Friday, December 2, 2016

Schneiderman on Anti-Semitism

There's something bizarre going on with the whole concept of anti-Semitism in this country. First, read what Stuart Schneiderman says [link] (it may be easier to read at the link) and then I'll comment on it:

The Keith Ellison Perplex


After eight years of systematically ignoring anti-Semitism Democrats went into high dudgeon over Steve Bannon’s work at Breitbart news. The media organization was founded by a Jew named Andrew Breitbart and the article that was supposedly the most offensive was authored by someone named David Horowitz. 

The story was salient because it affirmed the left-wing suspicion that anti-Semitism and all other forms of bigotry came from the one true enemy: the right wing.

Now, the specter of anti-Semitism has come to haunt the Democratic Party itself. In the wake of its election debacle the party had seemed to be uniting around the candidacy of one Keith Mohammed Ellison for Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Apparently, the lesson of election 2016 has been lost on Democratic operatives. As Mark Lilla wrote and as I commented on, the biggest loser in the election was identity politics. Dividing the nation into warring factions did not work out as expected. Placing everyone in different groups based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and whatever felt like a systematic attack on white people, an attack that relied on slander and defamation. And, not just on white people. It all felt like an attack on national unity. In the election the nation rose up against the tyranny of political correctness. 

And yet, as Bob Dylan famously chanted: “When will they ever learn?” This week the night riders of the thought police have set out against a Texas couple named Chip and Joanna Gaines. The two have a television show on HG TV called Fixer Upper. They have parlayed their show into a budding media empire. No one who has watched the show has any but good feelings for the Gaineses. As it happens, they are a mixed race couple. Not that that matters.

What was their thought crime? In truth, it wasn’t theirs. It was attributed to the pastor of the church they attend. According to Buzzfeed, among others, their pastor Jimmy Seibert holds politically incorrect, and therefore heretical views about marriage.

The Federalist reports:

[According to] Jimmy Seibert, the Gaines’ pastor: “So if someone were to say, ‘Marriage is defined in a different way,’ let me just say: They are wrong. God defined marriage, not you and I. God defined masculine and feminine, male and female, not you and I.”

You may, of course, want to debate the point. As it happens, until a couple of decades ago, no one doubted this notion. Now, it has been thrown into question. But, that is not all. It has been denounced as a thought crime, as an offense against the faith. Anyone who believes what every human society has believed and practiced until a couple of decades ago is a bigot and does not deserve to have a television show on HG TV.

In fact, it does not really matter what Chip and Joanna Gaines believe or disbelieve. Attending a church where the pastor holds heretical views is, in the minds of the politically correct zealots, disqualifying.

If you were wondering why identity politics went down in flames on November 9, here’s one good reason. Then again, remember when Democrats and the political left happily excused a presidential candidate who attended a church led by a pastor who hated America, white people, Jews and Israel?

In the meantime, the great minds of the Democratic Party, led by their congressional leaders have missed the point of the election. Alan Dershowitz excoriates them for not being too bright:

What should a political party that has just lost its white working-­class blue-collar base to a “make America great again” nationalist do to try to regain these voters? Why not appoint as the new head of the party a radical left-wing ideologue who has a long history of supporting an anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam racist?

Such an appointment will surely bring back rust belt voters who have lost their jobs to globalization and free trade! Is this really the thinking of those Democratic leaders who are pushing for Keith Ellison to head the Democratic National Committee?

One hates to say it, but how can we ignore the fact that the current occupant of the White House himself had a long history of supporting an anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam racist. Hmmm. 

To be fair, Rev. Jeremiah Wright was not a Muslim and did not belong to the Nation of Islam. And yet, he worked closely with Louis Farrakhan, even to the point of participating in rallies with him. And, Rev. Wright, happily published Hamas propaganda in his Church bulletin.

Do Democrats see Keith Ellison as the new Barack Obama?

Neither Farrakhan nor Wright nor, for that matter, Ellison, could support a campaign to make American great. Even if they disagree over whether America ever was great—they do not—they can hardly be expected to support anyone’s craving for national unity. After all, Wright preached something that was called black liberation theology… a doctrine that defined blacks as an oppressed class that needed to rise up and overthrow their white oppressors. 

Since Ellison had a long history of associating with Farrakhan, it is fair to point out that the Nation of Islam founder has not been very much of a patriot. 

Dershowitz made the case:

Ellison’s sordid past associations with Louis Farrakhan — the longtime leader of the Nation of Islam — will hurt him in Middle America, which has little appetite for Farrakhan’s anti-American ravings. Recently, Farrakhan made headlines for visiting Iran on the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution where he berated the U.S., while refusing to criticize Iran’s human rights violations.

Farrakhan also appeared as a special guest speaker of the Iranian president at a rally, which featured the unveiling of a float reenacting Iran’s detention of 10 U.S. Navy sailors in the Persian Gulf. (Jessica Chasmar, "Louis Farrakhan Speaking in Iran, Slams American ‘Dismal’ Human Rights Record," The Washington Times, Feb. 12, 2016.)

In addition to embracing American enemies abroad, Farrakhan has exhibited a penchant for lacing his sermons with anti-Semitic hate speech. Around the time that Ellison was working with the Nation of Islam, for example, Farrakhan was delivering speeches attacking “the synagogue as Satan.” He described Jews as “wicked deceivers of the American people” that have “wrapped [their] tentacles around the U.S. government” and are “deceiving and sending this nation to hell.”

Those who care can also examine the record of Ellison’s anti-Israeli votes in Congress. The record is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look at it. 

Dershowitz outlines it:

Ellison’s voting record also does not support his claim that he has become a “friend” of Israel. He was one of only eight congressmen who voted against funding the Iron Dome program, developed jointly by the U.S. and Israel, which helps protect Israeli civilians from Hamas rockets.

In 2009, Ellison was one of only two dozen congressmen to vote “present” rather than vote for a non-­binding resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.”

And in 2010, Ellison co-­authored a letter to President Obama, calling on him to pressure Israel into opening the border with Gaza. The letter describes the blockade of the Hamas controlled Gaza strip as “de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents.”

And yet, the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party, including New York’s own Jewish senator, Chuck Schumer have supported Ellison. When Ellison ran for Congress in Minnesota Jewish groups decided that he had had a change of heart. They supported him. 

When Barack Obama declared that his twenty year association with Rev. Wright did not matter, Jewish groups supported him. How did that work out? 

Examine Obama’s contempt for the prime minister of Israel, his efforts to legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood and his efforts to empower the Iranian regime. Then you can ask precisely how much he had really put the Rev. Wright in the past. When Obama sent hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to Tehran, money that would be funneled to Hamas and Hezbollah, the better to support their efforts to kill Jews... who in the American Jewish community stood up against him?

If Obama’s record with Rev. Jeremiah Wright did not matter to the Democratic Party, why should Keith Ellison’s? 

Now, the Anti-Defamation League has just discovered that Keith Ellison is too anti-Semitic. So perhaps his quest for legitimacy at the DNC is over? But, then again, why did it take this much time? And when will people understand that the issue is not Keith Ellison, but Barack Obama?

Okay, Schneiderman's right. It's crazy that Jews, or anybody else genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism, would have considered supporting Obama at all. And it's equally crazy that they would oppose Trump, who has a Jewish son-in-law and plenty of other connections, and about whom there is zero evidence of any anti-Semitism.

I've been thinking about this particular craziness among Jews all my life, and there's only one rational explanation. First keep in mind that most Jews, American Jews at least, are just a bunch of poor shlubbs in the working class, just like Joe Sixpack. Not a lot of time or inclination to think a lot about politics. Likely to follow the lead of their intelligentsia, again, just like Joe Sixpack.

So we're talking here not so much about Jews, but about the Jewish elite, which pretty much directs the thinking of, shall we say, Jake Sixpack.

So why does the Jewish elite, the formers of opinion, almost completely ignore the overt anti-Semitism of Black leaders like the Reverend Wright, Sharpton and Farrakhan, to the extent of actually working with them in support of Obama? And why do they also support the importation of millions of Muslims, who, if they're not literally violent and dangerous, are infinitely more likely to be anti-Semites than any other religious group? And why did so many oppose Trump, who seems to have a very benign attitude towards Jews, and supports limits, at least, on Muslim immigration, which is more pro-Jewish than anything else?

It's because they hate the Tsar.

Huh?

Jewish history teaches the Jewish elite that the Tsar is the embodiment of all evil, or was, at least, till Hitler came along. So they see the problem as a White, Christian, European tendency towards anti-Semitism, which they oppose any way they can. And the more well-organized — we'll just call them Whites for now — the Whites are, the more potentially dangerous they are to Jews. So the Jewish elite really don't take seriously the nonWhite Jew-haters (like just about every Black organization in the country) because they're relatively weak, and they're not White. The same goes for Muslims.

And with some of the Jewish elite, their hate for, and fear of, Whites has become the main thing. That is, they've sort of forgotten why they knee-jerkly oppose Whites, so they're willing to put themselves and other Jews in danger from anti-Semitic Black and Muslims in order to keep Whites from being in charge of things, because Whites are dangerous. And, of course, the more Blacks and Muslims and other Third-Worlders are imported into White countries, the more it screws Whites up and the less likely they are to get well enough organized to be a danger to Jews. And, of course, the more intermarriage there is (a natural consequence of proximity), the less White solidarity there will be.

This is crazy, of course, because in a formerly White country dominated by Third-Worlders of one sort or another, Jews have a much more precarious existence.

The fact is, here in the US, practically all Whites have a positive attitude towards Jews, and Jews couldn't possibly be safer.

There is a minority among the Jewish intelligentsia that understands that making common cause with Whites is the rational and moral thing to do. Schneiderman is one, and there's Nicholas Stix, Paul Gottfried, Milo Yiannopoulos, and this guy, and many more that I can't remember right now.

But, unless you're Jewish yourself, I recommend not arguing the issue with leftist Jews, because not being Jewish, you simply have much less credibility than a Jew would. The best thing is to urge them to read stuff by the alt-right Jewish intellectuals.

How much you want to bet this post will be denounced as anti-Semitic?
------------------
Quibcags: The first is illustrated by a girl from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) , and I've forgotten where I got the harem girl in the second. The third, I found the illustration a long time ago and I don't remember where, and I'm including it because it's a Nicholas Stix quote referring to Paul Gottfried.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

A New Glaivester Cartoon

In response to this [link],  Glaivester drew the below:

His site is here [link].

Monday, November 28, 2016

Here we go again

I swiped this graphic from Vulture of Critique, and you probably can see it bigger and more clearly at his site here [link]. Of course the talking heads on TV are pointing out that it's still a mystery as to what could possibly motivate a teenage Muslim Somali refugee to try to kill a bunch of us with a car and a butcher knife. Now that he's dead, of course, we'll never know, but it was no doubt either racism or Islamophobia, as you can see from the article above. Seriously, if you were in Somalia, and you couldn't find a Christian church to pray in, wouldn't you run your car into a crowd of Somalis and then attack them with a butcher knife? Of course you would. It's only natural. This is sarcasm.

Read Vulture's account of all this here [link].
Diversity is Chaos writes this [link].
And this question from SPBDL [link].

Now, then, will you SJW's out there explain to me how the beautiful diversity we enjoy by welcoming Muslims offsets the death and mayhem we suffer from them once they get here?

Oh, and here we have SJW idiots calling for gun control because the killer used a car and a knife. [link] There were no guns there, but there was a Muslim.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Matt Bailey puts things in perspective....

And it fits into a quibcag, which features, of course, the girls of K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) 

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Matt Bailey has been reading Gibbon, or Poul Anderson, or something like that.

Matt summarizes our situation pretty well below, and all I want to add is that we — "we" meaning our government — already has an empire, what with our having troops stationed practically everywhere, and bombing going on in an unbelievable number of places, either by us or our proxies. Or maybe a better word would be "hegemony," since we don't rule these places directly. If God-Emperor Trump does things right, we'll end up with a more modest, real empire, limited to our basic sphere of influence, and not incorporating incompatible ethnic groups. I mean, Canada would make more sense as a group of American provinces than Iraq or Yemen, right?

Anyhow, here's Matt:

I'm just gonna throw this out: All nations run by democracy pass through the stage where the politicians have expanded their vote-buying projects too much, where too much of the population is parasitical, voting for bread or circuses out of a (diminishing) public coffer. Democracy is no protector of life, liberty, and property when the masses are rushing madcap to vote all those things away. At that point your civilization can either fall to ruin and absorption by other nations, as many Greek city-states did, or it can *rise* to empire under someone with the strength to reign in the masses, as did Rome. Look here, I've seen worse starts for a royal dynasty. Probably rule well for several generations before they start producing Neros and they have to be replaced. 
Look at your blue-haired "Goths and Vandals" in the streets and tell me we don't need an iron man on a golden throne to just make them sit down and shut up. (Should be easy, unlike the original Goths and Vandals these are vegan twerps with no appreciable testosterone...)
AND, worse comes to worst: "The beauty of rule by kings is that changing the government only takes a sharp knife or a few drops of poison"-Matt Bailey
-------------
Quibcag: First llustration found on Pinterest. The second I assembled from a meme going around with Trump as Caesar plus the USA mascot from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).

Monday, November 21, 2016

Hamiltion-Shamilton

I haven't seen the musical Hamilton, and I have no intention to. If, somehow, I did, I suppose I'd just boo during the whole performance, both in solidarity with Mike Pence, and in reaction to the fact that, as I understand it, the whole cast is nonWhite. For some reason, that reminds me of The Terror of Tinytown*. Heh. Well, I haven't seen it, but I still suspect that it doesn't cover one aspect of Hamilton's thinking — He was a hard-core immigration restrictionist, making Trump look like a starry-eyed open-border liberal.

As is so often the case, the greatest journalist of our time, Steve Sailer (you can contribute to him here [link]) has dug into the background of all this, and found a delightful piece by Alexander Hamilton, partially quoted in the quibcag, making all the same points that we on the alt-right have been making for what seems like forever: Immigrants should not be able to vote immediately upon becoming citizens. There should be a waiting period of years, and maybe they never should be allowed to vote. Immigration should be restricted to our cultural and genetic brothers and cousins. Europeans only, with advantages given to the nations whose people already form a large part of our population — Brits, primarily. There should be less immigration rather than more, so we won't be overwhelmed. He quotes Jefferson to the effect that immigrants tend to bring all their culture and folkways with them, including a preference for the form of government they left behind them. And he points out, again partially quoted in the quibcag, that history shows that haphazardly granting citizenship to every rag tag and bobtail tends to destroy one's civilization.

And this is all written in reaction to President Jefferson's policy to call for more and more immigration. Hamilton refutes the desirability of this by using Jefferson's own writings against him. Damn clever. Now, it is written in the rather turgid (to us) 18th Century prose style, but it's worth struggling through. It starts:

Hamilton Denounces Jefferson for Putting Immigrants on the Path to Citizenship

Saturday, November 19, 2016

The Last Time....


Found on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/