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

Posted on March 26, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Only because he got caught.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Peter Beinart’s take:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torah Talk: Vayikra (Leviticus 1:1 – 5:26)

Posted on March 26, 2017 by Luke Ford

This week’s Torah portion begins the Book of Leviticus.

* Who wrote the Torah? God or people?

* Deut: 32:8: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.”

*The presence of God comes with a price — divine justice. (Dennis Prager)

* When we study Torah, are we mainly studying the progression of ideas (such as monotheism) or the development of a particular people with a particular genetic code interacting with other particular peoples in particular environments? Culture is a product of genes and environment.

* One key Torah idea may be that the land of Israel demands a certain level of holiness and decency from the people living there, and if they don’t live up to this demand, the land vomits them out. Or is that an elaborate justification and propaganda for kicking out the original inhabitants to make it a Jewish homeland? Is the Torah fair to the natives of Canaan by describing them as child sacrificers? Or is this propaganda? Chaim Potok claimed this was propaganda.

* Is Jewish cohesion and love based on commonly shared ideas or on peoplehood (genetic ties aka kinship)? When you go to shul, people are not divided up, generally speaking, based on their ideas about abortion.

* This week’s parasha is about creating a place for God to dwell among the people and repeats sections of the three previous parshiot.

* From last week’s parasha, Ki Tisa, Artscroll says: “The equal participation of all of the people symbolizes that all Jews must share in achieving the national goals, that everyone should pass through the census by giving up his selfish, personal interests for the sake of the nation. One who does so gains infinite benefit, because the mission of Israel is dependent on the unity of the whole.” That the welfare of the nation is more important than the happiness of the individual, well, if the goyim talked like this, it would sound fascist and dangerous to Jews.

Artscroll: “There is great power in the unity of a nation striving toward a common goal.” Judaism prefers that men pray in a quorum (minyan) rather than alone.

* Last December in Texas, Rabbi Matt Rosenberg said to Richard Spencer: “You come here with a message of radical exclusion. My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion, as embodied by Torah. Would you sit down and study Torah with me and learn love?”

“Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel?” Spencer responded. “Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate to the gentiles… I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.”

* If I Were A Gentile White Nationalist, How Would I Feel About Jews?

* If I Were A Black Gentile, How Would I Feel About Jews?

* If I Were Born An Orthodox Jew, How Would I Feel About Luke Ford?

* If you were a Muslim, how would you feel about Jews?

* Casey: If I were Rod Dreher, and so concerned about secular-liberalism encroaching on my conservative Catholicism that I proposed setting up intentionally identity-retrenched Christian communities amid a Babylonish empire, I would be realistic about how many people would be coming with me — possible 10% of existing Christians, or (generously) 7% of Americans. That would leave us a small minority in every location we found ourselves, and what could we do then, politically? — how would we advocate? Ironically, we would advocate for the broadest and most open liberalism possible… ?

And if I were a middle class daughter of an Iranian immigrant, a born US citizen, I would cling to my religious identity until and unless I saw evidence of a “consensus center” identity emerging to which I might then consider assimilating… but I’d look around in America and all I would see is degenerates like Nicki Minaj and Beyonce dancing like whores and uptight academic lesbians on the other hand, owning cats and working as pharmacists, and I would decide I wanted none of that… and I would think to myself, I hope I can find a strong Muslim man who isn’t going to let himself or his children turn into water-down cosmopolitan working units… and so to attract that kind of a man, I need to guard my hymen with my life, study cooking, and wear the veil everywhere I go.

If I were an unmarried white woman in my mid-20s I would be nervous about not finding a husband, and I wouldn’t realize that I had made my job become “my identity,” so I would throw myself into my job, where I would become more and more “professional” and androgynous and therefore less and less appealing to men. I’d have sex with men not because I enjoyed it, but as a kind of duty to prove my strong independence to myself. I would vote against Trump, but only because I didn’t have a husband to steer me to better judgment. But again, this would make me still less attractive to men… except!! If *i* were this young woman, I’d be smart enough to figure this out and so I’d quickly marry any guy I could find.

Posted in Torah | Comments Off on Torah Talk: Vayikra (Leviticus 1:1 – 5:26)

Eitan Arom: Is Zionism a bad word?

Posted on March 24, 2017 by Luke Ford

Upon reading the headline, my immediate response was, “For whom?”

For some people, Zionism is naturally a bad word because it represents something that is an affront to their people (Arabs and Muslims) or to their value system (leftism).

If you believe that ethnic and religious ties are of little importance compared to economic class, then you are a leftist and you are likely to be offended by all ethno-nationalisms including Zionism.

Eitan Arom writes:

I’m not immune to my generation’s ambivalence on the matter of Jewish nationalism. In the vocabulary of my education on a liberal campus, the word “nationalist” is likely to follow the word “white” or “militant” or “ultra.” In other words, mine is a Zionism that’s not without reservations.

But to say that I’m post-Zionist would be tantamount to saying that I’m post-Jewish — which is simple and easy but altogether untrue. The struggle for Jewish nationhood was written into my biography long before I was born.

After all, if it weren’t for the itinerant Zionism that motivated my grandfather Shmuel to drag his wife, the daughter of a cultured and well-to-do German-Jewish family, to hardscrabble Palestine, where they slept in tents and toiled without end, it might very well have been somebody else’s byline on this story; I may well have never been born. Israel is the center of gravity for world Jewry. You may object to its pull, but you simply can’t free yourself from its orbit.

To be sure, mine is not the blustering, self-assured Zionism of my parents. Even having this conversation with my mother sets her singing an interminable series of Israeli folk songs. Recently, standing in her kitchen, I pressed her on whether she truly believes that God gave us all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. “Listen,” she replied, “I don’t know who gave it to us, but it’s ours.”

I’m not so sure about that. But that doesn’t mean we’re not part of the same movement, she and I, the same multigenerational struggle for identity and soil. The panel at Sinai Temple landed repeatedly on the idea of “big-tent Zionism.” The tent has to be big enough for my parents and me.

Sometimes, that prospect feels doubtful. But nothing could be more necessary for the continuance of the movement. If Zionism is little more than a narrow political creed, it can be shouted down or reasoned away. What ultimately will win over the next generation of Zionists is what Yebri called “the beautiful aspect and miraculous magical aspect of Zionism.”

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Eitan Arom: Is Zionism a bad word?

Haaretz: Kingdom of Israel: Extremist rabbis dream of Jewish monarchy, with a special role for non-Jews

Posted on March 24, 2017 by Luke Ford

These rabbis don’t seem extremist to me. They are simply explicating Torah. If Torah is extreme, then these rabbis are extreme.

Haaretz: After explaining when it is allowed to kill non-Jews in widely vilified ‘Torat Hamelech,’ rabbis Shapira and Elitzur are downplaying their second volume. They call it a theoretical work, but liberal rabbis fear it may serve as a call to arms.
Having a king seems like such a simple concept. Instead of the tiresome processes of democracy, a king can be anointed – a single sovereign with extraordinary rights who can enslave prisoners of war and do as he pleases. No elections and no High Court of Justice.
The second part of “Torat Hamelech” (“The King’s Torah”) – written by rabbis from the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar – is written in the language of halakha (Jewish religious law) and quotes Jewish sources, while revealing the secret aspirations of the most extremist settlers.
The compendium is devoted entirely to laws pertaining to “the public and the kingdom.” In other words, to the establishment of a religious-Jewish monarchy that will replace secular democracy in Israel. It describes a world in which the king is omnipotent, owning slaves and handmaidens. A world in which Jews have extra rights and non-Jews cannot hold public office; a world in which there is no private property (everything belongs to the king) and rebels are put to death.
Od Yosef Hai has justifiably become the emblem of extremist yeshivot in the West Bank. Much of its notoriety comes from the first part of “The King’s Torah,” published by its rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur in 2009. That book permits the shedding of non-Jewish blood under certain circumstances, and the shedding of Jewish blood under others. The book’s publication led to a police investigation of its authors on suspicion of incitement to racism, but no one was prosecuted.
This affair greatly raised yeshiva members’ distrust of the Israeli media (albeit not the religious outlets). Mainstream journalists presented the book as a racist document, a halakhic abomination – and rightly so. Its title became synonymous with extremism and racism, partly because the yeshiva’s members are perceived as extremists even within the religious-Zionist camp.

Theoretical document
The first volume of “The King’s Torah” concerned laws relating to life and death between Jews and non-Jews. It detailed the laws that permit the killing of non-Jews under different circumstances – such as during wartime, or when a non-Jew threatens a Jew.
The new volume gives a set of – totally dystopian – laws that will prevail in the kingdom of Israel. It discusses how the king will be chosen; what his rights will be; and what rights (if any) his subjects will have.
The authors’ associates and students strongly reiterate that their book does not pretend to offer an operative plan. They describe it as a theoretical document, a literary one, almost artistic – not a plan of action.
Upon its publication, the weekly newsletter Shvi’i (handed out in synagogues belonging to the religious-Zionist camp), conducted an interview with the book’s co-author, Rabbi Elitzur. In it, he laid out his vision for the state and its institutions. Among other things, he said his book was “boring,” and that the principles in the book and in reality are on parallel lines. “Taking a sentence from the book and applying it to what’s happening today, without thought or analysis, is a very bad idea,” he noted.
Rabbis Chaim Navon and Amichai Gordin from Har Etzion yeshiva (which is part of the moderate stream of religious Zionism), published a strong response in the following week’s newsletter. They stated that “claims that this is purely an academic or halakhic debate are simply untrue. It is not a theoretical book but one calling for action, with practical conclusions at its end.”
They also referred to the first part of “The King’s Torah,” noting: “The halakhic discussions in the book seem to be geared to serving one purpose – to find as many rulings as possible permitting the killing of as many non-Jews as possible. To this end, they use unreasonable assumptions and manipulate the old sources of our sages. Beyond the halakhic conclusions, there is an evil wind blowing from this book. It makes it seem that the life of a non-Jew is worthless, like that of a fly. Even when killing a non-Jew is forbidden, it seems that this is like a prohibition on killing a fly on Shabbat. This is a destructive and distorted way of thinking, which could drive confused youth into criminal and repulsive acts. Such youngsters have indeed been found and criminal acts were committed. Can the authors claim to be innocent?”
Navon and Gordin may be referring to the murder of East Jerusalem teen Mohammed Abu Khdeir in July 2014 and the torching of the Dawabsheh family home in Duma the following year.
It’s not certain the second volume will also be read only as an imaginary fantasy. It opens with a letter of “consent” and a blessing by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, the spiritual leader of the royalists on the extreme right. He devotes his letter to his “beloved students” Shapira and Elitzur, noting that “the issues discussed in the book are very relevant to our current situation, in which we are blessed to be settled in Israel, together with a large part of the Jewish people, in a situation where we hold the power.”

Posted in Israel, Torah | Comments Off on Haaretz: Kingdom of Israel: Extremist rabbis dream of Jewish monarchy, with a special role for non-Jews

The War On Terror Killed Over 1.3 Million Muslims Since 2001

Posted on March 24, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* The “War on Terror” has killed over 1.3 million Muslims (conservative estimate) since 2001.
This may have played at least a minor role in why terrorism is increasing in Muslim populations.

If you really think about it, this “War on Terror” is pretty bizarre. Almost all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis (a few were also from the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon). America and its Western allies responded by attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and several other Muslim nations. Over 1 million are dead, while millions more are injured and internally displaced.

America responded to Saudi terrorist hijackings by ruining the lives of millions of random Muslims. Sort of strange when you think about it.

So, reason would suggest that we need to be a lot more prudent about who we let in in the near future because immigration could still be causing problems for our great-grandchildren in the distant future.

Reason would also suggest that we should refrain from randomly decimating countries for no discernible reason.

I’m not a particular fan of Muslims, but our political leaders (Bush, Clinton, Obama) are pretty much war criminals.

Remember that time we bombed Baghdad?

By the way, where are those weapons of mass destruction? Did we ever find them?

The Taliban nearly eliminated opium production. After the US-led “War on Terror” began, opium production skyrocketed.

Much of this opium has ended up on the streets of the U.S. Not surprisingly, overdose deaths have skyrocketed in the last 15 years.

Here’s another interesting news story on how Big Pharma have fueled the overdose epidemic, which disproportionately hits working&lower class whites.

It’s interesting how conservative “small government” policies (“War on Terror,” deregulated pharma market, minimal healthcare coverage, limited safety net, free trade) have ended up being bad for Red State whites. It’s also interesting how lots of “socialist” policies (Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, pharma regulation, community health clinics) would probably be pretty good for the people of Appalachia.

Getting Red Staters to vote against their economic and social interests is truly an act of Republican marketing genius.

Some of the posters here (and the overwhelming bulk of Red State whites) insist that “Big Government liberal socialists” are your enemies, while “free market, small-government conservative constitutionalists” are your friends. Perhaps you should reconsider your views…..

* If I heard it once on the lame news broadcasts today, I heard it 20 times: “Native born British man…” “A native of Britain…” “A native Briton (sp?)…” on and on and on. the very first thing on the report. Of course as soon as we hear news like this, we all know immediately “Another muzzie.”

* One thing that the events of the past 48 hours indicate is that the most lethal threat may come from 2nd Gen Muslims who have had decades to marinate in the CultMarx narrative of Whitey-is-Oppressor; People of Color are repressed, etc.
The truly chilling thing is that the same effete mandarin class agitating & conspiring (eg Peter Mandelson) to flood western countries with 3rd world immigrants are also feeding them the Evil Whitey narrative. They are literally importing, then weaponizing a new demographic to wage war on the host population.

* As someone who’s in favor of single payer and a more robust safety net all around, I agree with you. However, neither party is a friend to red state whites. The Republicans are simply the lesser of two evils. The Democrats – and the left in general – are openly anti-white. They’re not the American version of European social democrats, and voting for them in order to obtain better public assistance is tantamount to making a deal with the devil.

One good example was Obamacare. Was the ACA an unalloyed good? Of course not. Insurance premiums skyrocketed for middle class white people who were already covered.

How about the practice of setting up housing projects in largely white neighborhoods? Does that benefit the residents? No, it doesn’t. How do red staters benefit from having Somali refugees settled in their small towns? Who was edified by the practice of busing?

On top of that, they’re controlled by the same powerful interests as the Republicans.

* If the U.S. had a 90% white demographic, I believe we’d have a social and economic system more aligned with the interests of working-class whites. We actually did set up such a system from the 1930s through the 1970s. Unfortunately, we’ve mostly dismantled that system over the last 35 years. The effects of that are being seen throughout America.

Before blacks were enfranchised on a wide scale in the 60s, Southern whites hardly cared about “small government” and “low taxes.” They used to be huge fans of big-spending leftist politicians, such as FDR and Huey Long. For Southern whites to now be “constitutional Republicans” is just too bizzare.

A few days ago, Bernie went to McDowell County (the poorest mostly-white county in America). The crowd seemed to like him. Watch from 10 seconds through 1:40. That’s exactly what the Red States need.

Yes, I agree with your point about oligarchs. It’s a divide and conquer strategy. Oligarchs divide a people, keep them quarreling, and then steal wealth while everyone is distracted.

* Quick update on the ‘British-born’ killer. He’s the son of a white mother (17 when she had him) and black father, with a 20-year criminal record including GBH. He was first named as “Adrian Elms”, then “Adrian Russell”, latest name is “Adrian Russell Ajao” – the last being presumably Dad’s name, though it might be the stepdad’s name – he married the mum only a couple of years later. I guess some bad decisions catch up with you.

Mum lives in rural Welsh-speaking Wales, keeps chickens and makes cushions and bags to sell – hippie type?

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on The War On Terror Killed Over 1.3 Million Muslims Since 2001

Jewish Businessman Jona Rechnitz Pleads Guilty To Bribing Public Officials

Posted on March 24, 2017 by Luke Ford

Forward: A Jewish real-estate investor and prominent donor to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said he exchanged money for favors from public officials, according to the New York Daily News.
Jona Rechnitz’s admission came up in court papers quietly unsealed earlier this month during a federal investigation of de Blasio for possible illegal fundraising. De Blasio was cleared of charges.

In the court papers, Rechnitz, 33, pleaded guilty to providing “financial and personal benefits and political contributions to public officials including law enforcement officials in exchange for official action.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Businessman Jona Rechnitz Pleads Guilty To Bribing Public Officials

Why Would A Jew Call In Threats To Jewish Community Centers?

Posted on March 24, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* He perfectly knew that white gentile nationalists (a.k.a. Trump supporters) would be blamed. From that it follows that he wanted to harm them and the president they just elected.

In short, his motives were to harm Trump and white gentile nationalism in general, by creating a kind of blood libel against white gentiles.

* What you believe regarding his motives might be accurate from a Jewish nationalistic perspective where he wants to encourage Jews to move to Israel. It is however much much more likely that he was doing it for other reasons and cares very little about other Jews.

As for the Jerusalem police chief not mentioning his name yet, and practically all civilized nations, other than our own of course, some effort, small or large, is put into not publicizing the name of someone arrested but not yet charged.

* Let’s be honest: On a scale of 1 to 10, how surprised is anyone that this was done by a Jewish guy?

I’m sure some Jewish people are going to be ticked off at that remark, but let’s be honest. There has been an alleged large increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes since Trump has been elected. There have been four arrests: a 13 year old kid, a Jewish guy who spray painted swastikas on his own home, a black guy who made bomb threats because of whatever, and this Israeli American who apparently made the bulk of the calls. So the arrests are running 3:1 in favor of hate hoaxing.

Then there was cemetery vandalism. In the NY case, it has been rebutted by the cemetery itself: natural erosion and subsidence has caused the stones to topple, where they are left. In other cases, PHI and STL (for example), the evidence seems a bit more clearcut, but, at the same time, I don’t know of any arrests, and I don’t know of these desecrations being claimed by: (1) White Nationalists, (2) Honest to God Nazis, (3) Isis, (4) Muslims, (5) black people. I guess that leaves Asians and Latinos? However, in all fairness, I would suggest that it is reasonable to be skeptical about these desecrations, until, of course, someone is actually arrested.

There’s a little bit of “Crying wolf” at play here. It’s a certainty that there are a number of people who feel great hostility to Jews. It’s also a certainty that Jewish people in general tend to be very alert to signs of such hatred. But it’s very hard to tell how much of this is actual authentic anti-Semitic hate crimes and how much of it is hate hoax nonsense. Based on the arrest patterns so far, the preponderance of evidence is definitely in favor of hate hoaxes.

* The whole trope about Trump dog whistling to anti-semites has always sounded insanely odd considering as how his daughter and son-in-law with whom he is very close are Orthodox Jews, as are his grandchildren from his daughter.

* The Jews are playing with fire on many levels. This dual-loyalty, dual-citizenship stuff gets on people’s nerves. This so-called “American-Israeli dual citizen” schmuck who ran amok by allegedly calling in bomb threats to Jewish joints is not good for the Jews. People will begin to develop the habit of pattern recognition. Hate hoaxes will be seen as attacks on Whites and not just the criminal actions of individual non-Europeans.

The hate hoaxes coming from the Blacks, Muslims, Jews and others could lead the European Christian ancestral core of the USA to feel that they must stick together to defend their own interests. European Christians do it in Texas and the Southern states as I write; maybe more states in other regions will do the same if these damn irritating anti-White hate hoaxes keep up.

This particular hate hoax leads me to believe that the concept of the Jews as a hostile component of the American Empire’s ruling class has merit. It must also be said that the saturation coverage of these so-called “anti-Semitic” incidents in the corporate media makes a great example of the disproportionate Jewish power in the mass media. The Jews in the corporate propaganda apparatus were going on and on about this crap.

* Who wants to bet me that this guy won’t serve time?

Anyone else remember this mensch? Or this child rapist? or these hate-criminal Hasids?

They got to do their “community service” in kosher areas, meanwhile the guy who sent a strobe tweet to Kurt Either Wald is going to do hard Federal time for it.

* I don’t know anyone who heard the recording of this kid’s voice could possibly be surprised.

I don’t understand how Jewish newspapers couldn’t recognize that accent if I could. That’s why I was a little surprised that they kept pushing the “only horrible Nazis could think this was a false flag” narrative.

* Other possible motives:

1) He is a pro-Zionist Israeli who wanted to encourage American Jews to make aliyah.

2) He is an anti-Zionist/anti-settlements Israeli who saw Trump as favorable to the settler movement and wanted to derail any American Jew/Trump alliance.

3) He was thoroughly delusional and his motives were incoherent.

4) He’s just an angry 19 year old who wanted to break shit, and this was the prank he stumbled upon.

* The Anne Frank Center blames Antisemitism:

“We have received a number of Antisemitic messages this morning in response to the arrest in Israel of a Jewish young man as the suspect in a number of bomb threats to Jewish institutions in the United States and elsewhere. The theme of the Antisemitic messages has been this: See, it’s your people, Jews, who were responsible. One message to our organization said a “white” person was not responsible. Such vitriol requires us to respond further: Hate is hate, and our nation had the right to expect this Administration to respond to hate with urgency every time. Our organization, like others, had to pull teeth to get a governmental response to the bomb threats and other desecration. Almost every time, we never got responses. The religion of a suspect doesn’t matter. The hateful acts were the same, and the lack of governmental responses along the way were the same. Moreover, we will not tolerate using today’s arrests as a pretext for more Antisemitism or other hate. To point to the religion of one depraved individual, and use that as a pretext for hate against an entire religion, is immoral and unacceptable, and those who engage in such arguments should be ashamed of their own prejudice.”

* Berkeley law lecturer David Schraub wrote a few weeks ago: “Trump’s terrifying ‘false flag’ comments on anti-Semitism are no different in kind than talk of the Holocaust as a Zionist conspiracy or 9/11 as a Mossad covert op”

Today he writes:

Yes, the Jew Who Called in Bomb Threats Was Anti-Semitic

Being Jewish doesn’t immunize a person from being anti-Semitic. It just fuses their bigotry with betrayal.

… The ADL was absolutely right when it said, in response to the arrest: “These were acts of anti-Semitism. These threats targeted Jewish institutions, were calculated to sow fear and anxiety, and put the entire Jewish community on high alert.” That he was Jewish is utterly irrelevant—if anything, this is a fantastic illustration of how Jews can commit anti-Semitic acts.

Do they have a word for this kind of Talmudic chutzpah?

From his blog in January:

“In what appears to be a coordinated pattern, numerous Jewish Community Centers around the country were hit with bomb threats today.

… these things didn’t happen until something changed in our political culture, and it’s no mystery what that “something” is. The rise of Donald Trump’s brand of rabid right-wing resentment threatens Jews a huge range of Americans of diverse backgrounds and heritages. There should be no illusion anymore that Jews will somehow be immune from the wave that’s coming.”

But today, that the hoaxer was an Israeli Jew is “utterly irrelevant” he says.

“[Schaub’s] research and teaching interests are in the areas of constitutional and anti-discrimination law, law and religion, and energy law. In particular, David’s research considers the non-legal effects of legal decisions, including how judicial rulings affect the social meaning of concepts such as “equality,” “due process”, and “discrimination”.”

* According to Gavin de Becker, author of the excellent book The Gift of Fear, virtually NO actual bombings are preceded by bomb threats, the exception being some of the bombings carried out by the IRA.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Why Would A Jew Call In Threats To Jewish Community Centers?

How National Review Helped Build the Alt-Right

Posted on March 23, 2017 by Luke Ford

From Slate:

Early in November, just a few days before the election, a gathering of white nationalists, heterodox academics, libertarians, and other misfits of the right convened in Baltimore. The H.L. Mencken Club was meeting for its ninth annual conference—a two-day affair featuring lectures, debates, and conversations about the future of American conservatism. November’s conference came amid surging interest in the alt-right, which owes its very name to the club. In 2008, a speech from the inaugural conference by its president, Paul Gottfried, was republished under the title “The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right” in Richard Spencer’s Taki’s Magazine, the earliest prominent usage of the phrase. At November’s conference, Gottfried echoed that 2008 call for the marshaling of an “independent” and “authentic” right.

That right has been marshaled. The alt-right has become a political and cultural phenomenon without recent precedent—the rise of Donald Trump has brought with it newly empowered figures promoting fashionably packaged racism and anti-immigrant animus. As the alt-right has grown, though, mainstream conservatives have loudly shot down suggestions that its rise has anything to do with them. “They are anti-Semites, they are racists, they are sexists, they hate the Constitution, they hate free markets, they hate pluralism, they despise everything we believe in,” American Conservative Union executive director Dan Schneider told Conservative Political Action Conference attendees last month. “They are not an extension of conservatism.”

Mainstream conservative outlets have denounced the movement as well, none more loudly than National Review, the flagship publication of the American right. Last April, National Review’s Ian Tuttle condemned Breitbart writers for downplaying the racism of the movement’s intellectual leaders, including Spencer and Jared Taylor, founder of the white supremacist publication American Renaissance. “These men have not simply been ‘accused of racism,’ ” he wrote. “They are racist, by definition. Taylor’s ‘race realism,’ for example, co-opts evolutionary biology in the hopes of demonstrating that the races have become sufficiently differentiated over the millennia to the point that the races are fundamentally—that is, biologically—different. Spencer, who promotes ‘White identity’ and ‘White racial consciousness,’ is beholden to similar ‘scientific’ findings.”

Tuttle’s characterization of Spencer’s and Taylor’s beliefs is entirely accurate. At the same time, it would apply equally to the views of three speakers of note at November’s Mencken conference: Robert Weissberg, John Derbyshire, and Peter Brimelow. All were onetime contributors to National Review. Despite the magazine’s disavowal of the alt-right, the platform it provided for these writers and its elevation—throughout its history—of ideas that have become central to the movement tie National Review to the alt-right’s intellectual origins. In truth, National Review can no more disown the alt-right than it can disown its own legacy.

* * *

During a debate on the final night of last year’s Mencken conference, Robert Weissberg offered thoughts on the problems plaguing the city of Detroit and its black population. “I actually attended a conference on Detroit,” he proclaimed, “which had a distinguished panel that talked about the problems for about two hours, and guess what never came up?”

“Brain size!” someone called out. The room erupted in laughter.

“Close,” Weissberg giggled. “What brave soul,” he said eventually, “would insist that economic progress is impossible in a culture that prizes criminality and sloth?”

His comment was a blunt reiteration of ideas he explored as an on-and-off contributor to National Review’s “Phi Beta Cons” blog from 2010 to 2012. “The indisputable evidence is that genetically determined IQ matters greatly, but since many liberals abhor this politically incorrect conclusion, they insist that the entire issue is ‘controversial,’ ” he wrote in one 2012 post. Weissberg was booted from the publication that year, though, when it emerged that he had delivered a talk at Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance conference.

John Derbyshire, a longtime Review contributor, had been canned just days earlier for a post he’d written at Taki’s titled “The Talk: Non-Black Version.” The piece , a reference to “the talk” black parents often give their kids about how to navigate situations that could subject them to racism and police brutality, detailed advice he’d given his children about black people, including recommendations to “avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally” and avoid being “the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress.”

“Anyone who has read Derb in our pages knows he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer,” Review editor Rich Lowry wrote affectionately in a post announcing Derbyshire’s firing. “Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation.”

Lowry’s characterization of Derbyshire’s prior “line-dancing” struck some commentators as odd given that Derbyshire’s bigotry had been pointed out long before his ouster—perhaps most cogently by John Derbyshire. “I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one,” he told a blogger in 2003.

The third prominent National Review alumni and Mencken Club speaker there that day last fall, Peter Brimelow, was a former editor at the magazine who had been canned in 1997. That was a key year for the publication, one which also saw the demotion of National Review editor-in-chief John O’Sullivan. Brimelow and others have concluded, reasonably, that the shake-up was the culmination of a gradual retreat from a stance on immigration both men shared, which, in Brimelow’s case, has since veered into more open racism. VDare, founded by Brimelow in 1999, regularly publishes articles on the purported biological inferiorities of minorities and is one of the most well-known online bastions of xenophobia. “Diversity per se,” its mission statement reads, “is not strength, but a vulnerability.”

As with Derbyshire, Brimelow’s racist commentary was a regular feature well before his ouster. His 1995 book Alien Nation argued that black crime could be easily explained because “certain ethnic cultures are more crime-prone than others,” warned against an incoming tide of “weird alien” migrants “with dubious habits,” and said that visitors to the waiting rooms of the Immigration and Naturalization Service should expect to soon find themselves “in an underworld that is not just teeming but also almost entirely colored.”

In addition to these three, Paul Gottfried, leader of the Mencken Club, was himself ousted as a National Review contributor in the 1980s. But he believes that racism was not, ultimately, the cause of any of the firings. “They didn’t throw anybody out because they were racist,” Gottfried told me. It was the capture of the conservative movement by business and political interests supportive of immigration and multiculturalism, among other things, he alleges, that led to a series of purges of proto-alt-right figures such as himself. These were akin, Gottfried posited, to National Review founder and conservative icon William F. Buckley’s renunciation of the conspiratorial John Birch Society in the 1960s.

If Gottfried is right, the purges seem to have been incomplete. Victor Davis Hanson, a current writer for National Review and a frequent critic of multiculturalism, for instance, published a National Review piece about race and crime a year after Derbyshire’s firing that loudly echoed his offending column without similar repercussions, right down to the paternal recommendation to avoid black people. Jason Richwine, a researcher who left the Heritage Foundation after the discovery of his doctoral dissertation, in which he’d argued “the low average IQ of Hispanics is effectively permanent,” currently writes for National Review on, among other issues, Hispanic immigration. Charles Murray, whose 1994 book The Bell Curve promoted the idea of inherent racial differences in intelligence to wide controversy, wrote a defense of Richwine for National Review in 2013 and was a contributor as recently as last year.

As often noted in alt-right circles, National Review’s early years were characterized by explicit racism. American Renaissance resurfaced this history in the wake of Derbyshire’s firing in 2012 when it republished a 2000 essay by James Lubinskas lamenting National Review’s gradual “abandonment of the interests of whites as a group.” From that essay:

The early National Review heaped criticism on the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, and people like Adam Clayton Powell and Martin Luther King, whom it considered race hustlers. What used to be an important part of the NR message is now dismissed as illegitimate “white identity politics.”
Lubinskas went on to cite numerous passages detailing National Review’s erstwhile support for white supremacy: an article arguing the hopelessness of integration given IQ differences between whites and blacks and the threat of “attempted molestation of white girls by Negro boys or girls.” An article condemning the forced integration of Little Rock, Arkansas’ Central High School. An article by conservative philosopher Russell Kirk defending apartheid in South Africa on the grounds that granting the black majority the right to vote “would bring anarchy and the collapse of civilization.”

These essays and others, spanning decades, mirrored the views of National Review founder William F. Buckley, who famously defended the right of whites to deny black Americans the vote and maintain white supremacy in a 1957 Review editorial titled “Why the South Must Prevail.” “The White community is so entitled,” he wrote, “because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

Buckley’s views on immigration, echoed through his magazine, also prefigured the alt-right. Though Buckley took pains to distance himself from the open white nationalism motivating some immigration restrictionists, he did back curbing immigration specifically to fight multiculturalism. Buckley also expressed skepticism of the “relative acculturability” of nonwhites. “The Ellis Island cultists resist plain-spoken reasoning,” Buckley wrote in 1997. “If pockets of immigrants are resisting the assimilation that over generations has been the solvent of American citizenship, then energies should go to accosting multiculturalism, rather than encouraging its increase.”

Buckley, like the alt-right, was particularly perturbed by Muslim immigrants and saw ominous signs of Muslim upheaval in Europe. “Western Europe has a Muslim problem,” he wrote in a 2007 column. Muslim migrants, he opined, had particularly become a threat to “the British way of life” commensurate with “a continental army threatening invasion or Nazi bombers darkening the sky.”

National Review planted its flag firmly in favor of culture-based restrictionism in 1992, with a 14,000-word cover essay on immigration written by none other than Peter Brimelow. The essay is an attack on nonwhite immigration that, in its fixation on America’s “shifting ethnic balance” and “the reality of ethnic and cultural differences,” hints at white nationalism. “Americans are now being urged to abandon the bonds of a common ethnicity and instead to trust entirely to ideology to hold together their state (polity),” Brimelow wrote. “This is an extraordinary experiment, like suddenly replacing all the blood in a patient’s body.”

Brimelow would expand upon his views in a 1995 episode of Buckley’s show Firing Line that saw him speak in favor of the debate position “Resolved: That All Immigration Should Be Drastically Reduced.” Over the course of the debate, Buckley endorsed the idea, proposed by Brimelow in his National Review essay and in Alien Nation, of pausing legal immigration. This past November, Richard Spencer himself endorsed a 50-year immigration pause..

Just a few short years after the Brimelow cover, the magazine started closing itself to rhetoric and argumentation on immigration that aligned it too closely with openly bigoted restrictionists. That move began with Brimelow’s firing and editor-in-chief John O’Sullivan’s demotion in 1997. National Review went on to adopt a stance described by Ramesh Ponnuru in a 2001 essay as “restrictionism that can succeed.” Even in that piece, however, Ponnuru praised Brimelow for “bravely and wittily” challenging “pro-immigration consensus and the taboos that sustained it” and criticized Brimelow’s rhetoric largely for its impracticality.

The magazine’s shift away from Brimelow’s brand of restrictionism was itself practically rather than morally motivated. Buckley, in a 2000 letter to Jared Taylor that Brimelow would later publish at VDare, said so himself:

It seems to me that the idea traditionally defended of endeavoring to maintain existing ethnic balances simply doesn’t work any more. A defense against the kind of situation portrayed by Raspail would seem to inhere in immigration laws, particularly in the idea of unrestricted immigration.
“Raspail” here is Jean Raspail, French author of The Camp of the Saints, a racist 1973 novel about the invasion of the West by murderous and sexually violent Third World migrants. The book has been praised widely for years by white supremacists, including American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor. Trump adviser Steve Bannon has also praised the novel repeatedly and Iowa Rep. Steve King recommended the book in a recent interview. In a 2004 National Review column on African migrants to Europe, Buckley would laud Saints as a “great novel.”

Clearly, Buckley and others at the magazine retained sympathies for Brimelow’s position on immigration that were deemed too embarrassing or too futile to continue to espouse as openly as they once had. Nevertheless, Brimelow, having been designated a liability, would found VDare in 1999 as an outcast, to continue promoting the line he advanced in his National Review essay. John O’Sullivan, demoted but still employed by National Review, would serve on the site’s board of directors. O’Sullivan’s position at VDare was revealed in 2012 in the wake of Derbyshire’s firing. O’Sullivan responded with a post in which he called white nationalism “silly” and claimed he had resigned from VDare in 2007. O’Sullivan was nevertheless listed as a member of the board in VDare’s nonprofit filings as late as 2010—the year the site gave more than $34,000 to Richard Spencer for the launch of the flagship publication Alternative Right.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on How National Review Helped Build the Alt-Right

Jewish bomb threat suspect undermines groups’ narrative on anti-Semitism

Posted on March 23, 2017 by Luke Ford

NEW YORK (JTA) — Many Jewish groups blamed white supremacists, emboldened by Donald Trump’s campaign, for the bomb threats that have plagued Jewish institutions since the beginning of this year.

It appears the groups were wrong.

The news that one Jewish teen — an Israeli, no less — was behind most of the approximately 150 bomb threats that have hit Jewish community centers since the start of 2017 is a shocking twist in light of months in which the Anti-Defamation League and other groups pointed their collective finger at the far right.

“We’re in unprecedented times,” said Oren Segal, director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism, at a March 10 news conference on the bomb threats. “We’ve never seen, ever, the volume of bomb threats that we’ve seen. White supremacists in this country feel more emboldened than they ever have before because of the public discourse and divisive rhetoric.”

The ADL has repeatedly charged Trump with emboldening extremists, anti-Semites and far-right groups in the U.S. Other groups were even more explicit in linking rising anti-Semitic acts this year to the new president. On Jan. 10, following the first wave of JCC bomb threats, Bend The Arc, a liberal Jewish group, said that “Trump helped to create the atmosphere of bigotry and violence that has resulted in these dangerous threats against Jewish institutions and individuals.”

In February, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect said in a statement to Trump that “Rightly or wrongly, the most vicious anti-Semites in America are looking at you and your Administration as a nationalistic movement granting them permission to attack Jews.”

But the perpetrator of the anti-Semitic acts, while his political opinions are not known, does not fit the profile of a white supremacist. According to Israeli reports, he’s a mentally ill Israeli-American Jewish teenager.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Jewish bomb threat suspect undermines groups’ narrative on anti-Semitism

Who Are The Happiest People In The World?

Posted on March 22, 2017 by Luke Ford

The happiest countries in this survey seem to be 99% white.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* It seems to me that the most genuinely happy people I met travelling the world were the native Fijians. Indian-Fijians were much more glum. As far as the Western world goes, I found the Australians to be the happiest. People like to talk about how wonderful New Zealand is, but I thought it was a much more miserable place than Australia or America. That might pertain just to Auckland, though. I’ve heard much better things about the South Island. I don’t know if I could say any place in Europe struck me as especially happy, but I found the Latin countries to at least be more easy-going.

* New Zealanders and Australians were pretty happy in the 1960s, but since then the neo-liberal right has decided that everyone must become a mortgage slave and the liberal-left has decided that no one is allowed to have any fun. This all happened pretty quickly through a liberal pincer movement in the mid 1980s.

* Yeah, Denmark, the utopia that ranks number one among Continental European nations in anti-depressant usage according to the OECD. Followed immediately by Sweden. Finland and Norway are not far behind, though oddly enough Belgium is higher on the list. But they all come in significantly behind the USA … We’re Number 1!

* Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the SDSN

Isn’t this one of the guys of the “Harvard mafia” responsible for selling happiness to the former Soviet Union in the form of “shock therapy”? And who later promised “The end of poverty” by 2025?

How come these scammers NEVER lose credibility?

* Isn’t Sachs one of the people who helped Russia become a rather unhappy place back in the day? Now he’s a happiness expert? Yeah, let’s all listen to what Sachs has to say.

* I’ve been watching a lot of Norwegian movies over the last couple years, and it’s pretty amazing what Norwegians can get away with in terms of violating western PC norms. Characters regularly say things that would get people arrested across the border in Sweden, and blacklisted here in the US. Denmark is also significantly more free than Sweden. Because standard Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are all pretty much mutually intelligible, this freedom appears to be giving Norway and Denmark an artistic edge over Sweden in the Scandinavian film industry.

* …these rankings aren’t based on actual happiness, but what globalist experts tell us ought to contribute to happiness. Of coursh, they have no agenda.

* Is anyone surprised that the 10 ‘happiest’ nations are all AngloGermanic? And the very happiest of all are from the blue-eyed Nordic core of Germandom, Scandinavia? Not that they’re necessarily ‘happier’ than anyone else (whatever that’s supposed to mean), but they always top these kinds of lists.

All 17 AngloGermanic nations are in the top 19 on that list, with the outliers being #11 Israel and #12 Costa Rica. None of the many high IQ nations in Southern and Eastern Europe or East Asia managed to crack the NW Euro monopoly of the happy 19. Sad.

MG Miles has compiled the ultimate evidence-based case for Teutonic world domination (at least in the world of lists) here.

The same 17 nations (or 18 including Liechtenstein) tend to finish in the top 20 or 25 in all kinds of positive national attributes, and they cluster together when it comes to negative traits too, like pathological altruism.

The Anglo Nordic Teutonic nations are generally the world’s smartest, richest, healthiest, safest and happiest. But they feel more guilt than pride about their many achievements. It wasn’t always this way, but it sure is now.

So they’ve decided to replace themselves with the dumb, the poor, the sickly, the violent and the sad. Because they’re also the world’s fairest and most moral nations, even to a suicidal degree.

* In America, the quality of life peaked back in the 1970s. It’s been declining since then.

Posted in Australia, Happiness | Comments Off on Who Are The Happiest People In The World?