December 29, 2016 Are Nazis Marching On Whitefish? Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Are Nazis Marching On Whitefish?

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Richard Spencer says Dec. 24 (86 minutes in): “Tanya Gersh in Whitefish began this campaign against my mother, claiming that she is in contacted with Love Lives Here, a local left-wing hate group, and she was going to use this group to protest my mother… My mother owns a facility here that caters to tourists.

“Tanya Gersh said to my mother that she needs to sell this building and that she [Tanya] will be her realtor. In my mind, it was extortion.

“It is interesting how things have changed. I haven’t heard from Gersh, but the rabbi, the naked rabbi, his moniker, has thrown Tanya under the bus, and that Tanya was not in charge of this, and we were not trying to engage in a kind of racket, that we will protest you unless you sell. Love Lives Here has distanced itself from Tanya Gersh.

“The narrative they are spinning is that these Nazis are attacking the town of Whitefish. Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer has been very explicit — nothing illegal, we’re just going to troll the hell out of these people.”

“You’re freaking out over the Alt Right presence in Whitefish even though my presence in Whitefish is to walk around and go skiing. I don’t attend city council meetings. I don’t express opinions on politics in this town. This idea that I am trying to change the town is ridiculous. This whole situation is extremely painful.”

“These people aren’t used to people like me and my mother fighting back. My mother released Tanya Gersh’s email and they don’t make [Tanya] look good. They are used to pushovers and they are not used to people fighting back.”

Posted in Alt Right, Richard Spencer | Comments Off

The Best Reply to “Black Lives Matter”

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ari Ben Canaan, American Renaissance, December 29, 2016:

We must refute the implied meaning, not the literal meaning.
While Donald Trump’s election has focused attention on the important racial problems of non-white immigration and Islamic terrorism, it has also been a distraction from the racial problem that has consumed the country for the past several years: white-black relations. This problem will not go away. Shortly after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, another black criminal will be shot by the police, and the call will be sounded—perhaps from atop overturned police cars—that “black lives matter!” Why are whites so offended by this slogan, and how can they best respond to it?

The context of “black lives matter” is nearly always the death of a black man at the hands of the police. Typically, whites say that the death was a result of misbehavior by the black, while blacks say it was a result of murderous white racism. Outside this context, the claim that “black lives matter” is innocuous: It means only that the lives of blacks have value. But in its context, it has a hidden meaning or implication, namely that a black person has died because whites do not believe that black lives matter.

This gap between the literal meaning of “black lives matter” and its implication makes it a remarkably effective slogan against whites. We are all adept at unconsciously grasping what is implied from what is literally said, so whites are vaguely aware that the slogan “black lives matter” is a kind of attack—that it is meant to blame them. Nevertheless, because we very rarely formulate implications of this kind consciously and explicitly, whites find it hard to say what exactly it is about the slogan that offends them. Moreover, the literal meaning of the phrase is unobjectionable; only the most callous person would claim that black lives do not matter. Hence, whites are unable to respond effectively to what amounts to an anti-white slogan.

And this slogan, taken together with its implication, is anti-white. As the latest edition of “The Color of Crime” shows, blacks are more likely than whites to be killed by the police because they are more likely than whites to commit crimes and more likely to resist arrest. “Black lives matter” is therefore a way of implicitly blaming whites for the consequences of black misbehavior. Blacks commit crime, resist arrest, threaten police officers, and are killed for doing so—but whites, through a devious process of linguistic manipulation, are made to feel guilty.

How, then, should we reply to this anti-white slogan? The typical reply—that all lives matter—is ineffective because it takes the slogan at face value and fails to respond to what is truly objectionable: its implication. The counter-reply would then be that if all lives matter, black lives matter too, and anyone who claims that all lives matter should have no more objection to the claim that black lives matter than to the claim that white, Polynesian, or accountants’ lives matter. Of course, this retort hinges on a literal interpretation of “black lives matter,” considered in isolation from its nasty implication…

Mr. Ben Canaan is a dissident Jew and white advocate, who edits thejewishalternative.com, a journal for pro-white and Zionist thought.

Posted in BLM | Comments Off

Sustaining The Jewish Journal Of Los Angeles

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

The Jewish Journal seemed to me like the most hysterically anti-Trump of all Jewish publications (almost of which were hysterically anti-Trump). Given that Trump got about a third of Jewish votes, why would anyone on the Right support the Jewish Journal?

There is no better time of the year than Chanukah, the festival of lights, to honor the beacon that high-quality, community journalism shines on our community and our world.
As a community-based nonprofit, the Jewish Journal relies on your generous support to shed light on the complex issues facing our world, particularly at this time of great uncertainty.
You come to the Jewish Journal, time and time again, to read independent reporting from Los Angeles, Washington, New York and Jerusalem, as well as wide-ranging and civil Jewish opinion.
The need for a publication like the Journal to provide perspectives from across the political ideological spectrum – but rooted in Jewish community and values – is now more important than ever.
Help sustain the flame of the Jewish Journal burning brightly in our community and beyond for this generation and the next.

Posted in Jewish Journal | Comments Off

Forward: Inauguration ‘Deploraball’ Split Over Anti-Semitic Donald Trump Backers in ‘Alt-Right’

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Trump-supporting ethno-nationalists and civic nationalists keep fighting with each other while the Left must cheer the personal destruction.

The Forward has devoted more articles and more resources to the Alt Right than any other Jewish publication. They’ve done a ton of solid reporting in addition to the hand-wringing.

Tabletmag.com, however, has had the most thoughtful pieces on the Alt Right, including this one on Paul Gottfried.

Forward:

But the planned gathering has revealed a deep schism within the ranks of a movement known as the alt-right: pitting those embracing white nationalism or outright racism against those seeking a more credible platform for hard-right conservatives.
The party will be held at the National Press Club in Washington the night before Trump is sworn in on Jan. 20, when many official inauguration events are taking place.
Organizers say the Deploraball is a cocktail party for Trump supporters from all ethnic backgrounds and no incendiary or discriminatory actions will be allowed. Organizers call themselves “Trumpists” and say they have sold 1,000 tickets ranging in price from $99 to $2,500. But after an online battle between star guests, Deploraball organizers offered ticket holders refunds “in light of recent events.”
One of the original organizers of the ball, alt-right social media personality Tim Treadstone who is commonly referred to by his online persona “Baked Alaska,” has been disinvited after tweeting several anti-Semitic comments, setting off angry exchanges among members of the alt-right on Twitter.
Another featured guest at the party, Mike Cernovich, has condemned Treadstone for appearing anti-Semitic and homophobic.
“The lines are drawn and the fracture is more or less complete,” he said.
Cernovich, an architect of viral Internet trends promoting rumors of Clinton’s supposed ill health that have been credited with helping push Trump to victory with the support of the alt-right, said he has rejected the alt-right’s descent into white nationalism.
The alt-right movement, which came to the fore during the presidential campaign, is a loose grouping that rejects mainstream politics and includes neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites. It had previously been more widely embraced by libertarians and the far-right fringe: people more opposed to the concept of political correctness than to racial or other diversity…
Treadstone said the main difference between himself and the so-called new right, including Cernovich and Yiannopoulos, is the explicit support of white nationalism.
“If you don’t support white advocacy, you cannot be alt-right and that’s where a lot of people are running into a problem,” he told Reuters.
Cernovich, who says Treadstone is increasingly fixated on Jewish conspiracy theory, said the branch of former alt-righters he belongs to are more inclusive and are primarily focused on populism, nationalism and the rejection of “victim culture and identity politics.”
The group also has no clear leader, unlike with white nationalist alt-right, which looks to Spencer, he said.
Giesea described “Trumpism” as a new breed of Republicanism and said it was still a work-in-progress. “We’re in the process of constructing it, and it’s messy,” he said.

Posted in Alt Right, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off

Salon: ‘Faced with Donald Trump and David Friedman, Jews must resist the toxic allure of tribalism’

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

The essence of Judaism and of Jewish identity is tribalism. Jews are a tribe. They are an extended family partly in-bed (to use Steve Sailer’s definition of a race).

As a convert to Orthodox Judaism, let me tell you that Jewish life largely runs on genetic relatedness. A typical Jew, when he meets with fellow Jews, has a sense of a connection that goes back thousands of years.

The more genetically related people are, the more likely they are to get along. Genetic relatedness is not the only thing that bonds people, but it is a powerful force, probably the most powerful.

A person with few if any Jewish genes is going to have a tough time of connecting in Jewish life. As far as I know, I have no Jewish ancestors, and though I have managed to connect in Jewish life according to my merits, I recognize the challenge all round of bonding with people who have different genes from me.

Salon essay:

My late mother was a shiksa — tall, strawberry blonde and Midwestern — and that’s often enough for other Jews to disown and dismiss me: “Oh, so you’re not actually Jewish.” No matter that my father sought refuge from Soviet anti-Semitism, first in Israel and then in America, or that his immediate family fled the Nazi invasion on cattle trains leaving Odessa. Never mind that my mother insisted on sending me to crunchy Jewish summer camp every year, and prepared a beautiful seder. Forget that it was my father, not my mother, who talked me out of a bat mitzvah ceremony.
The sad irony is that what matters to far too many of my fellow Jews is the “purity” of my blood. I cannot be married or buried as a Jew in Israel, for example, because those institutions are under the control of an Orthodox rabbinate to whom I’m irrelevant, at best. My only option to avoid discrimination is a full-blown conversion to Orthodox Judaism. Other options, including Reform Judaism, agnosticism and even atheism, are reserved for purebreds.

Posted in Judaism | Comments Off

The Male Need To Rank

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

An anonymous commenter observes at Steve Sailer’s site:

I make up a lot of music playlists on Youtube, and my stats say men are about twice as interested in music than women, no matter what type of music it is. Even when the musician is gay, more men are still willing to listen to him than women. On average, men are more fanatical about their hobbies than women, and they like to delve more deeply.

Someone once said that this trait comes from the male sense of hierarchy, and that when a man walks into a room, he’ll rank all women by looks and all the men by pecking order, and this is an instinctive reflex. If he’s an artist himself, he immediately asks, ‘Is this guy better than me or is he worse?’ If he doesn’t create himself but is still interested in music, he immediately starts scanning the entire field and ranking all the talent. If he likes literature, he has to rank all the writers by importance, and this is one reason why women complain that all the literary critics are male.

Men are such compulsive rankers than of course they have to lay down the law about why certain books are more important than others. It practically kills them not to. They’ll thrash around like dying fish if you tell them everything is only subjective opinion. They think it’s an outrage if you don’t clearly establish who is great and why. Men think society doesn’t work right unless you establish clear hierarchies of brains and talent, and thus indicate what you need to pay attention to and what deserves to be ignored, and I can’t quarrel with that. It’s plain to me that the trait has both a genetic basis and a Darwinian advantage, because it helped primitive human society advance into the modern era and pass on the gains of each new generation, building on top of the previous one.

Posted in Sex | Comments Off

Jews Should Be Fighting the Far Left, Not the ‘Alt-Right’

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Joshua Seidel writes for the Forward:

Liberal Journalists have had a tough couple of months. Liberal Jewish journalists? Even tougher. Nothing seemed to work this year. Trump was the worst person ever to run for President, they said. The mainstream media and Hollywood pulled out all the stops. Celebrity videos, polemics by noted thinkers like George Takei and Lena Dunham, CNN panelists; they all tried to tell us Trump hates women, Jews, Black people, and the Constitution.

To no avail.

Perhaps nothing stings so much as “defections” from trusted minority groups. Some in the Jewish community are engaged in furious reprisals against fellow Jews who dared support the “Orange Fuhrer”. Ivanka Trump was harassed on an airplane, Jared Kushner’s Judaism was questioned. I knew my turn was coming, and indeed, enter Jamie Kirchick (not really a “liberal”, but very anti-Trump) and his recent Daily Beast piece, “The Jews Begging to Join the Alt-Right”, targeting myself and fellow contributors to our website “The Jewish Alternative”.

Despite Kirchick’s title, the “alt right” doesn’t constitute something one can “join”. There’s no organized alt-right political party, no organization that can lay complete claim to the title. There’s just people, who have come to their political conclusions in the same manner that Kirchick has. Some of them hate Jews. My fellow contributors and I are Jewish, and therefore, they hate us. It’s really that simple. We may share some political positions with these anti-Semites, we may agree on some issues, but we are not the same thing, not in the same “group”, and never will be. Kirchick’s semantic games, repeated so many times by the media (all alt-right are Nazis, alt-right supports Trump, therefore Trump = Nazi) failed to influence the election or shut yours truly up.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off

‘As Brexit and the rise of Trump have already shown, we are living in an age of miracles.’

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Towards the end of his oped, he mentions how important high skilled immigrants like medical doctors are. I live in a town the SF bay area, where a majority of Docs are from India.

The original idea behind allowing immigration of medical professionals was to infill poorly serviced rural areas. Somehow this too went off the rails, and was gamed by those who could effortlessly outmaneuver the system.

No the solution is to curtail ALL immigration, not just low skilled, until the system fixed.

* I hope Stephen Miller, who’s heading up the inaugural address preparation, will draw on the moral basis for national sovereignty presented in this essay. I’ve never seen the case made in a more compelling and concise way. It’s by Mark Amstutz, a political science professor at Wheaton College.

National sovereignty encourages solidarity, subsidiarity, and stewardship. “The communitarian view reminds us that human beings achieve their full humanity through social interaction in specific communities. We are ennobled by our sense of belonging within families, neighborhoods, and nations.”

* This is a good start. Others should begin to undermine the glowing U.S. Immigration narrative that has arisen in popular culture because it’s the reason that otherwise reasonable people are failing to see and appreciate the current problems. The survivorship bias (successful immigrants had families, so their great-grandchildren view immigration as an unmitigated good) needs to be tempered with stories of failed immigrants who returned home or lie alone and anonymous in potter’s fields. It’s a halo effect that has to be destroyed before we can talk about immigration and the national interest more openly.

I took every opportunity during political discussions between Thanksgiving and Christmas when talk about “how divided we are” arose to point out the near historical high level of foreign born in the U.S. and the propensity for children of most recent immigrants to retain their parents’ cultures and languages (and speak English fluently at a much diminished degree).

* I am in biotech and my wife is in dentistry in the Bay Area. Both of these industries have a tremendous imbalance of labor supply and demand fueled by legal immigration. And we’re not exactly uneducated bumpkins I have a PhD and she has a DDS.

* Carlos Slim, the owner of the NYT, has gotten rich from exploiting Mexican laborers living in the United States. This impacts what the NYT says about illegal and legal immigration. Also, the NYT’s writers and editors want more Latino immigrants because they’ll vote for the Democrats.

* Tom Cotton says he wants to reduce legal immigration in total while increasing highly skilled immigration? I say the only answer is a complete moratorium on all immigration combined with the immediate deportation of all illegal alien invaders.

Cotton seems to be playing some kind of bait-and-switch game. Cotton just wants a huge jump in the number of H-1B visa entrants into the United States. Cotton will fail to deliver reductions to legal immigration while massively increasing H-1B visa admissions.

Cotton should start a few brawls with Republicans and Democrats to make his case sound more honest. Cotton should challenge Richard Trumka and Martin O’Malley to a debate on immigration. After that Cotton could debate Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham.

Mass immigration increases income inequality. Mass immigration lowers wages. Mass immigration increases housing costs.

Immigration reductions will boost wages. Immigration reductions will lessen housing costs. Immigration reductions will make family formation more affordable.

* I am American and was visiting a friend in Canada. She pulled strings to get me in with her OB due to a pressing medical situation. Nice guy. I couldn’t place his accent and asked my friend. He was South African. Canada had a program where you practiced X number of years in an underserved area and you got to immigrate. He spent a number of years up in the Yukon, I believe, before he was free to move and work where he liked.

* Hallelujah! It’s about damn time somebody applied the law of supply and demand to the labor markets. White people can’t compete against hordes of Third Worlders for whom $7 an hour is a fortune.

* I rarely see women as hot as Jennifer Jason Leigh and Phoebe Cates working at McDonald’s. It’s mostly ugly Mexican and ugly Central American chicks.

The attractive female fast food employees work at Chick Fil-A.

* I met a dean of a Chicago area medical school last year who remarked that the US has a chronic shortage of doctors on purpose, contrived by the American Medical Association in order to keep the practice of medicine a highly paying profession.

* The AMA limits the number of U.S. medical school seats but does nothing to prevent foreign doctors from flooding in to meet demand? Something doesn’t add up. I don’t buy that the US market for medicine can somehow be bifurcated, with supply of foreign docs having no effect on the demand and price of domestic ones. How is that possible? Even if it were, why not just train US docs for the “lower-tier” market?

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

Is Trump Pro-Israel?

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

I think Donald Trump sees Jews and the Jewish state primarily in terms of what is good for him and his country. When Jews are useful, he uses them. When blacks are useful, he uses them. I don’t think Trump is sentimental about Jews or Israel. I expect Trump will act in his self-interest and I hope in America’s interest.

Trump knows that he does not need all Jews on his side, he just needs to keep some powerful Jews on his side, and if that means siding with Israel at times, he’ll do that.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: “America, Zionism, and the Path to Mutual Respect”

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “The path to mutual respect is to insist upon reciprocity. The most reasonable bargain would be for conservatives to demand of neoconservatives that in return for American support for Zionism, Zionists must publicly support America deploying the same immigration policies as Israel currently enjoys.”

Comments:

* A sensible suggestion, though ignoring the foreign policy costs the US pays for its support of Israel, including the ways it entangles the US in foreign wars and rivalries.

Interesting to note however the currently fourth newest comment beneath the article, from someone apparently subsequently removed (“guest”) by either Taki’s or by Disqus:

“So, apparently, linking to this typically informative piece by Mr. Sailer has gotten me banned from NRO and all my previous comments removed, down the Stalinist photoshop memory hole.”

As I’ve noted before, we face an onslaught against dissident opinion on all the fronts of “political correctness”, but the suppression of opinion seen as unpalatable by jewish nationalists and identity lobbyists seems to be the most ferociously and efficiently policed aspect of the assault on liberty. Something another of Sailer’s recent pieces touched upon:

Will Trump be Good for the Jewish People

* In my experience there’s almost nothing I can say about Israel, or even about Jews, that will not result in some nut, or crook, accusing me of anti-semitism. So I’m saying nowt.

* “It’s not my country.”

But in the US, esp if one is conservative, one gets nowhere without loving Israel more than one’s own country.

Just a reality.

So, it’s not a matter of passion for Israel. It’s about passion for independence FROM Israel-First-ism, which has turned into a right-wing version of minority-first-ism.

‘Rightist’ Jews tell gentile conservatives, “you must love Israel more than the US.”
‘Leftist’ Jews tell gentile liberals, “you must love non-white minority more than white majority.”

So, even if one has no feelings about Israel itself, American Politics is impossible without impassioned(or enraged) reactions to relation between US and Israel even if one is indifferent to issues INSIDE Israel.

It’s like this. Suppose Taiwan Lobby is the most powerful in America. Suppose Taiwanese-Americans have dominant control of media, academia, finance, and etc.
Now, suppose most of us don’t care about Taiwan itself or its relations with China.
But the fact is we still need to pay a lot of attention to the Taiwan Factor since the ruling elites would be Taiwanese-Americans who use all means, fair and foul, to compel us to support their agenda. We have no choice.

The problem with Israel is we don’t have to a choice. We must feign ‘passion’ even if we don’t have it if we are to get anywhere in America. That is the problem.

We don’t have to care about Armenia or Nepal to make it in the US. But try to move up the ladder, esp in politics or media, if one is indifferent or esp hostile to Israel.

* This might have gotten the sequence of events backwards: America’s immigration hawks have had to win first. Then, maybe, they’re in place to offer something to the Zionists for their ongoing support.

It’s early to say, but it’s possible that trends are pushing Zionism more and more towards being a movement of the right, or, conversely, leaving little comfortable ideological room for left-wing Zionists. I expect Trump to be even more unabashedly pro-Israel and pro-Likud than even the Bush Administration, both out of personal inclinations (his son-in-law is an Orthodox Jew; his proposed ambassador to Israel is Orthodox and also a supporter of the settler movement; and I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump generally sees the Palestinians as a bunch of losers); as well as political convenience. Support for Israel scrambles the whole “Trump is a Nazi” meme and squeezes the majority of American Jews – who are liberal, Reform, often secular, but still try to be Zionist – into an uncomfortable position. Obama, of course, has helped this by selling Israel out, the first time an American President has ever done so, at the UN. Israel is turning more and more right wing itself.

Again, it’s early to say, but this might be a positive development. Scrambling the allegiances and personal loyalties of and causing discomfort to a group that would produce many of Trump’s biggest potential political foes (liberal American Jews) isn’t a bad thing. I personally don’t see and have never seen why the US needs to engage in the kabuki of playing some sort of “honest broker” for “peace,” as opposed to supporting an ally outright, or for that matter what claim, after seven unbroken decades of defeats, the Palestinians have to nationhood, other than being propped up by broader international power politics. (Does anyone today mourn Biafra?) The irony that the majority of American Jews would lose control over the American-Israeli relationship, the meaning of Zionism, and part of their own identity to an aggressive and identitarian minority would be an ironic and fractally-shaped phenomenon.

Then again, the last Republican President who played footsie with American and Israeli neocons caused a lot of trouble and ran his own Administration and party into a ditch.

* I presume this means support for immigration policies that promote the maintenance or re-establishment of the United States as a European- or Northern European-majority country, explicitly end birthright citizenship, and allow for the deportation of all illegal infiltrators.

* Obama did not “sell Israel out.” The United States owes Israel nothing.

* I’m sick of the Middle Eastern wars. Thousands of Americans dead and trillions of dollars gone, and for what? Elevated testosterone levels in the blood of a few neocons and flush bank accounts for a few oil barons? We can toss the Israelis materiel and money (and their relatives can chip in privately), but they’re not worth the bones of one Alabama grenadier.

* “…Israel doesn’t arouse strong passions in me…”

I want you to close your eyes and think of Golda Meir for 30 seconds.

* Gotta hand it to Obama: Stirring up crap with Israel might turn out to be a clever way of tripping up Trump.

If I had to identify the biggest fault lines in the Trump coalition, Israel would be near the top. On one hand, you’ve got Trumpers who view Israel as a friend, ally, and potential model for a responsible resurgence of nationalism; they merely seek to rein in the Bush-era neocon nuttery and avoid straying too far from narrowly-defined US interests.

On the other hand, you’ve got the Trumpers who think (((echoes))) are funny and see right-wing Israeli Zionism and left-wing Jewish subversion of Western culture as two sides of the same evil coin.

The good thing is that, as of right now, both sides seem to realize that they need the other, so they’re keeping a lid on internal disagreements.

Trump himself appears to fall into the first camp, but he’s conscious that he has a lot of supporters in the second camp, so he tries to avoid antagonizing them. I’m hoping he’ll continue that approach, but it might be hard, especially if the Left tries to intentionally stoke the flames. I’m hoping Trump and his supporters — and the Israelis, for that matter — won’t fall for this transparent “let’s you and him fight” gambit.

* Israelis should purse their interests and their security as they see fit. And America should stop being the co-signer on their mortgage.

* Israel’s built-in immigration policy is Right of Return, which is a variation of family reunification in a sense.

It’s also in a sense similar to the White Australia policy, which seems very sensible in practice, though I would never say that out loud. Did I just say that out loud?

I got into iSteve mainly on the immigration issue (and movies): Tie it to labor demand, and have it reflect the founding population. Unfortunately, possession and the law and that, the ‘changing demographics’ kind of ruined the second part.

‘Citizenism’ is where it’s at, and it really should be used by Trump and everyone else to describe the general philosophy of this new movement or whatever it is.

Leftists get very stroppy when you even differentiate between citizens and non, esp. here in NYC. But citizens don’t. That’s why we should use it.

* Obama doesn’t like Israel. Netanyahu did endorse Mitt Romney after all. So on his way out he declines to use his veto to protect them from some UN resolution. Kerry says then goes and says apartheid is bad. Netanyahu complains. Trump, hoping to gain some points with the (non-alt-)right and possibly get to see his grandkids more often, goes after Obama and claims he’ll be nicer to Israel, annoying the alt-right.

Now did Obama do this to split the non-alt-right and alt-right? Maybe. Most of Trump’s working class base doesn’t give a pork bottom one way or the other about Israel, but the elite left is always on Twitter and is hoping to see the /pol/ crowd turn on Trump. Doesn’t really seem to be working so far–everyone’s more worked up over Baked Alaska versus Cernovich from what I can see.

* As an American rightie, my view on the Jewish Question is pretty simple: I play by the rules as I have found them. Since the end of World War II, one of the ironclad rules has been: No antisemitic (or anti-Jewish, or anti-Zionist, or anti-Israel, or whatever you want to call it) person from the right will ever be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. Ever. Period. End of discussion.

Don’t like it? Thank good ol’ A.H.

As with all rules, this one will probably be modified, eventually — but probably not for, I’d say another 100 years, at least: Around 2116 or thereabouts. Long enough for World War II to seem as far in the past as the War of Austrian Succession is today.

Now the left is a different kettle of fish. If hating on Israel or whatever is a nonnegotiable issue for you, then your place in this day and age is on the left. On the left, you can stand around all day singing the Horst Wessel Lied and reading aloud excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but as long as you’re wearing a Che Guevara shirt and dreadlocks, and throw in a sprinkling of quotes from Marx and Jay-Z, then a jaw-droppingly huge chunk of the left will be willing to look the other way and make excuses for you. Not ALL of them will — but enough will. You’ll be protected.

If that’s your thing, then go out and live your dreams, man.

But shave your head and start flashing Nazi salutes, and the entire culture, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, will wheel its artillery around and unload on your coordinates. Nukes will be authorized. There will be no survivors.

Fine. I can live with that. Jewish malevolence towards gentiles is way, way, waaaaay down the list of my concerns. It’s not a nonissue for me, but it’s way, waaaaaay down there. I am a Woody Allen fan, for crying out loud. If enthusiasm for Jews and Israel is the price I have to pay to be a respectable right-winger, I’ll be happy to pay it … up to a point. I’m an American and will always place American interests first: That’s nonnegotiable for me. But if I have to say “yay, Israel! Yay, Bibi!” every now and then to get there … hey, whatever, man.

I suspect Donald Trump would agree. The only reason we GOT Trump is because he reliably spouts the bipartisan consensus on Israel.

Like I said: Fine. Whatever. I have more pressing issues. Yay, Israel. Are you happy now?

As Steve said: It’s not my country. Let me have a sane, responsible government for MY country, and then Israel can go do whatever the hell it wants, as long as they keep me out of it.

* Obama did this for his own ego, nothing to do with Trump. He despised Bibi from day one, and the enmity was similar to that between him and Putin, palpable and uncomfortable. Obama was never good at mixing with strong alpha males like Putin or Bibi, preferring to kid around and take selfies with Trudeau, Merkel or Turnbull in Australia.

Support for Israel is pretty much 89% among Trump supporters, 10% don’t give a toss, and 1% are strongly anti-Israel (e.g. Richard Spencer etc). Trump supporting Bibi and inviting him to the White House will show two alpha males in good company, in agreement, and both demonstrating strength and resolve to Arabs, the UN, and the EU. Liberal Jews will be forced to accept Trump will probably be the most pro-Israel President in history, and will probably be the most well-loved US politician in Israel (the amount of support for Trump among the right wing Israelis over there is already ‘yuge’).

Trump, however, is not so dumb as to kowtow to another world leader, especially a world leader who is very similar to him (there will be a male rivalry between Bibi and the Don, in a good natured way). Trump will ‘stand with Israel’ but I doubt he will permit the exorbitant foreign aid to continue. He also has an uncanny way of charismatically going againt the Israel/Neocon narrative. Look at Iraq and the Mid East more generally – during the primary debates he frequently denounced Bush and Co as ‘knowing’ that Saddam had no WMDs yet invaded anyway. He denounced the ‘stupid’ decisions made by past administrations in going into the Mid East and not winning anything, spending trillions and costing thousands of lives. This goes against the Yinon Plan, which has been a staple of Israeli foreign policy since the 70s and 80s (i.e. intervene in the Mid East to destabilise Arab nations and splinter them into ethnic factions. Iraq was specifically targeted by Yinon as a country to destabilise as soon as practicable). Trump’s foreign policy, ergo, is completely antithetical to Bibi’s or Likud’s. Trump won’t fold on that either, if there’s one thing he is dead-set consistent on is his anti-interventionism.

In other words, Trump will control Bibi and ‘manage’ him, like he did with Paul Ryan or the GOP Congressional leaders. Trump is a master manipulator and PR genius. He isn’t so stupid as to be made a fool of by another alpha male. It’s all psychological for him, and for this reason, I’m extremely confident he will use Israel to his – and America’s – advantage.

* I owe Israel nothing. Nada. I don’t care whether it collapses tomorrow or endures for a thousand years. I feel nothing for it (or against it).

To me, Israel is little more than a vacuum cleaner sucking money out of the U.S. Treasury. If it weren’t for Mideast oil, I’d stand back and watch the Jews and the Arabs slaughter each other to their hearts’ content.

In that fight, I’d root for the Jews, if only because Islam is such a fearsome enemy. I might even bankroll them, but not to the extent that we’re bankrolling them now.

As an American, I seek to benefit myself and my country. Any benefits that might accrue to other countries through my actions are purely incidental. If other countries prosper as America jockeys for world leadership, wonderful; if not, too bad.

Something tells me that the Israelis don’t sit around agonizing over whether they’re getting an unfair amount of aid from Uncle Sam. “Oy, how can we ever repay the Americans for all they’ve done for us? We’re in their eternal debt!”

I don’t begrudge any man his single-minded devotion toward making his land and his kind reign supreme above all others. Jews, American or otherwise, are perfectly within their rights to try to convince me that I should give a hoot whether their supposed homeland withers or thrives. I’m perfectly within my rights to tell them that I don’t care one way or the other.

Of course, the sad truth is that many of my fellow goys are dumb and/or naive enough to swallow the BS: “Israel must get everything it wants, and more!” If I weren’t a free-speech absolutist, I would say that the neocons’ views should be censored to protect the feeble-minded. But I do honestly believe that, in the end, the downsides of too much freedom of expression are far more tolerable than those of too little.

* Steve Sailer: “Adelson’s behavior in 2016 was admirable.”

Posted in America, Israel | Comments Off