead of immediately huffing and puffing in SJW indignation along with the professional feminists.
Women are super-conformists, and since there is always a certain amount of natural antagonism between the sexes, it’s inevitable that most women will pick up the feminist rhetoric of high-status women, nearly all of whom are feminists. It’s the invasion of the body-snatchers.
* Indian women are (obviously) darker than white women and so appear–first glance–less feminine than white women to a white man, simply based on the basic feminine fair, masculine dark schema.
However, Indian women are a product of the third great civilization–after the West and China–so they have created\selected down through the eons in a civilized patriarchal society to fulfill the feminine role. There are some specific differences you can point to–less severe winter, caste endogamy, arranged marriages–that have no-doubt subtly affected selection relative to whites. But basically Indian women, like white women and Asian women are the products of thousands of years of a selection process that creates “feminine” women, because in civilization women depend on male labor and men value feminine women and so feminine women reproduce.
Black women in contrast are the product of a selection process outside of civilization, where they mostly supported themselves with tropical hoeing and gardening agriculture and did not depending on male labor for their survival. This selects for a much less feminine–more “bitchy” or more “difficult”–personality, as well as poor marriage stability and the matrilineal child support (“fostering out”) pattern.
Whether a guy finds Indian women attractive–personal taste. But darker skin != non-feminine. Indian women’s average femininity is pretty much in the same ballpark as white women. All the flirting, signaling, cues, desires, male and female roles, dominance and submission work exactly as you would expect.
* The Boy Scouts IIRC stemmed from Baden Powell’s experience during the siege of Mafeking in the Boer War, what he took from that was great admiration for the Boer’s resiliency, well rounded skills (e.g., marksmanship, the notion of “three on a match” stemmed from here), and ability to live off the land. So part — if not more than part — was to create an organization that would foster these kinds of traits in English boys who had largely lost their survivalist roots.
The analogy for Americans would involve the relationship of the standard urban/suburban American with frontiersmen of previous ages.
I would expect therefore that the Girl Scouts started later with a view to complement the Boy Scouts, which means that the Girl Scouts would need to be trained in the same kind of survivalist skills, including the development of stamina, teamwork, and so on.
Going back to Baden Powell, he was not the first person to develop a crusade to toughen up and develop young boys for paramilitary purposes, or for the development of “virtue”, i.e., in the sense of manliness, being preceded by at least one, Friedrich Jahn, or Father Jahn as I learned from my German PE teacher, who invented modern gymnastics after the Germans were severely defeated by Napoleon.
But I think part of the problem is that teaching young men virtue and well-roundedness (the fabled “arete” of the Greeks) doesn’t seem ot be part of anyone’s curriculum anymore. The fact that few go into military service might be part of it, the fact that people are only guided into fields that will make larger salaries seems part of it, but whatever it is, there doesn’t seem to be much of a premium on a man’s ability to survive and get by in the wild or on minimum resources as there used to be.
For these reasons I think the Boy Scouts have questionable relevance today, because actually we aren’t training, because we aren’t rewarding, young men who have mastered traditional masculine skills: we are rewarding young men who do well on SAT tests.
* Viewed from another perspective, the Girl Scouts are a cookie selling business with an exploited, unpaid child labor force.
This explains:
1. Why they toe the line on SJW propriety – left wing organizations can get away with this kind of stuff but for badwhite cults the government enforces the letter of the law.
2. The concern with complying with forms and laws – if they somehow cross the line on #1 despite their best efforts, they want to show that they did everything by the book in order stay out of jail.
* Now, in the interests of diversity, it appears that not only homosexual youth are invite to join, but troops can be led by openly homosexual adult males. (What is the Boy Scout leadership thinking?)
It’s not thinking. It’s responding to a 30+ year long assault on freedom of assembly. Someone here mentioned the Rotary Club. Well it used to be all male until it fought a court battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court in which they were forced to admit women. The Boy Scouts actually won their court battle to deny gays, but by then the writing was on the wall. The corporate fascists who now run the world are all too happy to destroy anything that stands in their way, and that includes freedom of assembly. They began denying funds to the BSA, and the BSA was forced to relent. I would suspect that there are still plenty of church-sponsored BSA troops that still succeed in keeping out the creeps, though.
* When I was raising my kids in a suburb of Boston 10 years ago the Cub Scouts still seemed pretty healthy. Most of my sons’ troop’s activities consisted of science experiments, camping trips, overnights at Battleship cove, trips to see the PawSox, etc. Very much boy friendly fun activities, and there were about 20-25 kids any given year. Maybe the fact that our troop was about 95% Jewish (I think we were the only goyim) created more cohesion and purpose than other posters seem to be finding.
* The saving grace of the Girl Scouts is that they are still fairly decentralized. Most of the actual activities of actual Girl Scouts is determined by the (volunteer) Troop Leaders, or in other words, parents (mainly mothers). Good leaders make a good Troop. Good Girl Scout experiences are still available, but it depends (as so much else) on good people and to a lesser extent, good location.
That said, it is true that the national (and to a lesser extent regional) organizations are Left-Feminist, but I would characterize it as more of the corporate-type of Left-Feminism than the SJW type. The national organization does not exert that much influence over the individual troops. Not that they are not trying, but as mentioned, the troops are mostly run by the volunteer Troop Leaders who mostly are grown up former Girl Scouts and mostly reiterate what they did growing up, so the Nationals don’t get the look-in they would like.
The National/Regionals also levy a heavy tax on the cookie sales. Most of the cookies’ sale price ends up going to that useless overclass of paper-pushing parasites. The Troop doing the actual selling only gets a few pennies on the dollar. Once my Troop realized this, they lost interest in selling cookies for the (wo)Man.
It is understandable to want to bypass the GS and go with some alternative, and in many cases this may be the right way to go. The GS, however, has an enormous installed base of legacy infrastructure, both tangible and intangible, that none of the alternatives, so far as I know, can yet match. Campsites, headquarters buildings, relationships with other organizations, both domestically and internationally, the brand recognition of the “Scouts” name, all this is the accumulation of over a century of work and goodwill. It is not easy to replace. Ideally, it would be good to take back the Scouts. But I think that (as so much else) has to await a cultural formation where traditional values can sound nice to modern ears.
* Social mores are as just as restrictive as they were fifty plus years ago. And one can lose their job and social standing if one violates them. The only difference between now and fifty plus years ago is that the mores have changed.
* I believe Baden-Powell’s vision for the scouts was that it would generate non denominational good will among Christian sects and I believe Jews as well. We forget about how hung up our grandparents were with Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, ….. heaven forbid Jews intermarrying.
Scouting was “citizenist” long before Steve Sailer was born.
For Jews in particular however, Scouting presented a problem. First of all was the whole Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality obsession but that did not happen until post WWII.
But I think Kevin MacDonald is also right, Scouting was/is a clear threat to the “A People that Shall Dwell Alone” Jewish group evolutionary strategy right from its inception.
Back in the 70s/80s there was a sociologist/rabbi regular contributor for the NYRB who was obsessed with the preservation of Jewish ethnocentrism and harped on how Jewish parents who let their kids join goyim dominated scout troops were threat to future Jewish identity.
Therefore I thought you might find this tidbit interesting:
Camp Civitania, of north Georgia, which is owned by the Atlanta Girl Scout organization and is one of the biggest of its kind in the southeast, will be taken over for the entire month of August as an exclusive camp for Jewish Girl Scouts.
The ACLU has spent decades trying to destroy the BSA. Every wonder what their real agenda was?
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Atlantic: “Girl Scouts: Still Mostly White”
That’s why Jews feel comfortable asking each other intimate questions such as how much money you make, whether you rent or own, etc. It’s all part of being a family. Once you find out the answers to these vital questions, you can then apportion your respect accordingly.
John Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary magazine, is offended by my tweet, and writes: “Oh, Dennis Prager, what did you do.”
Posted inJews|Comments Off on If you don’t know how much money a Jew has to the penny, you have to treat him with respect, because he might be a Big Jew.
Yoav: The motivation for Defamation actually started with Checkpoint, when Checkpoint was released. I started out making Checkpoint approaching it more as a filmmaker than an activist or a leftie or anything like that. I was drawn to this human drama and conflict, these day-to-day encounters, the psychological insights into them. I’m saying this because I think it’s important to know that Checkpoint was not made by someone with very strong political convictions who wanted to send a message – that’s where I was coming from. I was studying film; it started when I was a film student, and I was fascinated with what was happening, and having been at these checkpoints myself, it was very interesting for me to come back after a while. It wasn’t set up as a political statement. I think, in a way, that’s what made this film as extraordinary as it was. There were Palestinians telling me that they’ve seen the film and have some empathy for the Israeli soldiers; many Israelis were affected by the way it portrayed the Palestinians. I think it touched many people because it was done from this human way of looking at things and not as a film an activist would make.
But then the responses, especially from Jews in the US, were very harsh. In Israel it received pretty positive coverage, and the film made a difference for many people. But then I started reading reviews about the film, and they were very, very hostile. To the extreme that there were journalists referring to me as the Israeli Mel Gibson, accusing me of being an anti-Semite, all of these things that were, for me, unbelievable. It was totally insane to hear these things. Here I am, an Israeli, born and raised, who has done his military service, and have no issues with the being an Israeli and a Jew, is being referred to as an anti-Semite. It kind of blew me away. Then I started thinking about the whole concept of anti-Semitism: What does it mean? Where is it being used? Then you see that it’s all around, it’s so present in the Israeli media, the Jewish media. And if I’m an anti-Semite, then what is anti-Semitism? Something about the use of the word brought up questions. And that was the starting point for Defamation.
As for the Anti-Defamation League – in a very similar way to Checkpoint, I came without knowing too much. Normally, when I work, I don’t know too much about the subject I’m starting to work with, because if you know too much in advance there’s a lack of authenticity, a lack of energy; it’s like proving a point. I like to share with people watching the film this sort of fresh look, this authenticity, these things which are unfolding in front of the camera and that are unfolding to me as well.
You know, it doesn’t take much to Google anti-Semitism; the ADL has always been the biggest organization fighting anti-Semitism. Then I approached them, telling them I want to see, I want to learn what they’re doing, how they are fighting anti-Semitism, and they said “Yes”; they didn’t, you know, run a very thorough background check – maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, I don’t know – they were very open with me about everything. And again I think I was very honest with them. I don’t think I was misleading them in any way. And it was kind of funny, because when the film came out the ADL spokesman (who isn’t working there anymore, obviously) told me that she thought it was a fair film. Foxman took it on a very different level, as sort of a personal offense. But I was fortunate to be able to have this access; that is always a good thing to have.
Posted inADL|Comments Off on Yoav Shamir’s Movie Defamation
For Israeli comedian and author Charley Warady, the death of George Carlin, the American iconic counterculture comic, is shocking and sad. But as Carlin likely would have wanted, Warady and others are still able to laugh. “He was one of the reasons I wanted to go into comedy,” Warady said Tuesday. “I guess my first reaction was all my childhood heroes are getting old.”
Certainly not comedy for the ‘nice Jewish boy’ (or girl), Carlin, who died Sunday in Santa Monica, California, at 71, was famous for hilariously dissecting Western culture and railing against government, business and religion.
Many Jewish and Palestinian comics say their comedy was influenced by Carlin. Raised Catholic until he reached “the age of reason,” he saw no problem with delving into the nuances of religion, especially his own, but didn’t let Judaism escape his clutches, as seen by this comparison of Jewish synagogue and Catholic church practices: “Catholic men and Jewish women [wear] no hats. Catholic women and Jewish men, hats,” said Carlin in his most recent television special, It’s Bad for Ya. “Somebody’s got the whole thing totally f***ing backwards, don’t you think?”
Carlin recorded 23 comedy albums, performed 14 television specials on Home Box Office, wrote three best-selling books, and appeared in several movies and TV shows. Last week, it was announced that Carlin would receive the 11th annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. His broad appeal explains why each comic interviewed was influenced by Carlin in a different way.
“Without him there might not be a Jerry Seinfeld,” said, stand-up comedian and blogger Benji Lovitt, who grew up in Dallas and made aliya in 2006. “Even if he wasn’t Jewish, what makes [Carlin] Jewish was his ability to laugh at things. What makes us Jewish is our ability to turn complaining into humor. He was complaining, but there was a wink and a smile.”
Carlin’s Catholic background accounted for much of his appeal in the Jewish community, Chicago native Warady said. “I’ve been doing comedy for 20 years,” said Warady. “It’s funny how the Catholics and Jews always related to each other because we were raised with a structure, and as comedians we were always trying to avoid structure… The Protestants do whatever they want. They don’t know what Jews and Catholics go through.”
While Carlin’s most famous bit was about the seven words that can’t be said on American television, when Charley and three other comic friends travel on their Israel Palestinian Comedy Tour, their adapted bit is the seven things Israelis and Palestinians can’t say to one other. They are ‘I respect you, I will honor you, I will be fair to you, I will not kill you, I will not slander you, I will make peace with you, and I still believe in hope,’ said Ray Hanania, the sole Palestinian comedian on the tour. “Actually, I always thought he was either Arab or Jewish and just changed his name because he was always talking about Jesus in his routines,” Hanania said in an e-mail.
A third comic on the tour, Yisrael Campbell, who was raised Catholic in Philadelphia and is now an Orthodox Jew, also credited Carlin. “He was one of the first people I heard criticize the church and not get struck by lightning,” Campbell said. “He took comedy to the place it is today, where I can stand up at an Orthodox dinner in New York.”
For Hanania, Carlin’s passing will have no effect on the power of his words. “When the messenger dies, it doesn’t mean the message goes with him. His seven words are still here and hard to say on TV or in any media,” said Hanania. “Our seven words will always be there for Palestinians and Israelis, waiting for them to speak.”
George Carlin on Twitter: “I think the Jews should be allowed to kill six million Germans. With compound interest that would come to 110 million Germans. Only fair.”
* Well he doesn’t say the word “jew.” but you can tell that is exactly who he is referring to.
* His earlier stuff was pretty left leaning, just like Bill Hicks, then started to entertain conspiracy theories. After a while he started mention stuff he never did before, like the Muslim problems in Europe and a cynical depressing view on how the White race is dieing.
Point is, he let out snippets of truth. If he lived longer he may have been pushed further in the right direction. In the end, who knows? He was a cynical man who really didn’t identify with anyone or any real movement. Certainly wouldn’t be called a White Nationalist as he sometimes rooted for the destruction of all people as an inevitability. Regardless of his cynacism he still managed to muster up a glimpse of concern for the future and the “powers that be.”
Sadly, after his death, most people on this site gave responses like, “Did he support racial purity and segregation? If not …. then why should you care about him?”
I don’t agree with that. He was a very interesting guy. He showed concern about Europe for instance, but it was wrapped in cynicism. He said in one interview, you have to remove yourself. Because if you waste your time caring, you’ll cry yourself to death. I believe that’s why although he cared some values with Western culture and people, but thought it was doomed and nothing could be done.
Posted inComedy, Jews|Comments Off on George Carlin and the Jewish question
With the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, the only other word we hear more than “fascism” is “racism.”
But what exactly is “fascism?”
Paul Gottfried attempts to answer that question with an exhaustively researched study, Fascism: The Career of a Concept. It’s an antidote to the clumsy polemics surrounding the topic. Gottfried alludes to Jonah Goldberg’s 2008 Conservatism, Inc bestseller Liberal Fascismas an illustration of how serious scholarship has been subordinated to crass partisan political purposes.
Gottfried says of Goldberg’s efforts:
“After hundreds of pages of…often strained comparisons between fascist and Democratic orators, it is hard to miss the point: if Democratic partisans in Hollywood have gone after Republicans as fascists, then the other party should be allowed to play the same game.”
Goldberg’s charging his political opponents with the “f” word is just “intermural politics.” And this “game” of two parties casting aspersions back and forth is hard to take seriously.
As Gottfried writes:
“If we wish to condemn one of the two institutionalized parties as ‘fascist’ for building and sustaining a large administrative state, then why not make the same judgment about the other?”
In other words, if Goldberg [Email him] really believed both that fascism is horrible and (“liberal”) Democrats were fascists, then why doesn’t he suggest “he would rescind the ‘fascist’ handiwork” in the event Republicans assume power? Gottfried’s unanswerable reply: “By now that handiwork belongs as much to his party as it does to the opposition.”
In contrast to Goldberg, Gottfried provides an objective historical examination of fascism. And he shows the targets of virtually every accusation of “fascism” are nothing of the kind.
“As a historic phenomenon,” he writes, “fascism has nothing to do with advocating an isolationist foreign policy, trying to restrict Third World immigration, or favoring significant income redistribution in order to achieve greater social equality”—as today’s “antifascists” would have us think.
Nor should we be misled by opponents of “Islamo-fascism” and the European “far right” into thinking their enemies are actually the ideological heirs to the cultural/ideological phenomenon which emerged in interwar Europe.
But just because Gottfried says certain people aren’t fascist, that doesn’t mean he’s endorsing them. Instead, these clumsy associations “are characteristic of recent, divergent attempts to identify fascism with whatever the speaker happens to dislike .”
Yet there’s a method to the “antifascist’s” madness: Upon blasting his opponent’s view as “fascist,” the “antifascist” invariably begins “belaboring his or her target with the accusation of sympathizing with Nazi atrocities.”
Gottfried is having none of it. He goes so far as to argue that Nazism, while containing elements of fascism, is not entitled to be regarded—as it always is regarded—as a species of fascism proper, much less as the quintessential expression of fascism. “The Nazis ran a highly eclectic operation,” Gottfried explains. They borrowed not only from fascism, but from “Stalinism and, perhaps most of all, from Hitler’s feverish imagination.”
Nazism, in other words, isn’t a species of fascism at all. Read on.
Posted inFascism|Comments Off on Paul Gottfried’s FASCISM: THE CAREER OF A CONCEPT Explains Why Elites Believe Trump Is A Fascist
There is an interesting responsum of R Yair Hayyim Bacharach, Havot Yair, no. 60, that deals with a man and woman who were in love and get married despite the strong opposition of the woman’s father. The story is quite romantic. It describes how during an epidemic in Worms in 1636 the beautiful and intelligent only daughter of one of the rich leaders of the local Jewish community falls ill. There is a man who had fallen in love with her and wants to take care of her in her illness. We are told that this man is tall and handsome, yet he comes from “the other side of the tracks” (i.e., from the lower class). He is able to get the agreement of both the father and daughter that if he takes care of the woman, which would be at great personal risk to himself, and she recovers, that they will marry. The woman indeed recovers but the man himself becomes sick, and the roles are reversed. The woman now takes care of him, which is only fitting since he caught the illness taking care of her. She too has fallen in with him and fortunately he survives, meaning that they are now able to marry. However, the father wishes to go back on his side of the agreement, which obligated him to provide a dowry, and that is the halakhic matter that the responsum focuses on.
Elchanan Reiner has argued that the entire story is a fiction, and what R. Bacharach, one of the most important 17th century halakhic authorities, has done is create a love story in line with the romantic stories that were appearing at this time in general literature. The story can therefore be seen as similar to a parable that is created for use in a sermon.[1]
The story R. Bacharach records is about a woman, indeed an only daughter, from a rich and important family. On the other side you have a poor man with no financial future. These are two people who in traditional Jewish society (and general society as well) normally would never be allowed or even want to come together. Yet because of the unusual circumstances of the epidemic, the man who dreams of the woman he could normally never have, is able to arrange a way to spend time with her and cross the boundary that otherwise would have kept them apart.
In the end we are inspired to see how love conquers all. For the sake of love the woman defies her father and gives up all the wealth that would be hers if she would only listen to her father and reject what her heart is telling her. It is a case of love vs. money, position, and power, and love wins. R. Bacharach mentions that when the father refuses to allow the marriage, the daughter says to him שעל כל פנים תזדקק לו הן בהיתר הן באיסור. What this means is that she threatens her father that if he doesn’t allow her to marry the man she loves, that she will be with him, i.e., sleep with him, anyway. For his part, the father says that he will not give her a dowry, and in the end ולקחה המשרת חנם. In other words, they married, but without any money from her father. They did what virtually no one else in 17th century Jewish society did. They married for love, choosing their own partners, without concern for status or money. According to Reiner, what R. Bacharach has given us in abridged form is nothing less than a Jewish version of Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story.
The late R. Raphael Posen responded to Reiner’s article, rejecting completely the latter’s hypothesis.[2] He acknowledges that the case described in R. Bacharach’s responsum may be theoretical, and notes that there are many such theoretical cases in the responsa literature. As for the romantic elements in the responsum, he states that in responsa one can find much “juicier” stories than the one discussed by Reiner, and there are also cases of lovers’ entanglements from completely different eras. Posen refers in particular to two responsa that appear in the Tashbetz. These responsa predate R. Bacharach by a couple of centuries. They also were written in North Africa, a place that did not have the sort of romantic literature that according to Reiner was the model for R. Bacharach’s responsum…
R. Daniel Eidensohn has called attention to a similar approach attributed to the Baal Shem Tov, that you should love your wife as you love your tefillin. That is because with each of them you have the opportunity to fulfill mitzvot. See here. I don’t think this sort of interpretation will find much appeal in modern times, as it completely ignores the most obvious, and most important, type of love from husband to wife, which one hopes is present in every marriage. In fact, it is not only in modern times that such an interpretation would not be appealing, as all of the pre-modern sources that speak about loving one’s wife are indeed referring to real love.
R. Levi Yitzhak’s stress on love of one’s wife since she gives one the ability to perform mitzvot (i.e., purely utilitarian) is also at odds with other hasidic sentiments. For example, there is a famous story about a hasidic rebbe who was ill. A Lithuanian rabbi came to visit him late one night. He knocked on the door and when the rebbe answered the door, the rabbi said, “I have come to fulfill the mitzvah of bikur cholim”. The rebbe replied, “It is very late now, and I am tired and not in the mood to be the cheftza for your mitzvah.” This story is told among hasidim as a way to knock the non-hasidim. The lesson is that the Lithuanian rabbi should have come to visit the rebbe because he had the basic human emotion of wanting to show empathy to another who was suffering. Instead, he showed that this was foreign to his way of thinking, and his primary goal was simply to fulfill the mitzvah. And for that, the rebbe was not interested in taking part…
In his Sefer ha-Hayyim,[10] R. Hayyim notes that the demons want to connect themselves with scholars or even with any men. However, this is difficult since men are on the highest spiritual level, and thus distant from the demons. Therefore, the demons connect themselves to women who are on a lower spiritual level than men, and thus closer to the demons. In other words, at the bottom you have demons, women are above them, and men stand at the top. As R. Hayyim explains, both demons and women share an important characteristic, namely, that they are naturally defective: חסירי היצירה. As proof for this contention about women, he cites Sanhedrin 22b:
אשה גולם היא ואינה כורתת ברית אלא למי שעשאה כלי
“A woman [before marriage] is a shapeless lump, and concludes a covenant only with him who transforms her [into] a [useful] vessel.”
The fact that the Talmud refers to a woman as a “shapeless lump” is proof for R. Hayyim that she is on a lower level than a man, and this basic division is not altered after marriage.
This then leads R. Hayyim to call attention to Exodus 22:17 which states מכשפה לא תחיה, “Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.” He asks, why is only a sorceress mentioned, and not a sorcerer מכשף? He also calls attention to Avot 2:8, מרבה נשים מרבה כשפים, “The more wives, the more witchcraft,” which also makes the connection of sorcery to women. R. Hayyim explains that because of the closeness of women and demons the Torah was concerned that women would seek to “go down” and achieve completeness by connecting themselves with the demonic forces below them. This wasn’t such a worry when it came to men since they were “two levels above” the domain of the demons.
All of this is quite interesting, and R. Hayyim ben Betzalel was very happy with this explanation (which must be causing some readers to pull their hair out.) After offering it he expressed pride in what he wrote:
והנה לא קדמני אדם בפירוש זה והוא ענין נכון אצלי.
So what does this have to do with what I have been discussing in the post? R. Hayyim warns men not to be too connected to women (which includes their wives) since this will mean that they are trying to complete themselves and find perfection by means of someone who is on a lower level than them. I believe this to be in complete opposition to the modern romantic notion that men and women can be soulmates, for one cannot be a soulmate with one whose soul is literally on a lower level.[11]…
R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz, in a sermon delivered in Metz in 1744, declared that “from this point on” he would only write a betrothal contract if the man and woman give their solemn agreement not to touch one another until after the wedding.[14]
As is clear from the sermon of R. Eybeschuetz just referred to,[15] many engaged couples were ignoring the law of negiah. Even Mendelssohn did not follow it, as we see from a letter he wrote to his fiancée. “Even the kisses that I stole from your lips were mixed with some bitterness, for the approaching separation made me heavy of heart and incapable of enjoying a pure pleasure.”[16]
In his autobiography, R. Leon Modena records the following about his young fiancée who was on her deathbed. He was 19 years old at the time.
On the day she died, she summoned me and embraced and kissed me. She said, “I know that this is bold behavior, but God knows that during the one year of our engagement we did not touch each other even with our little fingers. Now, at the time of death, the rights of the dying are mine. I was not allowed to become your wife, but what can I do, for thus it is decreed in heaven. May God’s will be done.”[17]
This story reminded me of an incident R. Jacob Emden records in his autobiography, although the details are entirely different. The translation of this lengthy passage is by Jacob J. Schacter in his outstanding dissertation on R. Emden.[18]
“A miracle also occurred to me, especially relevant to matters spiritual. (It was) a miracle similar to that of Joseph the righteous and (even) slightly more so. I was a young man, tender in years, in the full strength of my passion. I had been separated from my wife for a long time and greatly desired a woman. A very pretty unmarried young girl who was my cousin happened to meet me there and was alone with me. She brazenly demonstrated great love to me, came close to me and almost kissed me. Even when I was lying in my bed, she came to cover me well on the couch, in a close loving manner. Truthfully, had I hearkened to the advice of my instinct she would not have denied my desire at all. Several times it (indeed) almost happened, as a fire (consumes) the chaff. Frequently there was no one in the house with me but her. They (i.e. the members of her family) were also not accustomed to come for they stayed in the store on the marketplace, occupied with their livelihood all day. Had God not given me great strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power (Gen. 49:3), to overcome my fiery instinct which once almost forced me to do its bidding, (and) were it not for the grace of God which was great upon me, (I would have been unable) to withstand this very powerful temptation, greater than all temptations. I was a man at the prime of my strength and passion. There was a very pleasant beautiful woman before me who demonstrated for me all manner of love and closeness many times. She was related to me, unmarried, a tender child and recently widowed. She may have been ritually pure or would have ritually purified herself had I requested it. If I had wanted to fulfill my passionate desire for her, I was absolutely certain that she would not reveal my secret. I controlled my instinct, conquered my passion and determined to kill it. My heart was hollow and I did not . . . Blessed be the Lord who gives strength to the weary for I was saved from this flaming fire.”
Schacter does not translate the next sentence in the memoir in which R. Emden expresses the wish that as a reward for standing firm, he and his descendants until the end of time will be protected from sexual temptation…
…R. Kalir told his female congregants that on Shabbat morning they should leave the synagogue and go home before the end of services. This was to prevent men and women mixing which would happen if the women were still there when services ended.[22] It is hard to believe that he found much of a receptive audience for this request.
Posted inMarriage, Orthodoxy|Comments Off on Rabbinic Views On Love Before & After Marriage
Ben Shapiro writes Aug. 10, 2005: Americans are impatient isolationists at heart. We don’t want to be the world’s policemen. Gaining Iraqis their freedom, as good as it sounds, isn’t enough of a justification for war. China is a dictatorship. North Korea is a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Pakistan and Egypt are all dictatorships. We can’t overthrow all of those regimes simply to free their citizens. We have to focus on those regimes that endanger American security. World War II wasn’t about liberating Europe, but about protecting America. Vietnam, meanwhile, is a controversial war precisely because the direct threat to America posed by the Viet Cong is questionable…
Empires either decline or they grow. If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn’t a choice: It’s a duty.
Some, like arch-isolationist Pat Buchanan, wish to ignore this simple point. In his tome “A Republic, Not An Empire,” Buchanan protests that isolationism should remain America’s policy. Buchanan points to British involvement in World War I as the cause of the empire’s destruction. No doubt he is partially correct. But it was British indecisiveness that allowed Germany’s escalating militarism in the pre-World War I era. And after World War I, Britain remained the world’s most powerful empire. The British Empire did not truly collapse until after World War I, when through appeasement and dereliction, it allowed Germany to rearm. It was World War II that signaled the death knell for the British Empire. For an empire, inaction and isolation allow the cancer of rebellion to grow and spread.
That is why impatient isolationism serves us ill in Iraq. Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire.
No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world. Forwarding freedom is always important, but it is especially important where doing so ensures America’s future security — as in Iraq. Maintaining American empire will require Americans to recognize the dangers of impatient isolationism.
Posted inBen Shapiro, Iraq|Comments Off on Ben Shapiro 2005: Why war in Iraq is right for America
Appearing on CNN, an opinion page editor from the Wall Street Journal left no doubt how he feels about presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, saying not only will he not vote for him, but that Trump needs to be crushed in the November election as a lesson to Republicans.
Pressed by host Fareed Zakaria if he was going to get behind Trump as the Republican nominee, conservative columnist Bret Stephens got right to the point.
“I most certainly will not vote for Donald Trump,” Stephens began tersely. “I will vote for the least left-wing opponent to Donald Trump and I want to make a vote that makes sure he is the biggest loser in presidential history since, I don’t know, Alf Landon.”
Then Stephens went off: “It’s important that Donald Trump, or what he represents, this kind of quote ‘ethnic conservatism or populism,’ be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party and the Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way, shape or form.”
I wonder if Bret Stephens is similarly opposed to Israel being the Jewish state? Or is ethno-nationalism something only for Jews?
I hope Donald Trump deports this Fifth Column in our midst.
Posted inNeoconservatives|Comments Off on WSJ editor: Trump needs to be destroyed in the November election to teach GOP voters a lesson
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
With the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, the only other word we 
“After hundreds of pages of…often strained comparisons between fascist and Democratic orators, it is hard to miss the point: if Democratic partisans in Hollywood have gone after Republicans as fascists, then the other party should be allowed to play the same game.”