Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

The intense power of tribal truth

Posted on April 15, 2015 by Luke Ford

He may have intentionally done all of this in order to preempt moderation. We tell ourselves he lost as if he really intended it to be one round, as if this man thought he would win in one round. Did this guy really underestimate us? I think not, which means everything he did was to prepare for a later battle(s). What was his greatest difficulty? Getting the West as a whole to understand the alien, hostile elite. Therefore everything for the future was aimed at what? Getting the hostile elite to reveal themselves. And this is what he meant with his first and second question about the question of the hasid in Vienna: 1) Is this a Jew? 2) Is this a European? Those are the questions he seeks the goy to ask. He wanted to reveal the Jew as foreigner, to reveal the Jew as alien, to reveal the Jew as Jew. What better than a State of Israel for that, and a Holocaust to preempt the Jew from listening to opponents or moderate voices? The State of Israel reveals disparity in policy, self-righteous anger maintains disparity despite being visible for anyone to see. The few Jews who figure out the real “posthumous victory” are denounced as traitors, self-haters as opposed to being the moderates that we really are.

It took me a long time to get into his head enough to hear what he heard.

The intense power of tribal truth is unlike anything I experienced as a WASP.

When Abram smashed the idols, he had to get out of town fast.

Posted in Adolf Hitler, Anti-Semitism, Europe, Jews | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: Are Jews Part of the Sacralized Fringe or the Demonized Core?

Posted on April 15, 2015 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek writes: “This is a fast rising issue on the left. Maybe if we could identify their young leaders and send them all on an all expense paid trip to Israel, including a stay at a secular kibbutz, followed up with a quick visit to Egypt or Iraq, they’d be more apt to be friendly to Yidden.”

Steve Sailer writes: Ms. Horwitz is pro-Israel and the Students of Color Coalition is anti-Israel, so she failed to get the endorsement of this identity politics group due to a disagreement over issues.

The Students of Color Coalition’s high crime is, apparently, noticing that strongly Jewish-identified students, like Horwitz, tend to be anti-BDS. Moreover, there’s a lot of resentment on California campuses among non-Jewish student politicians that Jewish student politicians will go off campus to fundraise among Israeli-American millionaires in order to manipulate student elections…

The other hot button getting campus polititics so much national attention all of a sudden is increasing Jewish concern that the ascendant Of Color coalition of the Fringes won’t let Jews join in any reindeer games.

Ms. Horwitz is a little beige in color, so she makes a good test case. Her request for solidarity from the Students of Color Coalition was rejected, in part because she’s so pro-Israel.

The essential question may eventually turn out to be: Are Jews part of the sacralized Fringe or are they part of the demonized Core?

Maybe all this Fringe over Core propaganda will turn out in the long run not to be good for the Jews? Perhaps more centrist Jews will start to worry about this mindset they’ve nurtured?

Unfortunately, the more likely effect of these trends is for Jewish spokespersons to double down on sacralizing the Fringe, just while octupling up on their rightful place as the fringiest of the Fringe.

Comments:

* Who will provide the leaders for the Of Color coalition if it excludes Jews as members?

* The Jewish strategy of playing both sides of the fence simultaneously basically worked when America was Wasp dominated.
Previously, they could claim to be both persecuted outsiders whilst being market dominant, in that the groups which they accused of persecution weren’t generally market-dominant, yet comprised the majority and could possibly ‘turn nasty’ if the circumstances aligned.
These days, that simply just doesn’t wash. The ‘minorities’ who are now, in fact, the majority don’t have an historic record of persecuting Jews or any ‘guilt’ on that part, they are ‘new skin’ in this game with no historical baggage. The dangeris that these groups, or rather their leadership, have the intelligence to pattern recognise and form political blocs.

* Political migration from fringe to core seems inevitable post-Hillary.

The anti-Israel stuff on college campuses isn’t anything new; the friction between Jewish and black Dems has been there for decades; what’s new is the Democratic Party is a lot fringier than it was ~20 years ago.

Win or lose, Hillary looks like the end of the line for all but the furthest left among white men, whether Jewish or not. Unlike in Obama’s case, NAMs won’t have to reach back to a white Dem POTUS’s admin for Washington hands – they’ll have Susan Rices and Valerie Jarretts.

NAMs will force all but the most self-abdignating core types out and, having already won the culture war, those exiled will have fewer qualms about joining the GOP. At that point, the GOP may finally turn against open borders for real.

* Suppose Zionism and Israel didn’t exist.

Jews could use diversity to divide-and-rule the gentiles, and that would be that.

But because the Israeli-Palestinian problem exists, Jews are in a bind because they appear right-wing and ‘racist’ over there.

Other than that, this ‘diversity’ thing is not about ‘people of color’ liking or not liking Jews.
It’s about people of color hating on white gentiles and people of color hating one another.
That way, even if diverse gentiles may not like Jews, they are divided among themselves and unable to unify against Jews.

BDS is an exception because the nature of Zionist imperialism is so strong and because Israel has become associated with the GOP.

If Jews solve the crisis in Israel, the BDS issue will fade.

If not, it will fester.

But apart from Israel’s occupation, there is nothing to bring non-white students together against Jews.

* Realistically, how will openly supporting BDS affect these college kids’ future job prospects? Can you foresee an outspoken network of BDS supporters rich enough to attract new members without dooming them to lifelong outsider status? Is there any prospect of a mainstream movie or tv show including a sympathetic character who supports BDS, anytime soon?

* Jews still look pretty white to everyone who isn’t white. They’ll view Jews as yet another type of white (in many cases, a particularly wealthy and hence odious type).

And ‘solve the crisis in Israel’? That’s not happening anytime soon.

Probably Israel will continue hemorrhaging support as America gets less white and eventually be forced to ‘integrate’ a la South Africa, after which the Palestinians will slowly kill or drive out the remaining Jews, and the Jewish state will end.

* It’ll be “fringe,” if it’s Jews both asking and answering. They benefit too much from promoting themselves as “fringe” to give it up (and some would say there is no Jewish identity in the West except as a fringe).

They may (continue to) inflate a “false core” politics that primarily serves Jewish interests (putting the ‘Judeo’ in front of ‘Christian,’ so to speak) while commandeering a system nothing but harmful to the dupes riding along with it. I.e., business as usual.

Jews don’t have the numbers to see themselves as a “core” ethnic-cultural-religious bloc anywhere in the USA, excepting possibly Greater New York City. Doing so across the USA itself would subsume them into Christian White America. They are, and they know they are, a (hostile) elite. So — If things start going agonizingly sour for the USA, the Jews will move on…to another host country. It’s a story we’ve seen before.

Defacto political-cultural alliance between Jews and East Asians for leadership of the USA or its successor states is another possible scenario. This is in the longer run, say in the latter half of the present century and into the 2100s. Dr. MacDonald posits such a future Jewish-EastAsian elite. Take Amy Chua’s daughters (her husband is a Jew). The daughters are hardcore Zionists and essentially Jewish racialists and nationalists despite their half-Chinese ancestry.

* The Jews have made alliances with various ‘minority’ groups for the purposes of advancing their own interests. But these groups also have interests of their own, and soon they wont need the Jews any more.

* Maybe students should stick to what they’re there for in the first place and that’s to learn their subject matter. People 18-22 are way too naive and inexperienced to know anything about politics; they haven’t been alive with an adult mentality long enough to know anything beyond feel-good slogans. Young people are easily misled. The destruction of Rhodesia and South Africa is a stain upon history; since it produced such great results let’s then repeat it over and over. Although Israel’s recent fascist-style punitive bombardment of Gaza antagonized many people the world over there’s also the fact that there’s nothing on the Arab side that one can identify with. The Arabs are not bearers of civilization, culture or science so siding with them against Israel makes no sense. Detaching from Israel might be best but siding with the retrograde Arabs against them would be a mistake. Besides, who is really behind this BDS movement?
Identity politics makes the color of your skin your uniform; it’s not the content of your character but the color of your skin that matters.

* Political correctness is just one group of white people demonizing another group of white people. When white people are a minority PC will be irrelevant and it will die. Whites, such as many Jewish people, who still cling to political correctness will be shouted down the loudest by non-whites who will be sick of their paternalism and will see how irrelevant they are.

* As a young Jew, I naturally have many young leftist Jewish friends. Most of them (around 70%) are casually leftist. For the most part, they neither care nor think about about politics, and would easily make the transition to the right if it became de-stigmatized and socially acceptable.

However, there is a fraction of leftist Jews who are intensely politically engaged. These Jews are usually the most intelligent ones (the top 10%). You simply cannot imagine how tenaciously they cling to leftist ideology. Its phenomenal. They embrace it with truly religious fervor. In their minds, being Jewish means holding the prescribed, ancestral leftists beliefs. When I gently inform them about the internal contradictions between their leftist ideology and their support of Israel, they go berserk. It triggers an intense emotion and visceral revulsion, defying any rational thought process.

They are not going to make the transition to the right without much pain and possible brain damage.

* Israel controls less territory than it did 50-odd years ago, holds much of the territory it does because Arab forces first tried to destroy it with a military invasion, and then a generation later decided to play chicken games with it. Israel has tried and failed to fob off much of what it currently holds on Arab authorities who do not want it except as a launch pad for…attacks on Israel. That’s ‘the nature’ of ‘Zionist imperialism’.

* One thing nobody here seems to realize is that many Jews believe being an outspoken minority is central to their identity itself.

Consider Jews’ sacred text, the Torah: Genesis establishes God’s pattern of dividing things (sacred from common, good from evil, this from that, etc.). Exodus through Deuteronomy iterates on this with God’s chosen nation. A reading of these books of the Torah makes the most sense if you look at it through the lens of “here is a bunch of stuff to make sure God’s chosen nation doesn’t blend in with anyone else.”

In the modern US, where the dominant paradigm is one of core vs. fringe, American Jews automatically figure “We must be fringe,” and internalize that as part of their identity.

* Are women meant to be mothers? Are men meant to be fathers? Yes.

After all, all girls are born to be daughters, and all boys are born to be sons.

Daughter or son, as child of mother and father, is meant to grow up to be mother or father to create more daughters and sons.

It’s a circle game and goes round and round.

But modern individualism makes us forget that.

And birth control cut off sex from its consequences, thereby making people see it as merely pleasurable activity(like taking drugs) than a pleasurable activity that has meaning in producing life and continuing one’s race.

Food hasn’t yet been cut from its consequences. If you eat too much, you get fat. If you eat too much sugar, you get diabetes. So, we eat for pleasure but also know we must control ourselves. We know food isn’t just for pleasure but for health.

But image if a some drug were invented where you could eat as much of anything you want but then be spared of its consequences. You can have two boxes of donuts, take the pill, and be perfectly healthy and gain no pounds. The meaning of food would be lost, and people would just pig out like loons.

That’s what has happened with sex when the consequences were nixed with birth control and antibiotics that zapped infections like Gonorrhea and Syphilis.
Now, these advances were good and welcome, but they did have a negative impact in de-meaning-izing sex. They saved our bodies but rotted our souls.

* On the one hand, Jews try to pass themselves off as genteel respectable Wasps…

On the other hand, Jews try to pass themselves off as victims of Wasps(especially at opportunity to play golf).

Jews seem to have been both shining and shitting on Waspness.

Waspness has been useful for Jews because of its reputation for honesty, diligence, and all the virtues associated with Northern European folks. I mean which people would you trust your money with? Northern European types…. or Greeks, Italians, Chinese, Mexicans, Negroes, Gypsies, Russians, Argentinians, Dotters, and etc?
I’d rather put my money in a Wasp bank. Of course, wasps were plenty sneaky and corrupt too, but it’s a matter of compare and contrast. They are still much better than most other groups.

German-American Jews were eager to merge with Wasp-ness. It had the right kind of reputation and image.
And Eastern-European Jews sought to do the same.

It’s true that Wasps had long favored their own. So, Wall Street banks and firms owned by wasps preferred to hire their own kind over other kinds even when the latter got better grades. Among the ‘others’, only the Jews mattered cuz they’re the only ones who really bested in wasp kids in grades and academics.
Even so, in terms of culture and values, if not ability and talent, the wasp culture was more honest and ethical than the Eastern-European-American Jewish culture.
While the wasp’s favoring of wasps over more talented Jews was unethical, the chances were that your average wasp was less likely to be a pathological liar and thief than some smart Jewish guy.
We would like to believe that ability and ethics go together, but it’s sometimes the case that the less able are more ethical while the more able are less ethical. Just look at smart Jews who run US foreign policy. Smart yes but what total liars and pathological sharks.

Anyway, since Wasps and Northern Europeans had developed a reputation around the world as the most honest and trustworthy, Jews sought to be associated with it. It’s like how Belfort named his company ‘Oakmont’ instead of ‘Assholopoulous’, ‘Sleazolini’, ‘Patel & Gupta’, ‘Tyrone Jackson Inc’, ‘Mapache & Gomez Funds’, ‘Wong and Wong Insurance’, ‘United Gypsy Investing’, ‘Tsarnaev Banking’, etc.

As Jews themselves didn’t have the finest reputation in the world in terms of trust, it was useful for Jews to associate themselves with Waspy names and brand. Though Jews have long had a reputation for brains, they were also renowned for the kinds of stuff George Soros pulls all the time. And then, there was Bernie Madoff. One might feel nervous investing in ‘Finkelschwarz & Kahanowicz Capital’. Not due to lack of ability — Madoff was no dummy — but the reputation of some Jews to play it like David Mamet characters.

When Jews were on the rise, they wanted to be seen as waspy, take on the waspy brand, and etc.
And yet, many Jews felt resentment because wasps had the better brand even though Jews had the better brains. Also, if the wasp brand were to maintain its reputation, there had to be certain restraints to greed. And overly ambitious Jews felt hampered and frustrated by that too.

So, guys like Belfort wanted to use the brand but run it totally ragged. But in doing so, the wasp brand became degraded by bad Jewish behavior. Indeed, whatever worth the Wasp brand once had has been tarnished ever since Jews appropriated it and associated it with mounting financial scandals since the late 80s, the really big one hitting in 2008.

But then, same thing happened to Wasp foreign policy brand. Sure, US foreign policy was always kinda dirty, but if we do comparison and contrast, it still looked better than those of most other nations. US seemed to give a fairer shake than Nazi Germany, imperial Japan, French Empire, Russian/Soviet empire, and etc.

Though Wasp-ruled US did favor Israel, Carter did try to reach out to all sides. And there were ‘Arabists’ like James Baker in the GOP who called for balance and fairness. So, US reputation had a certain cachet.
But then, Jews took over foreign policy and then the only kinds of gentiles allowed were toadies and whores. In time, US foreign policy became totally Judeo-Zio-centric, and its reputation has sunk all around the world. Not only has the reputation of Israel reached an all time low, but even Wasp-American reputation sunk with it as Wasps lost all self-confidence and decided merely to play whore to Jewish power.

Anyway, Jews seem to be somewhat schizo about Waspsness and ‘white privilege’.

On the one hand, despite all the crap that’s been said about ‘evil whites’, white gentiles(especially of Northern European extraction) are still the most trusted, admired, and envied people in the world. Ask any third worlder–even the most leftist and anti-white person–where he wants to emigrate to, and it’s some place like US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. They don’t want to emigrate to Nigeria, Russia, Ukraine, China, India, Mexico, Peru, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Venezuela, etc.

Ask any leftist, even the most anti-white person, where he’d rather invest his money, and it’s some company run by northern european types than one run by Negroes, Mexers, dotters, Chinese, Russians, Iranians, etc. Okay, maybe Singaporeans. But other than that, they’d rather put their money with Wasps.

So, the Wasp brand is still better than most in the world. And because of its high value, even Jews want to association with it. But the more Jews exploit it for their own purposes, the Wasp brand goes down, but then so will all that is associated with it. If Jews ruin waspness, they won’t be able to hide behind it for cover.

But then, there is another group of Jews who go out of their way to openly smear, attack, and demean everything related or associated with ‘waspness’. We saw this in the media attack on Duke Lacrosse and UVA. We see it in so many movies where most of the eeeeeeeeeeeevil CEOs are waspy types.

So, on the one hand, Jews value and want to be associated with the clean Wasp brand, and on the other hand, they want to sully it as ‘racist’, ‘privileged’, ‘oppressive’, and ‘odious’ as much as possible. Something’s gotta give. You can’t have both.

It’s like expecting to be carried on a boat into which holes are drilled.

* First of all there was a lot of guilt felt by the Jews who were here before the Holocaust – in truth they did very little to rescue their brothers in Europe. There is the infamous tale of Jan Karski, smuggled out of wartime Poland by the Polish underground at incredible personal risk in order to inform the West of the Holocaust that was then in progress. He went to see Felix Frankfurter, who was then a Supreme Court Justice and the highest placed Jew in the American government and presented him will compelling evidence of the mass murders. Frankfurter told Karski to his face that he didn’t believe him – basically called him a liar. Really what he was saying was that he COULDN’T believe him because if he believed him he would have to confront Roosevelt over this, whereas Roosevelt (to the extent he palled around with a WASPified Jew such as Frankfurter at all) wanted the conversation kept light – they could talk about yachting or baseball while drinking martinis. If he believed him, he would have had to set himself on fire on the steps of the Capitol as a symbolic protest or something like that, and he didn’t want to have to do that. It was easier just to call Karski a liar and leave it at that.

Second, that guilt got displaced (in part correctly) on State Dept. WASP types. Supposedly when some (Canadian but it could just as well have been the US) government official was asked how many Jewish refugees they should take, his reply was “one is too many”.

So, America, if you will, this is the Jew’s revenge on you. You could have had 6 million Ashkenazis but you said no and they were consigned to the ashes, so now you will have 60 million Zapotecs and the Jews will sympathize with the immigrants and not with you.

* Let’s just say it’s a big world out there and there are a lot of groups who are less dissimilar to Jews than are, say, the Chinese. Person for person, these groups may not be as good at verbal complaint as Jews, but there are hundreds of millions of them, so their elites are going to get pretty good at it over the next generation.

* American Jews _loved_ the idea of importing blacks claiming to be Jews into Israel.

Israeli Jews, not so much …

* [Re: Amy Chua’s daughter]: The pattern is clear from a review of the Twitter feed. Consider a few more, and also look at the blog kept by one of the girls (one recent post discusses her strong Jewish identity).

1. Here is another one from Twitter from 2013:

More reasons why media simply denouncing Morsi overthrow as coup is sloppy: “Israel urges US not to freeze Egypt aid”

She thinks when Israel says “jump”, the USA should say “How High?” From this, Jewish Zionist nationalism can be inferred.

2. Here she is retweeting something from the IDF. It shows she follows IDF twitter accounts; again, showing a strong not just Jewish identity but Jewish nationalism. (She has never been an Israeli and likely never will be.)

3. To those who say “Lots of gentile Americans support Israel and the IDF, but…”, consider the ideological juxtaposition of #1 above with this: “How to quickly piss off an rotc cadet: take down her American flag and replace it with your party decorations” (April 20, 2015)

4. Another retweet of an assertion that a “War on Hannukah” exists.

5. And then this:

i feel conflicted when i see hot blondes getting hw help from nerdy jewish guys. sad genepool will be polluted but happy my ppl will survive

This is an amazing comment. Although a joke, it does seem to be meant seriously (not “trolling”). It says several things, (1) “My genepool” clearly here means Jews, (2) This is classic “Shiksa” commentary from a Jewish woman’s perspective, (3) An assertion of Jewish superiority in math over “blondes” (which, whether true or not, her assertion of it is an expression of Jewish pride).

Anyway…you can believe these are selective and unrepresentative, but they are not. I invite you to go to the Twitter account and have a look. Interestingly, you will find little about Chinese or Asians. Almost the only thing about Chinese matters she ever tweeted is this from one Christmas, which is actually more Jewish-related than Chinese!

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Immigration, Jews, Stanford, WASPs | Comments Off

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

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

I am a convert to Orthodox Judaism and I oscillate between having a God-centered universalist Torah worldview (aka ethical-monotheism) and a naturalistic tribal worldview.

Because I know what it is like to belong to a tribe, I expect all groups to act in their self-interest just as my group pursues its group interest (Jews may do this for the glory of God or for the healing of the world or for the benefit of their children, etc, motives are always complex).

Sometimes I think that just as Torah wants a Jewish state of Israel free of gentile influence and possibly even of gentiles, so too it might make sense for certain gentiles to want spaces free of Jewish influence. If I were a white nationalist, I might not want any alien groups interfering with or weakening my state’s cohesion and unity.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Just as the Japanese don’t want many non-Japanese in their land, and the Tibetans don’t want Chinese in their land, why would Germans or English or Americans want unassimilable groups in their land?

On the one hand, if I were a white nationalist, I would probably admire Jews for their high average intelligence, their industriousness and persistence, their success, their tight family structure, their communal bonding, their effective lobbying and influence peddling, their wealth and prestige and dominance of the media. On the one hand, I’d see the Jews as having everything I wanted most for my group — a religion that simultaneously functions as a powerful evolutionary group strategy, cohesion, strong families, high achievement, great capacity for self-sacrifice for the tribe. On the other hand, I might resent Jews for pursuing their major groups pursuing what I saw as an anti-white agenda (because Jews rationally see a multi-racial and cosmopolitan country as less dangerous and less competition for a cohesive strongly identifying in-group). Whatever their good points, however much I might want to imitate them in many ways, Jews may well appear to me as working against white people’s interests.

If I were a white nationalist, I would want a white America (either 90% white or more). I’d subscribe to Genetic Similarity Theory aka that people get along better with those who are genetically similar to them. I’d hold by what Robert Putnam and Jason Richwine pointed out — the more racial diversity, the less social capital.

If I were a white nationalist, I might see pre-1939 Adolf Hitler as a hero and as an example of what a strong white man can create with a unified people of European ancestry.

If I were a white nationalist, I might be disturbed that tribes tend to have a weaker relationship to the nation state than what I would want for my fellow Americans.

If I were a white nationalist, I might want my land free of Jews, blacks, homosexuals, orientals, and Muslims (but I would not want mass killing as that is bad for morale, not because I cared that much about out-groups, unless I were a Christian or some other moralist). If I were a white nationalist, I’d want a land where it was unacceptable to work against white interests. If I were a white nationalist, I’d want to make sure that the good guys controlled the media and the schools.

If I were a white nationalist, I’d see that every major Jewish organization supported immigration amnesty and I would resent Jews because of this. If I were a white nationalist, I’d see that a solid majority of Americans since at least as far back as the Civil War has been opposed to more immigration and I would get mad that their wishes have been disregarded. If I were a white nationalist, as soon as I learned that American Jewish organizations have been pushing for more immigration for more than a hundred years, I would hate Jews for this.

If I were a Christian, I think I would be more humane and pro-Jewish than if I were a pagan. If I were a Christian, I suspect I’d have intense ambivalence about Jews. On the one hand, I might see them as God’s Chosen People, or God’s former Chosen People. On the other hand, I would probably resent them for rejecting the truth of Christ. I suspect my feelings about Jews would be strongly conditioned by my personal dealings with them. If my dealings were mainly positive, I would likely have positive feelings about Jews and if my dealings were mainly negative, I’d be more likely to have negative feelings about Jews.

Now, let me interrupt this rant to clarify that I, Luke Ford, converted to Judaism in 1993 and I am happy with that decision. My instinct is to be a Jewish chauvinist and to think everything Jewish is superior to its non-Jewish counterparts. My mind naturally seizes on things that show Jews in the best light and denigrates non-Jews. I am not a white nationalist. I am just a nationalist. I believe equally in nationalism for all peoples — black, white, yellow, brown, Jewish, and Palestinian. Today I am an Orthodox Jew who believes that every group should pursue their group interest as fervently as blacks and Jews and Muslims and Japanese and Tibetans pursue their group interest. I am an Orthodox Jew who believes that Jews should never seek anything different for Gentiles than they want for themselves.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Jews, Nationalism, Whites | Comments Off

Tuesday Musings

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

* I notice a personality difference between myself and my Ashkenazi friend. I tend to go along with whatever my experts (doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants, lawyers, techs, customer service, etc) tell me while my friend raises holy hell when things don’t make sense to him. I could never haggle and talk back the way he does but he is far more effective at getting good results than I am. I am a passive WASPy loser compared to him.

* I only get headaches about once a month, but I rarely get a headache that can’t be cured by caffeine (which I ingest rarely, so when I do, it’s more of a hit to my system).

* There’s this hot chick I’ve had my eye on for a while and just realizing of late the extent of her dangerous irresponsibility has finally killed my attraction to her, Baruch HaShem! The mind can conquer the yetzer hara.

* Friend: “You just want to be a celebrity. That’s all you dream of. It’s a dream life, you want, baby. You can’t settle for the prosaic tasks of building up a good life.”
Luke: “I just want to be a good Jew.”
Friend: “That’s not going to happen.”

Mark: You can’t be a good Jew as a skinhead, since that haircut is not halachic, so might as well just move to Idaho, they’ll marry you off, etc, and you’ll learn to love the meth.

Chaim Amalek Not all of them are on meth.

Mark The ones who will marry him will need to be.

Chaim Amalek As a man ages, he learns the importance of compromise. Luke can compromise by going for the crazy young woman, or the older woman of color, or the sane age appropriate woman who is past her child bearing years. Or do nothing and get nothing.

* A wise man tells me: “You could have had your pick of hot women ten years ago. You committed the cardinal sin of aiming too high and for women who thought you were beneath them, and then ended up alone. In fact, you both should have settled for one another. She’d be happier today had she pursued you. No doubt of that. Jewish women need to be socialized into understanding their proper place in life.”

* Chaim Amalek writes: I sometimes ask myself, given all that he has written about them, seen of them, and sacrificed for them, “If I were Luke Ford, how would I feel about Jews?”

* My PC has been nothing but tsures the past three weeks (despite buying it only last August) and now I have to ship it back to the manufacturer (HP Envy 700). Lord, why do you try Your servant so when he only seeks to be a holy warrior for Your people?

* When will the goyim stop persecuting us? Don’t they know how expensive yeshiva tuition is?

* Women over 60 and over 300 pounds should not wear miniskirts, not even when they apply make-up with a trowel.

Lil writes: “You should have seen the piece of work I saw at the store the other day. Overweight woman wearing only overall-mini shorts (and when I say only, I mean no under shirt ). Out of the corner of my eyes, I thought I had perceived a ridiculously dressed 10 year old, until I noticed it was a ridiculously dressed woman in pigtails. Awful.”

* So women on JSwipe and Tinder often want to know why I have never married. I get stumped. What’s the best and most pithy answer I can use?

Chaim Amalek: “Tell them you were only recently cured of being gay and are in danger of backsliding if they don’t help provide some cognitive reinforcement.”

Christopher Donnellan writes: “Tell them you are naturally polyamorous.”

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

Understanding #Gamergate: Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and the Social Justice Warriors

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Amazon.com: The Gamergate controversy began with a blog post about the infidelities of game developer Zoe Quinn. The post caused quite a stir at Reddit and 4chan’s gaming communities because Quinn’s affairs were with figures in the gaming press. The commotion generated by the story escalated to the point that it caught the attention of the mainstream media. However, the gaming press initially chose to ignore it. Even today they pretend that Gamergate, arguably gaming’s biggest story of 2014, doesn’t exist.
What is Gamergate and why is it scorned by the gaming press? Who is Anita Sarkeesian and why does she have so many supporters in the gaming press? Who are the SJWs and how did they infiltrate the gaming press? This book attempts to answer these questions.

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off

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

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

If I were born Jewish, I might well have some apprehension about this “Luke Ford” chap.

If I born and raised an Orthodox Jew, if I had lived my life as an Orthodox Jew, I’d find Luke Ford very weird. Possibly I’d find him interesting, but just as likely I’d find him disturbing.

If I were frum from birth, I’d have some well-worn mental grooves and this Luke Ford blogger would challenge many of my comfortable ways of thinking and for that I’d be more likely to resent him than to respect him.

When I read Luke Ford’s story, it would be hard for me get my mind around him. I’d probably suspect he was a plant, that he was up to something devious, that it was an elaborate game, that he was deep under cover, that he was going to use his experiences to write a tell-all book that would make Jews look bad.

If I were frum from birth and I read Luke Ford’s blog, I’d be disoriented. There would be all sorts of thoughts that a Jew is not supposed to think. I would probably not like to read him expounding on his view that different groups have different interests that frequently clash and result in killing. I would prefer to believe that all anti-Jewish sentiments are because Jews are God’s Chosen People and therefore hatred of Jews is simply hatred of God.

If I were born Jewish, I’d have some ambivalence about converts in general. I’d wonder, what’s wrong with them? I’d want them to be humble and deferential before the real deal. Just because you can get through a conversion process, that does not mean you get to tell real Jews what to do. If I read Luke Ford, I’d probably get mad. Who the hell is this wacky weirdo to make Jews look bad. Who elected him to out Jews for wrongdoing?

I suspect that if I was born Jewish, I’d have little tolerance for converts and once I learned something bad about them, I’d be quick to dismiss them. Who needs the tsures?

If I were born Jewish and I read the Luke Ford blog, I’d get the vibe that this guy has one foot in and one foot out of being Jewish. I’d wonder how long he was going to last.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

If I Were A Muslim, How Would I Feel About Jews?

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

If I were a Muslim, I would have ambivalent feelings about Jews. On the one hand, I’d admire them for their strengths (high average IQ, high drive for social and economic success, strong commitment to their group interest, a gift for disguising their group interest in universal moral language, a flexibility with law and lobbying and influence, a genius for telling stories) and accomplishments (high income, educational and professional success, Israel, technology, medicine). On the other hand, I’d probably hate them for creating a Jewish state in my midst in land I regard as holy to my people and for making us Muslims look like savages by contrast to them.

I think would look around at the low average IQ of Muslims and of Arabs (about 85) and I would contrast that with the 105-115 average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews and I would burn to improve the status of my people. There’s no way I could be at peace with the enormous cognitive gap between Muslims and the enemy. I would be attracted to theories that would blame the problems of my people on outsiders. If I were capable of looking at the Muslim problem without emotion and bias, I would favor eugenics. We must insure that high IQ Muslims get everything they need to make more high IQ babies. For too long, “Muslim” has been equated with backwardness and squalor.

If I were a Muslim, I would want the whole world to become Muslim. I would be glad for increased Muslim immigration into the lands of our enemies (the West) and for our high birth rates and for the canny way we keep quiet and nice when we are under 2% of a country’s population but increasingly assert ourselves as our percentage rises above that level. While I might not say so to Western media, I might take pride in the fierce way Muslims protect their group interest by killing those who oppose them. If I were a Muslim, I would probably be glad when I heard the news about four rabbis getting stabbed to death in a shul in Jerusalem. I would regard Jerusalem as belonging to Muslims and I would want to drive the infidels into the sea.

If I were a Muslim, I’d feel shame at the low state of the Muslim world. I’d feel shame that as countries become more Muslim, they never become more free. I’d feel shame at the low level of accomplishment of my fellow Muslims. I’d feel shame at our degradation and lowliness. The shame would be so painful, I would probably seek escape through conspiracy theories blaming Muslim woes on non-Muslims.

If I were a believing Muslim, I would alternately feel sorry for Jews and Christians and rage at them for not accepting the truth of my religion. Any time Jews and Christians did anything that challenged my religion, I would feel angry at them and want to hurt them.

If I were a Muslim, I would look at the United States as largely controlled by Jews. I would look at the presidency and the Congress and the media and the Federal Reserve and the judiciary as largely controlled by Zionists. I would present a smiling face to non-Muslims in my public dealings, but in private I’d probably rage about Jewish influence and Jewish humiliation of the prophet Mohammed.

If I were a Muslim, I’d seek out and memorize ways that my people are superior to all other peoples. I’d memorize the leading arguments for why Islam was more true and more divine than Judaism and Christianity. I’d listen to lectures by imams and replicate their points in my daily conversations. I’d be all about Muslim pride. I would not care much about non-Muslim suffering. I’d probably read many books about how Muslims have suffered at the hands of non-Muslims and it would stoke my hatred of those outside my group who did not respect the prophet.

If I were a Muslim, I would want my country run according to Sharia law. I would want to deny citizenship to non-Muslims. I would not want non-Muslims to dominate important institutions such as the media and finance. If I were a Muslim, I would want Muslims to excel Jews in dominating media and finance and influence peddling around the world.

If I were a Muslim loser, unable to marry or even to find a girlfriend, I’d probably be vulnerable to becoming a terrorist.

Posted in Islam, Israel | Comments Off

Bullying Your Way

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* A certain amount of thuggishness can advance your cause: Islam in Europe; Blacks in America; Scientologists bullying their way into tax exempt status. One needs to consider responding in kind.

* The upside to gay marriage, mentioned earlier in comments on this site, is that if the trait/behavior is genetically transferred, the earlier they get together with each other the less chance they will procreate and thus pass on the gene. Less chance they will ruin the life of some unsuspecting young, if naive, woman. Less chance they will infect naive women with a disease picked up through whatever dating method has replaced bath houses. Less chance the health downsides of their sexual behavior will ripple through the heterosexual population because of introduction to an unsuspecting woman.

The downside is that marriage as an institution is mostly a function of recognizing the need for child rearing to be a two person activity composed of a male and female. Such a recognition is easy if you first recognize that males and females are wildly different creatures bringing different strengths and weaknesses to the table. If society wishes to reject said reality for something more idealistic, what better way to undermine the former consensus than rejecting the different sex structure undergirding child rearing?

This is mostly a battle of religions, the ancient text religions vs. that religion which yet has to be named, messianic idealism.

* 99% of SSM marriage debates is about self-absorbed gays and lesbians who want to demand that they, and their couplings, be viewed equivalently by everyone, if necessary, by calling the police. But actually, most people, however liberal they are, are creeped out by most LGBT’s. Not because they “hate” LGBT’s, but because of Sullivan calls the “ick” factor. That isn’t going to change.

That’s why, when the armed services validated LGBT rights, most of the people interviewed indicated that they weren’t going to come out to their fellow service members anyway. For all that, if religious people are going to allow themselves to be provoked, we will continue to get these headlines.

* The State has a vested interest in damping down male violence over women. Legalize gay marriage and you defacto legalize polygamy, and get a society somewhere between Saudi Arabia and Salt Lake City circa 1857 with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Which btw is exactly where we are headed. One need only look at the Black community and the defacto soft polygamy there and see that the most violent killers have the most kids and the main driver for violence is the sexual and reproductive rewards for men engaging in otherwise stupid and senseless violence. The State has an OVERWHELMING interest in damping down conditions for male violence, and regulating who can and cannot have sex or get married is one of them. Already it is properly illegal for men to have sex with adolescent girls though doubtless most would do so if it was legal. The same holds true for women, and there is no shortage of Mary Kay LeTourneaus either, said woman back in the news with an interview with Barbara Walters.

* Actually, there are no good arguments FOR redefining marriage to cater to the whims of a tiny, deviant minority. Marriage is the basis of civilization and the family. Two men, or two women, cannot produce a family. A homosexual couple does not deserve, therefore, the benefits and status of a real married couple, paid for by taxpayers.

Children in schools should not have to learn about homosexuality as some kind of worthy lifestyle anymore than they would have to consider incest, polygamy or bestiality the same way.

Gay “marriage” didn’t win because it had better arguments; it won because its proponents are rich and influential, and use ruthless and fascist tactics to threaten the opposition. Got it?

* “What I don’t understand then is why gay marriage has never been a legal institution in maybe 3,000 years of human history.”

Mostly because for those 3000 years no arguments were required. Just as no arguments have been necessary to justify why we don’t go out in public naked, or marry our siblings, or swap children with strangers, or why we do recognize private property.

More Comments:

* The Muslims in Europe still are far less wealthy and well connected than other groups. Their power comes from their willingness to kill and otherwise physically attack those who insult their religion.

* Since Muslims (the vast majority anyway) want to impose a violent, 7th Century theocracy with polygamy upon every society where they are more than a tiny minority, anything and everything people who are NOT Muslims do gives offense. One might wonder what the Copts looking for work in Libya did to give offense other than be (native) North African Christians? THEY certainly did not draw any cartoons, and were beheaded anyway.

* There are over a billion Muslims in this world and they control several dozen countries, some of them quite rich. How the hell is criticizing Muslims “punching down”?

Meanwhile, how many countries are controlled by Protestant Christians? Few. By fundamentalist Christians? None.

* From looking at lists of famous satirists down through history, a few common tendencies seem evident:

– They tend to believe they are superior individuals

– They often are, although perhaps not quite as much as they assume

– They aren’t usually particularly nice people (I saw Chekhov’s name on one list of satirists, and it stands out because everybody has nice things to say about him)

– They tend to be relatively privileged by background, although not perhaps as much as they’d like (Al Capp stood out from one list for rising above a difficult childhood, but then who has heard of Al Capp these days?)

I may be generalizing from Waugh too much, but his personality seems to exemplify a lot of the traits of major satirists.

* The best satire, indeed the original satire is, as Gary Trudeau hints, all about attacking politicians and the powerful. It’s all about deflating the pompous, the vain and the conceited – those who really do think that they are ‘better’ than the common man. Indeed, the more pompous the personage, and the more ridiculous the satire, the funnier it is.
A tradition that really started in the pomp of 18th century Georgian England, and the often scatological and nasty colored prints of Gilray, Rowlandson and others.

Posted in Blacks, Homosexuality, Islam | Comments Off

Life in the Land of Britain’s Political Insurgents

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

TheAtlantic: CLACTON-ON-SEA, England—In 1964, as Britain experienced an influx of Asian and African post-colonial immigrants, Conservative Party member Peter Griffiths was controversially elected to parliament, winning on the slogan, “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.” It was a virulently racist campaign that shocked the British establishment, leading Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson to brand Griffiths a “leper,” jumpstarting the Birmingham division of the Ku Klux Klan, and evoking ire—and a whistle-stop visit—from Malcolm X.

Comments:

* How is advocating Australia’s system, limiting immigration to the economic needs of the nation “anti-immigrant”? The problem is folks like you want western countries to open themselves up to unlimited immigration from areas that don’t share the same language, culture, and identity. Why is is so important that immigration must be unlimited? It sounds to me that you want to answer white privilege with forcing whites into minority status. That’s racism.

* This reads more like a hit piece though at least some of the articles the author links to do give the context.

“his unabashed dislike of Romanians”

This whole interview was in the obvious context of Romanian criminal gangs (which Met figures show to be overrepresented in crime figures), not Romanian families, a point which Farage was at pains to make except that the interviewer continually tried to browbeat and try to trip Farage up by constant interruption and twisting words until he made a statement that could be lifted out of context. Of course, the interviewer and the media jumped on it. Oh, and if anyone doesn’t know the difference between living next door to a “group of Romanian men” and “a group of German children” (note: *children* – I am not even sure why the interview used children instead of men) then they aren’t playing with a full deck of cards.

“he recently theorized that women who have children are “worth less” to employers”

Again, in context this was by way of explaining gender wage disparity in the City, not by way of condoning or justifying it.

“and suggested that businesses ask women to “sit in a corner” when breastfeeding”

In context again, Farage said he did not personally have a problem with women breastfeeding in public but understood that some people and establishments do and, therefore, suggested one possible compromise that he hoped would be OK with most people (though not something he personally would require).

* This article failed to mention certain “incidents” like Muslims attacking an English solider in broad daylight, then cutting off his head.

Everything isn’t about “economics” and theories of elite London School of economics professors.

Regular people in not so Merry Old England have legitimate concerns about crime, terrorism and also preserving their unique English/British culture.

English people, British people had/have a unique English/British culture that they have every right to preserve.

Steve Sailer: Immigration restrictionism is winning all over the world in sophisticated countries like Norway, Israel, Australia, and, soon, France and Britain. The U.S. is so controlled by billionaires that the it seems foreign, but it will eventually break through here, too.

* There is nothing wrong with wanting controls on immigration – including the ability to choose the right people with skills. This is not racism.

In one lifetime, Britain’s demographics have changed entirely and irrevocably.

I don’t know if that’s good or not, but people shouldn’t be surprised if some British citizens are a bit displeased by this. All the major parties have, in the end, allowed this situation to go on for too long, during which time, individuals who had expressed doubts of allowing so many foreigners into the UK had their opinions dismissed, or in some cases, were accused as racists. In other words, during the last 60 years (and in particular the last 2 decades), the British public were not appropriately consulted in respect of the large number of immigrants entering and settling in Britain.

UKIP on the other hand, are a little more serious about this topic. So no-one should be surprised that there are people voting for them.

If you are an actual ill-mannered and ignorant froth-mouthed bigot, you’re probably going to vote BNP, but if you are someone who just wants some more controls on immigration becuase you may think that this has (probably more negative than positive effects) on British society by way of
– competition for housing and jobs
– overuse of public resources
– rapid demographic changes and the inability for some foreign communities to assimilate properly
– immigrants with little or no skills and/or unable to speak English adequately

then you might consider voting for UKIP.

Having said all this, they are still an unelectable party since they have little governing experience and their other policies are a bit weak!!

On another note, I also suspect that a lot of the sceptism of the British public towards immigration in general is due to the bad behaviour of British muslims. It seems that among all the different groups, countries, cultures, and peoples that moved to the UK, the muslims unfortunately appear to be the ones having most trouble assimilating.

I think most people are aware of how this has manifested itself so there’s no need to go through the rather tedious and lenghty list of problems.

* In a world of sovereign independent nation states you can’t simply have free flow of labor across borders. That would be anarchy. Also, there is nothing wrong with ethnic nations like Britain, Norway, or Japan wanting to preserve their ethnic identity.

* At some point highly developed countries are going to decide that they have had enough of being the safety valve for less successful nations. In America, we have a large and growing underclass whose current prospects are dim and getting worse as more low-skill jobs are headed for automation. Admitting hundreds of thousands of low skill/low education (legal or otherwise) each year is just insanely stupid when we could have the pick of the litter from just about any other country. The current mania for amnesty is rank political opportunism without regard to the long-term costs: Democrats get to import future voters who historically have not climbed the economic ladder much once here to replace the whites that are fleeing the party, and GOPers get a pat on the head from corporations that are guaranteed decades of dirt cheap labor for jobs that are not yet replaced by machines.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

Asian Drivers

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

“I believe studies by insurance companies show that the slightly aggressive driver to be the safest of all. Asians drive like they are afraid and are always giving others the right of way even when they have it lawfully. This screws up other drivers who expect them to act as everybody else.”

I used to drive for work on and off as a kid/young adult (was employed driving trucks by age 17). Never had an at-fault accident, but I’ve been hit perhaps half a dozen times over the years. Being aggressive and being confident are two different things, although they can seem the same to an untrained observer. Confident drivers are in control, follow the rules because they know them well, and rarely make mistakes. Cautious drivers are usually less familiar with the rules and culture of driving (this is why they are so cautious), so they are more prone to errors. Aggressive drivers are just a-holes.

Asians are unfamiliar with the American driving culture, which is to drive fast and straight. The American walking culture is similar. This doesn’t work in Asia, because it’s too crowded, so people there meander around and flow through each other like water molecules. They drive the same way. I’ve driven in China, and it was an amusing experience. I was already accustomed to walking there and still young enough to be flexible so I got the hang of it very quickly, but a typical American would have fits over it.

* Adjusting for demographics, L.A. traditionally had the best drivers, and people in L.A. drive fast — the 134 Freeway through Burbank averages 80 to 85 mph when not jammed — I guess the point is to be aggressive but not particularly hostile.

* I take “slightly aggressive” to mean a driver who shows a willingness to break procedure and/or the law to solve a traffic problem. I drive daily for hours on Interstates with many 18 wheelers and commuters. If someone in the fast lane is talking on their cell phone, or putting on their makeup, or are just unwilling to exceed the speed limit, they can cause a dangerous backup behind them. You have to be willing to speed, and, for your own sake, to thread the needle on the right handed lanes just to get away from the dangerous congestion. And yes, speeds of 80+ mph are typical.

The real problem on highways are drivers who take it personally, i.e., the guy driving at 5 mph over the speed limit in the fast lane who refuses to drive any faster because it is the Law, or the other driver who tailgates within six feet of the guy in front of him, thinking this will cause them to finally get out of the fast lane. It never works: the guy in front slows down, and then you have some more dangerous congestion.

Two lane blacktops are a special case; you can usually tell when the guy behind you is in a hurry, and if he is, it won’t hurt to pull over and let him pass. But people rarely do that. The result is another long caravan of tail-gaters.

* Reaction times refer to decision-making times, not reflexes. Ideally, the tests can separate decision times from motor skills. The results are generally that decision times provide an indication of general intelligence (‘g’).

Posted in Asians, Traffic | Comments Off