Museum Of Tolerance Educating Police About Implicit Bias

The Museum of Tolerance and the Simon Wiesenthal Center are getting into the Ferguson racket.

LOS ANGELES (AP):

When law enforcement officers from around the U.S. visit the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles for training these days, they are faced with a choice between entering a door marked “prejudiced” and another marked “unprejudiced.”

While most officers pick the “prejudiced” door, some don’t and quickly discover that the “unprejudiced” door is locked — a not-so-subtle reminder that no one is unbiased.

It’s an early lesson officers receive when they show up at the center’s Museum of Tolerance for instruction that includes implicit bias training, which aims to help them recognize and understand how their unconscious biases can impact the way they do their jobs.

The training is gaining more traction among police departments in dozens of cities, including Philadelphia and Dallas, especially after recent protests over the killings of black men by white officers sparked a debate about the role race plays in policing.

Officers need to make sure “that our language doesn’t unintentionally reinforce biases that have been passed on to us because we had the same thing passed on to us,” said Luann Pannell, director of training and education for the Los Angeles Police Department.

The department, which expects to send more than 5,000 officers to the museum’s course in the next several years, is working to weave implicit bias lessons into existing training.

By Ron McNicoll:

In a demonstration of caring about the inclusion of everyone in its educational mission, 48 people who are connected to the Pleasanton Unified School District visited the Museum of Tolerance for a special two-day workshop.
The district learned of the program from its Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Services, Odie Douglas, who had participated in an earlier program at the museum while working at another district.
The museum, located in Los Angeles, was created as a place to show the history of the Holocaust. It has expanded to include seminars where people can have frank discussions concerning biases. There are special programs for schools. Law enforcement represents an even larger contingent using the museum’s programs.
Pleasanton Superintendent Parvin Ahmadi, other administrators, aides, teachers, and 14 students were in the delegation on Feb. 8 and 9 traveling to the museum. Cost was underwritten by a state grant, which paid the group’s air fare, food, hotel, and for the museum program.
Ahmadi said of discussion groups throughout the day, “It was the first time that many of us had spent so much time together in one room. We were all equal. I wasn’t participating as a superintendent, or students as students.”
The experience showed participants that they all have their own biases, said Ahmadi. “I don’t know anyone who does not have unconscious or conscious biases. We became aware of our explicit and implicit biases. The goal of this work is not to sit and blame people, but to examine our belief systems, our actions, our world,” explained Ahmadi.
The seminar was led by an educator, Terence Roberts, one of the Little Rock 9, the African American students who integrated Little Rock Central High School in 1957. They were escorted into the school through angry, violent mobs by U.S. troops.
Heather Pereira, a chemistry teacher at Amador Valley High School, said that the experience was not so much about merely tolerating, but more about being actively creating an inclusionary atmosphere.
Some Amador seniors who went on the trip provided their impressions of the visit to The Independent. Bianca Herrera said, “I want not only to educate my peers and myself about racial discrimination, but also to learn more about the history of racial relations in the U.S., and to think for myself.”
Galia Menezes said, “It’s important to understand that racial stereotypes are not OK, and to vocalize that with peers. Let them know how you feel. If they don’t understand, you have to move on.”
Madelyne Guyton said that she could see that biases are real and are still apparent today. “It really helped me realize that I myself have biases, and others do, too.” A good way to change that will be to become a better role model for others, added Madelyne.
Saira Grewal said the museum’s exhibits of the Holocaust offered a look at both the victims and the persecutors. It was helpful to understand both sides of the story. It doesn’t mean sympathizing with the persecutors’ actions, but it can provide insight into causes of the events, and how society reacts. “Hitler led (the Holocaust). Some people were followers, and some were bystanders,” said Saira.

The truth from Steve Sailer’s blog:

No, Ferguson is not an outlier, at least not by this fundamental metric commonly used by academics, legislators and federal officials. The Disparity Index, as it’s called, shows that over the most recent ten years for which data are available, on average it’s not even slightly unusual for police at the municipal and county levels, and statewide, to stop black drivers disproportionately—at uncannily similar rates of disproportion. Put another way, all else equal, police in Missouri generally stop black drivers about 40-55% more frequently than the African American portion of the driving- age population would predict under random conditions. (That presupposes, thornily, that (a) traffic enforcement should be random; and (b) that the underlying driving and criminal behavior of motorists does not vary substantially across different racial groups or neighborhoods.) Nonetheless, by this popular-if-flawed scholarly standard, it seems Ferguson’s police department even compares well.

In fact, according to state-mandated reports, the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) “Disparity Index” for stops of black drivers has for the past eight years been about ten percent lower than the corresponding figure for the whole state…

So how is it possible that the Ferguson Police Department’s rates of stopping, (un)successfully-searching and arresting black motorists—all highlighted in the Justice Department’s recent blistering critique—are said to illustrate an agency plagued by unusually widespread racial bias in contrast to other law enforcement agencies? Plainly, these metrics cannot show that, because they are not unusual. Published prior to the DOJ’s galloping 2015 assault on Ferguson PD’s reputation, a 2014 piece in the St. Louis Times-Dispatch also confirmed the Ferguson vehicle stop-related numbers don’t stand out by the standards of the region. It turns out FPD’s data on vehicle stops, searches and arrests fall well within the norms of Missouri policing.

So perhaps the norms of policing roadways and African American motorists across Missouri are themselves steeped in racial bias, in contrast to most police agencies outside the state?

That argument was summarily dispatched in a 2013 NPR story with this headline: “Missouri’s racial disparities in traffic stops mirror national trends” Excerpt: “Over the years, the study [of Missouri policing by scholars] consistently shows that African-American drivers are stopped more than other racial groups. University of South Carolina criminology professor Jeffrey Rojek has worked on the project for more than a decade. He says the finding is not unique to Missouri, but nationwide.”

So, if Ferguson’s Police Department is not an outlier in its patterns of policing black motorists, but rather a national emblem of widespread practices, what is the prevailing explanation for these national enforcement practices?

Left-wing explanation: Yes, most police officers and agencies in the U.S. routinely practice racially-biased law enforcement, especially but not exclusively white male officers against black male citizens. Bias, liberals say, is ubiquitous.

Right-wing explanation: Highly disparate rates of unlawful driving and criminal behavior by a subset of black Americans more than amply explain and justify the geographic, and therefore demographic, patterns of policing across America. Simply put, say the conservatives, cops go where reported and observable crime most often happens.

Can these explanations be meaningfully reconciled? Indeed, are these claims reciprocally-contingent?

Despite Eric Holder’s thin claims to the contrary, the Justice Department broadside on the tiny Ferguson PD for its reportedly systematic bias in policing of black motorists—at the very least—is ripe for generalization to many, many metropolitan American police agencies.

Posted in Museum of Tolerance, Simon Wiesenthal | Comments Off on Museum Of Tolerance Educating Police About Implicit Bias

How Women Whore Themselves Out To Arabs On Instagram

From Return of Kings:

Have you ever wondered how popular Instagram models can afford their lavish lifestyles? All of them post selfies in which they’re showing off expensive sports cars or vacationing in exotic locales, yet they all work low-paid jobs as bartenders or waitresses.

You probably figured some chump was paying for their Louis Vuitton purses and trips to Cabo, but you didn’t know the sheer depths these girls would sink to just for a few bucks.

The man behind the curtain has been revealed, and it’s not a pretty sight. Say hello to Tag the Sponsor, a blog that exposes Instagram models for the craven whores that they are…

Posted in Arabs, Prostitution | Comments Off on How Women Whore Themselves Out To Arabs On Instagram

Have Faith In God And Stay In Kollel

Rabbi Rakeffet says: “We should all pray that our aunts and uncles drop dead and leave us an inheritance so we can stay in kollel.”

* “No hashgacha [kosher supervision] can be 24/7. We are much better off when we deal with goyim [for kashrut supervision]. The OU has only gotten into trouble with Jews.”

Which group in America, on average, is more honest: Jews or goyim?

“He never found himself here. American rabbis are used to being in the spotlight and they come to Israel… You have to come and accept the reality.”

A person who needs the spotlight to feel happy is a narcissist and will not be happy anywhere.

* “I’m a talmid of the Rav and Torah is the only value I have in my life.”

Posted in R. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff | Comments Off on Have Faith In God And Stay In Kollel

She Said She Liked My Yarmulke

This beautiful young woman said to me, “When are you asking me out?” After I sputtered and asked for her preference in restaurants, she said, “You can take me to McDonalds.”
Was she:
* Persian
* Jewish
* Mormon
* Mexican
* Australian
* Asian
* Black

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on She Said She Liked My Yarmulke

Whose Side Am I On?

Pro Goyim posts:

Being that all Jews are the enemy and that Luke converted to Judaism, I would have asked Luke:

“What side are you on?”

“How can we trust you?”

When it comes to loyalty, there are no gray areas.

I am on the side of the Jews. I am so Jewishly ethnocentric that everything I say should be seen in that light. I wake up thinking about the welfare of Jews, I talk about Jews while I’m walking by the way, when I’m sitting at the table, and when I’m lying down. If I ever claim to be objective, I should be suspected of carrying water for the Jews.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on Whose Side Am I On?

How Many People Would You Be Willing To Kill For The Safety Of Your Own People?

Every group nurses resentments. For instance, Jews hate Nazis because of the Holocaust (the murder of six million European Jews during WWII).

On the other hand, many Ukrainians and other Europeans hate Jews because of the Jewish role in carrying out Stalin’s genocides, including the Ukrainian famine (which killed 1-6 million Ukrainians).

As a convert to Judaism in 1993, it seems to me that the dominant view of the Holocaust that I have seen is that an irrational evil overcame Germans during the Nazi era and they acted in ways that cannot be comprehended, but because of the Nazis, all expressions of prejudice and bigotry and racism must be fought as if our own lives are at stake. I’ve learned that there’s a straight line between saying you want no more immigrants of a particular type and genocide.

Over the past 18 months, I’ve shifted from a worldview based primarily on good and evil (with my group the embodiment of goodness and my enemies the embodiment of evil) to trying to understand clashing group interests.

Now suppose that you have good reason to believe that the survival of your people is at risk. How many people would you be willing to kill to protect your people? I think every nationalist worth his salt is willing to go to extreme ends to protect his people.

I assume that most of my readers are Jewish and care about the Jewish state. How many people would you be willing to kill to protect Israel from destruction? What if preserving Israel required a nuclear first-strike on Iran and the death of a million Iranians? Would you do it or would you let Iran hit Israel first with nuclear weapons?

To be a nationalist means that you are willing to commit genocide, if necessary, to preserve your own people.

I look at the world by extending everything I want for my group, Jews, to every other group. If I am willing to do anything to preserve the health and safety of my group with little regard for the consequences of other groups, then I expect other groups to be similarly single-minded. I never lose sleep, for instance, over Muslim suffering. Therefore, I don’t expect non-Jews to lose any sleep over Jewish suffering.

I believe in God and Torah and in the existence of the cosmic categories of good and evil, but I don’t find this useful in analyzing the world. I can call the current Iranian regime evil, but what does that do for me? It recruits me to want to obliterate it at all cost.

On the other hand, by looking at the world as filled with competing group interests, then Iran’s seeking nuclear weapons seems completely rational. They want to preserve their people as badly as I want to preserve mine. In this way of looking at the world, there are no good guys and no bad guys. It doesn’t matter how morally a particular people organizes themselves. All that matters is how much of a threat they are likely to pose to other groups.

You don’t have to look far to see that neo-cons are willing for America to fight an unlimited number of wars, and that the welfare of Israel is at the top of their concerns. In short, they are willing to kill an unlimited number of people to preserve Israel.

This does not shock, appall or horrify me. It just seems to me like an expression of self-interest and many of the people who lead this fight are friends and acquaintances of mine.

I prefer my group, Jews, to all others, but I don’t think we’re necessarily more righteous than any other group. We have different strengths and weaknesses compared to other groups such as WASPs, Asians, Blacks, Muslims, etc.

I would not be shocked if the Jewish state was in the center of the world’s next nuclear war.

I doubt that America would have been hit on 9/11 if not for its support for Israel. I doubt it is in America’s interests to choose sides in Middle East conflicts.

If I had to choose a political scientist I most agree with about world power struggles, it would be the realist John J. Mearsheimer.

Robert Parry writes from the Left:

Buoyed by the Republican electoral victories, America’s neocons hope to collect their share of the winnings by pushing President Barack Obama into escalating conflicts around the world, from a new Cold War with Russia to hot wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and maybe Iran.

The new menu of neocon delights was listed by influential neocon theorist Max Boot in a blog post for Commentary magazine, an important outlet for neocon thinking. Boot argued that the Republicans – and thus the neocons – have earned a mandate on national security policy from the electoral repudiation of Obama’s Democratic Party.

Ali Gharib writes for The Daily Beast:

What was most amazing, though, about Boot’s post was the other subject on which he said the pro-Israel lobby had failed: Iran. Boot himself has advocated for a strike and (perhaps) projects this on pro-Israel groups, calling Iran’s nuke program "their (and Israel’s) top issue." (Actually, AIPAC’s perennial top priority is aid for Israel, which Hagel voted for at every instance, perhaps explaining why the group sat out the fight.) Noting that the U.S. just participated in another round of talks with Iran, Boot writes: "This is a far cry from what Israel—and for that matter America’s Gulf Arab allies—would like to see, which is American air strikes to cripple the Iranian nuclear program." He then keeps digging, adding that "if the ‘Zionist Lobby’ actually ran American foreign policy—as so many seem to imagine—it is puzzling why such strikes have not yet been undertaken." I’m old enough to remember when saying that pro-Israel groups (and indeed Israel itself) want war with Iran was enough to get right-wingers to accuse you of anti-Semitism. Of course, AIPAC is busy itself pushing (non-binding) hawkish resolutions on Iran, but it’s always helpful to have Max Boot clarifying the pro-Israel lobby’s goals for us.

Patrick Buchanan wrote in March 24, 2003: “A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.”

Ari Shavit writes April 3, 2003 for Haaretz: “In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).”

I’m not a foreign policy maven, but it seems to me that anyone who advocated invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and trying to remake these countries as democracies is discredited and should not be listened to regarding Iran.

Philip Weiss writes August 1, 2010:

Gareth Porter at antiwar.com responds forcefully to Reuel Marc Gerecht, at the Weekly Standard, calling on Israel to bomb Iran. Again, I ask, when is this type of discussion going to happen in the mainstream media, so that Americans can sort out what they really want?

the aim of Gerecht and of the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so that the United States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran.

That has long been the Israeli strategy for Iran, because Israel cannot fight a war with Iran without full U.S. involvement. Israel needs to know that the United States will finish the war that Israel wants to start.

Gerecht openly expresses the hope that any Iranian response to the Israeli attack would trigger full-scale U.S. war against Iran. "If Khamenei has a death-wish, he’ll let the Revolutionary Guards mine the strait, the entrance to the Persian Gulf," writes Gerecht. "It might be the only thing that would push President Obama to strike Iran militarily…." Gerecht suggest that the same logic would apply to any Iranian "terrorism against the United States after an Israeli strike," by which we really means any attack on a U.S. target in the Middle East. Gerecht writes that Obama might be "obliged" to threaten major retaliation "immediately after an Israeli surprise attack."

That’s the key sentence in this very long Gerecht argument. Obama is not going to be "obliged" to join Israeli aggression against Iran unless he feels that domestic political pressures to do so are too strong to resist. That’s why the Israelis are determined to line up a strong majority in Congress and public opinion for war to foreclose Obama’s options….

The idea of waging a U.S. war of destruction against Iran is obvious lunacy, which is why U.S. military leaders have strongly resisted it both during the Bush and Obama administrations. But Gerecht makes it clear that Israel believes it can use its control of Congress to pound Obama into submission. Democrats in Congress, he boasts, "are mentally in a different galaxy than they were under President Bush." Even though Israel has increasingly been regarded around the world as a rogue state after its Gaza atrocities and the commando killings of unarmed civilians on board the Mavi Marmara, its grip on the U.S. Congressappears as strong as ever

Allan C. Brownfeld writes in March of 2010:

In The Transparant Cabal, Sniegoski has provided an in-depth, scholarly analysis of the role the neoconservatives played in taking this country to war. Frequently, those who point to these facts are accused of “anti-Semitism.” Sniegoski makes clear that the vast majority of Jewish Americans reject the neoconservative position, along with that of Israel’s right-wing. Indeed, some of the most articulate critics of the neoconservatives are Jewish. Whereas the general American population, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in February 2007, opposed the Iraq war by a margin of 56 to 42 percent Jewish opposition was as high as 77 percent.

From LewRockwell.com February 16, 2015: “Looking at a map of current American military engagements overseas, one cannot help but notice their wide geographical spread and their seemingly interminable nature. Battles have raged in Europe (Yugoslavia and Ukraine), in Africa, in the Middle East, and in central Asia. The American Empire has launched this country into a series of battles that have no end in sight and no location that may not become a focal point of military force.”

Because of my simple worldview regarding conflicting group interests, it is easy for me to understand other nationalists.

Posted in Genocide, Iran, Israel, Nationalism, Neoconservatives | Comments Off on How Many People Would You Be Willing To Kill For The Safety Of Your Own People?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s Estate Was Worth $57,000

Rav Samuel Belkin of YU similarly died poor.

Rabbi Rakeffet contrasts this behavior with all the Jewish crooks, including murderers, who put on kipot and act all religious. There have been articles written on whether or not it affects a judge’s decision if you wear a kipa.

Posted in Chabad | Comments Off on The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s Estate Was Worth $57,000

Fascism Was A Reaction To Liberalism

Anthropologist Peter Frost writes:

Conservatives, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, were pointing out that liberalism would eventually destroy all traditional identities—the family, gender, kinship, ethnicity. Since these identities are nonconsensual, they violate liberal principles of personal freedom and individual choice. People do not get to choose their family, gender, kinfolk, or ethnic background. Thus, sooner or later, liberalism would cause these identities to dissolve away, under the influence of universal education, the increased mobility of people, and the ability of the market economy to offer more lucrative ways of organizing one’s life…

Fascism failed to make a lasting push-back against liberalism. One reason was that fascist regimes were just as likely to fight each other as their liberal and communist opponents. Within the social environment created by fascism, nationalism tended to radicalize, leading to idealization of the nation and desires to expand through military adventurism.

We think of WWII as a struggle between liberal democracy and fascism, yet it began as a war between two conservative authoritarian states: Germany and Poland, both of which had a record of repressing national minorities and grabbing land from weaker neighbors. When the war was over, fascism had perished not only on the Axis side but on the Allied side as well…

Today, the word “nationalist” is applied to parties like the Front National in France or the PVV in the Netherlands that are more properly called anti-globalist or perhaps anti-replacement, since their main goal is to halt the demographic replacement of native Europeans.

This was not the meaning of “nationalist” in the early 20th century and even less so in the 19th. Back then, nationalists had initially allied themselves with liberals in a common project to emancipate the individual from parochialism—emotional attachment to little regions that often had their own dialects, customs, and sense of belonging. The individual would henceforth identify with a much larger nation-state and be able to circulate over a much larger territory thanks to a common citizenship, a common language, and a common identity. Nationalism was thus the first step in a process that would lead to today’s globalism…

It would in any case be difficult to resurrect nationalism or traditional Catholicism within the time available. For now, it may be better to focus on measures to push back against the most serious and irreversible component of the liberal project, “The Great Replacement”:

– halt an immigration surge that is already spinning out of control. We’re in the early stages of a demographic tsunami, and the word is not too strong.

– create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other. There would be no need to impose such a way of life. Many people would jump at the opportunity.

– preserve the genetic heritage of Europe not because we completely know what we’re trying to save, but because we often don’t know. The human genome is largely a black box, and we are only beginning to understand how human populations differ from each other. The burden of proof is on those who seek irreversible change.

– preserve the genetic heritage of Europe because of what we know we will lose: a unique schema of physical features whose purpose seems to be largely aesthetic. These features did not arise by chance, nor did they arise over a long period of time through weak selection. They arose over a relatively short period through intense selection pressures that acted primarily on women, most probably sexual selection.

Posted in Fascism, Immigration, Nationalism | Comments Off on Fascism Was A Reaction To Liberalism

We Need Moshiach Now!

* A Google search on “Christians loving Jews” revealed 6,100 results while a search for “Jews loving Christians” revealed 51 results.

Sarah Silerman is a great window into some secular Jewish attitudes.

* Why do so many age-appropriate women on Tinder use photos of their boys as their profile pic? I’m not into boys.

Scott: “They want a beta provider to raise an alpha’s kids.”

* I just came across this tattoed 23yo girl on Tinder named Temperance. She’s wearing a revealing red neglige. Oy, please HaShem, send Moshiach now!

Posted in Dating, Personal | Comments Off on We Need Moshiach Now!

Israelis Think Americans Are Suckers

Jeff writes:

I used to work at a jazz club owned by three Israeli cousins. I once had to go to one of the owner’s retail shops to pick up some chairs from storage. The shop was a jeans-and-sneakers store that catered to the, uh, urban customer. A couple of employees were helping me carry chairs to the van when the owner came in and started yelling, “What are you doing?!? There are suckers on the floor!”

Strongly identifying in-groups tend to have contempt for out-groups. They tend to respect other strongly identifying in-groups (such as Asians, Armenians,) and to have particular contempt for out-groups with little group solidarity, such as WASPs.

From Forward.com:

JERUSALEM — Though Israel is a famously fractious society, Israelis tend to agree on one thing: Their strongest supporters are an inherently dupable people.
“Most Israelis think Americans are pro-Israel and we can sell them anything, especially mud from the Dead Sea,” said David Lifshitz, the lead writer for the Israeli comedy show “Eretz Nehederet,” or “Wonderful Land.”
“Or — just regular mud with a ‘Dead Sea’ sticker on it.”
But it’s not just American tourists whom many Israelis see as guileless. American foreign policy is held up to similar scrutiny here, even as Israel receives billions of dollars in foreign aid from the United States each year.
“Americans are perceived to be naive, especially when it comes to the Middle East,” said Uri Dromi, who served as a spokesman for the Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres governments. “It is a bad neighborhood and it seems like they just don’t realize it.”
The naivete Israelis perceive in Americans is not just something they believe only Israel’s adversaries exploit; Israelis believe they can do so, too — and do. In a secretly recorded video of a 2001 discussion with a group of terror victims in the Ofra settlement in the Israeli occupied West Bank, now-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out this widely held perception.
“I know what America is,” Netanyahu, then on political hiatus after an election defeat, told the settlers when one asked whether his proposal for a “large scale” attack on the Palestinians would be met with global condemnation. “America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction. They will not bother us… Let’s suppose they [the Bush administration] will say something. So they say it — so what? Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd! We have such [great] support there! And we say… what shall we do with this [support]?”
The paradox that Israelis rely on — and expect — American support and yet don’t trust American judgment on Middle Eastern affairs helps explain the recent U.S.-Israel dustup in Washington. On March 3, that clash reached its climax when Netanyahu appeared before a joint meeting of Congress to warn the assembled lawmakers against their own president’s negotiations, together with other countries, with Iran ahead of a possible deal on that country’s nuclear program.

Posted in America, Israel | Comments Off on Israelis Think Americans Are Suckers