|
6/6/03
09/03 10/17/03
11/25/02
9/5/02 5/20/02
12/19/01
10/23/01
7/20/01
4/30/01
4/2/01 2/20/01
12/4/00
10/20/00
9/7/00 8/18/00
6/2/00 4/27/00
3/13/00
3/00
Nov. 2, 2007
Dec. 30, 2005
Sept. 9, 2004
My New Writing On Dennis
Prager
March 13, 2000
Prager criticized 60 Minutes for devoting an hour to an interview
with Timothy McVeigh, who blew up 165 people.
Prager commended the Pope for his apology for the Church's sins
over the past 2000 years. Prager suggested that the Vatican open
up its file on World War II so that we assess how much the Church
did to save Jews and others from the Nazis.
P suggested that other groups also issue apologies. Western leftists
for not sufficiently opposing Communism. The New York Times for
accepting a Pulitzer Prize for its reporter Walter Duranty who denied
Stalin's Ukrainian famine which killed about six million people.
In his final hour, Prager discussed married couples taking separate
vacations. Prager believes that couples should generally take vacations
together.
Most of the female callers voted in favor of autonomy and separate
vacations while men emerged as defenders of marriage and in favor
of vacations together.
Shmuley Boteach on Susan Block
March 12: I got to meet one of my heroes, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach,
this evening. He wrote the bestseller "Kosher Sex" along
with about ten other books. He was on a special Sunday night edition
of the Dr. Susan Block show.
Last year when Rabbi Boteach visited Dr. Block's show, he was accompanied
by many esteemed members of the Orthodox community, including the
rabbi of Young Israel of Beverly Hills who about fainted when he
saw the sexually explicit art work at Suzy's Speakeasy.
This year Rabbi Boteach was disappointed that Dr. Block had not
replaced the sexy art with Jewish art. The rabbi received an angry
letter from a Los Angeles religious Jew who wrote, in effect, that
the rabbi could be forgiven for going once by mistake to Dr. Block's
show, but to go a second time was to sin.
Rabbi Boteach said that all of America's orthodox rabbis had taken
up a collection to send him on a book tour to Baghdad. He's highly
controversial among religious Jews for his frank talk about sex,
for watering down Judaism, and for promoting himself. Humility is
a big deal among the very religious.
An excerpt of Rabbi Boteach's book "Kosher Sex' was published
in the English edition of Playboy magazine, to the great consternation
of religious Jews around the world who view Playboy as sinful.
At 6:50PM, I walked upHope Street in downtown Los Angeles to find
Rabbi Boteach and his coterie (including his Los Angeles host Alon
Carmel, president of matchnet.com) standing outside. Rabbi Boteach
smoked a cigar. He was very friendly, interested in my book and
in my conversion to Judaism.
I told him that the nationally syndicated talkshow host Dennis
Prager had a great influence on me. Prager also had a profound affect
on Rabbi Boteach. They have been friends for a long time. I believe
that Boteach brought Prager to Oxford University in 1990 to debate
an atheist on the God question for Boteach's L'Chaim [To Life] Society.
Dr. Suzy's hubby Max brings us inside. Dr. Block said she had just
talked to Prager on the phone. He's researching his next book on
male sexuality. Suzy knows of Dennis, but she does not know Dennis.
She has never been on his show or he on hers.
Rabbi Boteach was watching Dennis Prager Thursday night on Larry
King Live debate in favor of California's Proposition 22, which
defines marriage as taking place between a man and a woman. Watching
the debate with Rabbi Boteach was his homosexual brother.
After his last appearance on Dr. Block's show, Rabbi Boteach published
an article on the experience.
Rabbi Boteach recently debated Larry Flynt on TV. Though they competely
disagreed, they got along personally. Rabbi Boteach was touched
by Flynt's affection for his wife, his former nurse. The rabbi challenged
Flynt to a public debate in Los Angeles which will take place March
24 at a yet to be decided location.
Seeing firsthand Larry's affection for his wife, Rabbi Boteach
realized that Larry was just in porno "to make an honest buck."
Rabbi Boteach thought Larry would be hanging out with one of his
models.
Rabbi Boteach's wife Debbie, hails from Sydney, Australia. I grew
up in Cooranbong, two hours drive outside of Sydney.
Dr. Block told the rabbi about her feud with radio talkshow host
Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Dr. Laura called Block a "psuedo-professional
porn queen."
Unfortunately the batteries on my tape recorder had run low, so
I missed ten minutes of the banter between Suzy and Shmuley before
the show.
Right after Dr. Block started the show, Rabbi Boteach took control.
From his ten years hosting the radio show "Religion on the
Line," Dennis Prager remembers how it was alway the rabbis
who talked the most.
Shmuley asked Suzy, a Jew, what she had done to commemorate her
mother's passing. Suzy's dad died years ago. At the time of the
death of her mother, Dr. Block sent a note to Shmuley who replied
in part by listing the different Jewish rituals she should perform,
including having someone say kaddish for her mom.
Suzy talked about inheriting much of her mom's furniture.
Suzy: "I feel that her spirit is more here than ever... She
was an artist. She never got to see this place, but I think she
would've really liked it. I built this place to impress her while
she was alive, and now to honor her [that she is dead]."
Rabbi: "Was this your first experience of loss?"
Suzy: "No, no, but it might be the biggest loss... My husband
Max is now my mommy and daddy."
Rabbi: "My brother is one of the biggest suppliers of guns
and uzis... If you want to blow up your neighbor."
This brother was in the audience tonight with his wife. Along with
a few other members of the audience, he wore a yarmulka (skull cap).
Max: "My father was one of the great gun dealers."
Suzy: "The Christian Right wants to hang the Ten Commandments
up in every school. Rabbi Boteach wants to hang them up in every
single bar."
Rabbi: "And in every bedroom."
They're referring to Rabbi Boteach's new book "The Ten Commandments
of Dating."
Rabbi: "This is the only interview with a rabbi where the
interviewer is wearing a rabbi's hat. You're wearing a streimel."
That's a hat made of fur.
Suzy: "I have four of these. Last time I wore my blue one...
I'll just curl my little payos [sidelocks worn by religious Jewish
men] down my side."
Rabbi: "Back in your Speakeasy, I see that since last time
I've had absolutely no influence on you whatever."
Suzy: "Oh no, there is more Judaica."
Rabbi: "But the [pornographic] pictures are all still here."
Suzy: "Oh yeah, I like to mix it up. This exhibit is called
"Erotic Art of the Apocalypse," so you'll notice quite
a few religious themes."
Rabbi: "Well, luckily, we Jews don't have an Apocalypse. That
means there can't be an erotic art of the Apocalypse. We don't believe
the world is going to end in a big boom."
Suzy: "Apocalypse can also mean revelation."
Rabbi: "Looking at the word revelation, it takes concealment
for there also to be revelation. You first need something covered."
Suzy: "I covered up for you rabbi."
Indeed she did. Suzy is dressed far more conservatively than normal.
The first time he arrived, Rabbi Boteach asked Dr. Block, all concerned,
that she was going to stay modest.
Normally Suzy dresses seductively for her shows, and does them
from a bed. That is where Suzy interviewed me.
Rabbi: "God bless you. I argued with you last time that in
order for there to be real revelation in sex, you first need concealment.
Modesty leads to intimacy. That curtain which covers the body and
says, 'I have a secret to tell you, and I am only going to tell
you.'"
Suzy: "Absolutey. And the secret is the word little. A little
curtain. I believe in concealment. I call it teasing. Women need
to be teased because it makes us come around and men need to be
teased because it makes you slow down. But I think you make people
wait too long, rabbi."
Rabbi: "They always say rabbis are too quick.
"Look, the biggest thing missing from modern relationships
is curiosity. We know so much about each other. This is the age
of the spotlight. Our relationships are being drowned in the din
of light. We are suffering from too much light... The idea of incremental
revelation so people are teased.
"We're living in an age where men watch tampon commercials
on TV and women know that their men have been test subjects for
Viagra... What is their left to discover?"
Suzy: "The American people know that Bob Dole has been a test
subject for Viagra."
Rabbi: "I have no problem with that because he is a devoted
husband. And Viagra between married couples is a wonderful thing.
But I see a loss of curiosity. The old joke - how do you know who's
married at a restaurant - it's the couple who aren't even talking
to each other. Because they think they know everything about each
other already. There is no arc of renewal and part of modesty is
to allow renewal."
Suzy: "I believe in marriage. I'm married and monogamous.
I think that people who are not monogamous can love each other.
I have great respect for swingers."
Portion Of The Week
Chaim Amalek writes: Luke, what better way to end the sabbath than
with a nice kiddush and this week's letter from the National Alliance
[a group with Nazi views]? Seriously, does it not speak to the corruption
of our times that Pierce is one of the few sources of commentary
and news of this sort? Oh, and you had better not put this up on
your web site, because that will only make Dovid Geffen and his
jewish lawyer Bert Fields even more angry at you.
PS As a thought experiment, what is the minimum number of words
that you would have to alter in this article to obtain an essay
with which you would be in agreement?
LF: Email Luke on what
is more evil - the following views or porno? And why.
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of March 11, 2000
The Killing of Kayla by Dr. William Pierce [LF: This guy has Nazi
views - he hates blacks and Jews and other minorities. Prager would
probably oppose giving this guy any publicity, but as Prager does
not operate this site, here goes...]
A number of listeners have told me that I really must comment on
the series of horrible murders of White people by Blacks during
the past two weeks. My initial response to these suggestions was
negative. It is not the purpose of these American Dissident Voices
broadcasts to tell listeners what they already know. If the Jewish
media report something well enough for people to get the essential
facts of what happened, then I'm inclined to leave it alone.
In the case of these recent race murders, however, it is not entirely
clear that the facts were presented adequately. Many people asked
me whether or not the carjacker who dragged the six-year-old White
boy to his death in Independence, Missouri, on February 22 is Black.
They assumed that he is Black, because the murder occurred during
a carjacking, which is an almost exclusively Black crime, and also
because the murderer wasn't shown on television.
Americans have learned from experience that when the media refuse
to show them the face of a criminal, it usually is because he is
not White. There were many pictures of the victim, little Jake Robel,
on television, but none of his murderer.Well, of course, the assumption
was correct. Although most of the national media managed to avoid
revealing the race of the murderer, several local newspapers in
Missouri carried pictures of him. He was 34-year-old Kim Davis,
of Kansas City, a Black criminal who looked as if he'd just been
pulled down from a tree in Africa. He was hanging around a sandwich
shop parking lot in Independence waiting for an opportunity to steal
a car. When little Jake's mother drove up and got out of her car,
leaving her six-year-old son in the back seat, the Black seized
the chance.
He shoved Jake out onto the pavement but left the White child entangled
in his seatbelt. As the Black drove off, Jake's mother was trying
frantically to fee her son from his seatbelt and was screaming at
the Black to stop, but he ignored her and roared out of the parking
lot behind the wheel of her car, with the child bouncing and scraping
along the pavement. He dragged the child for more than four miles,
at speeds up to 80 miles an hour, before White drivers were able
to block the stolen car, pull the Black out, tie him up, and sit
on him until the police arrived. Of course, it was far too late
to do anything for the child, except cover his torn body with a
blanket. Police, of course, marked and photographed spots along
the route of the dragging where there were pools of little Jake's
blood and pieces of his flesh, so that the photographs could be
used later as evidence in the Black's trial.
Do you remember when three young White men dragged a convicted
Black criminal to his death in Jasper, Texas, two years ago? I'm
sure that you do, because the media bosses made it a point not to
let you forget. Over and over and over again we saw on our television
screens those little circles the police had marked along the road
where they had found some of the victim's blood.
Now, I will promise you that you never will see the spots the police
in Missouri marked where little Jake Robel's blood was found. Those
bloody spots won't be shown, nor will the Black murderer's face
be shown, because the media bosses want you to forget about the
murder of little Jake Robel as quickly aspossible. At least, little
Jake's dragging received some news coverage for a day or two. That's
more than two White women who were dragged to their deaths in carjackings
got.
Just a week earlier, on February 14, 41-year-old Sandra Roberts
was dragged to death in Kansas City. I'll bet you haven't heard
a word about that, and you won't hear about it, for the usual reason.
Then there was the murder of Patricia Stansfield in August 1998.
The 46-year-old White woman was dragged two miles to her death along
a road in Streator, Illinois, by a Black who was stealing her car.
After the Black killer, Christopher Coleman, had dragged Patricia
for two miles while she screamed for mercy, he eventually stopped,
cut her dead body loose, and left her in a roadside ditch before
continuing on with her car. And if you didn't hear about this killing
from me, you didn't hear about it.
The media bosses imposed a total news embargo on the Black-on-White
Stansfield dragging, which occurred just after the White-on-Black
dragging in Jasper, Texas. They didn't want news about Patricia
Stansfield's murder to detract from their massive publicity about
the Jasper dragging. The murder of little Kayla Rolland in Michigan
last week received more news coverage than the dragging of Jake
Robel, but there was the usual media reluctance to let us know that
the killer who shot the six-year-old White girl to death in her
first-grade classroom was Black.
Most television viewers had to infer that he was Black by learning
from news reports that he had been living in a crack house and that
he had used a pistol which had been stolen from a local business
by one of his adult relatives. If we were lucky we caught a brief
glimpse of one of his very Black relatives being led into a courtroom
in chains, although we never got to see the killer himself.
If we were diligent readers of news reports on the Internet we
might have learned that he already had been suspended from school
three times-in the first grade-once for stabbing a classmate. We
might also learn that he had attacked little Kayla on the school
playground the day before, and that when he pulled out a pistol
and shot her in the neck he told her, "I hate you." None of the
news reports that I was able to find, however, came right out and
said that he was Black and habitually acted in a way so many other
young Blacks do in racially integrated schools, where they cause
problems far out of proportion to their numbers.
None of the news commentators asked why something hadn't been done
to protect little Kayla from this juvenile monster with a record
of assaults after his display of hostility and aggression against
her the day before. They seemed much more concerned with explaining
away the killer's behavior and treating him as a victim of society.
About the only recent Black-on-White killings which have received
news coverage which even mentioned the racial element were the murders
of three White men in Pittsburgh last week by a Black killer who
became enraged when a White repair crew failed to repair the door
on his subsidized apartment fast enough to suit him and who told
everyone who would listen that he hated Whites and wanted to kill
all White people. It was pretty hard for the media to keep the racial
angle out of that story.
I have a prediction to make, however: the media will let this story
die a lot quicker than they let die a couple of other stories about
racial killings which come to mind: the story of Buford Furrow,
for example, who wounded several Jews and killed one Filipino in
Los Angeles last year, or the story of Benjamin Smith, who killed
one Korean and one Black in Illinois. In fact, the Furrow and Smith
stories really haven't been allowed to die yet. They remain grist
for Hollywood's White-guilt mill.
And I'm sure that you're familiar with the technique used by the
media bosses for keeping such stories alive. They use the old Watergate
technique, the Chinese water-drop technique, in which every day
they breathlessly dribble out some new tidbit connected with the
story, or if they don't have any new tidbit, they just rehash all
of the old tidbits. One way or another they keep the story in the
public consciousness long enough for it to sink in. After the story
leaves the front pages, they remind the public about it with television
documentaries every month or so.
In the past year there already have been several television specials
featuring Buford Furrow and Benjamin Smith. I'm quite sure that
during the next couple of years we'll see dozens more television
specials based on the escapades of Furrow and Smith.. I'll also
predict that we won't see any television specials about last week's
murder of three White men in Pittsburgh by a hate-crazed Black killer-not
even one--because they want us to forget about that as quickly as
possible. We also will not see Mr. Clinton coming on television
and giving us all a little sermon about hate in connection with
last week's Pittsburgh murders, the way he did in connection with
both the Furrow and Smith incidents.
What we did get to see on television after the murder of little
Kayla Rolland, however, was Mr. Clinton pushing hard for more gun
control laws-especially a law requiring trigger locks on guns in
order to keep kids from using them. Are we supposed to believe that
such a law would have kept six-year-old Kayla from being murdered
by her Black classmate? Are we supposed to believe that Black crack
dealers will run out and buy trigger locks for all their guns if
Mr. Clinton and his anti-gun backers succeed in having such a law
passed? What we need is minority control, not gun control.
And that brings us to the subject I really want to talk about today.
You know, I could go on and on about Black-on-White crime and the
reluctance of the controlled news media to report it, because it
doesn't fit their agenda of making White Americans feel guilty,
of keeping White Americans morally disarmed and off balance. I mentioned
three terrible crimes against White people which occurred within
the past two and a half weeks, but these Black-on-White crimes are
not the point.
In a sense they aren't even important. In a sense I welcome such
crimes. I welcome them because they remind us of a much bigger problem
we have, and that is the destruction of our society, the destruction
of our civilization, the destruction of our race by those who have
deliberately brought about the conditions in America where six-year-old
White girls are murdered in their first-grade classrooms by subhuman
animals; conditions where White women and children are dragged to
their deaths by subhuman animals bent on stealing a car with total
disregard for the lives of anyone who gets in their way; conditions
where a subhuman animal flies into a rage because White workers
aren't fast enough in repairing the door to his rent-subsidized
apartment which he himself kicked in when he lost his key and then
begins murdering White people, whom he blames for all his own inadequacies.
What's important is that these conditions have been imposed on
us deliberately, and we're all obliged to live under them, and they're
getting worse, and eventually they will destroy our people. That's
what's important. And if it takes the shooting of little Kayla Rolland
in her classroom in Michigan to make us think about that, then little
Kayla died for a good cause. If it takes the dragging to death of
little Jake Robel along a highway in Missouri to distract us from
our ball games for a few minutes and give just a few of us a chance
to see the big picture, then it is worth it.
I know that sounds terrible and heartless to people who are constitutionally
incapable of seeing the big picture, to people who are incapable
of thinking about anything except in individual and personal terms.
All they can think about is poor little Kayla, poor little Jake,
the poor fellows who were murdered by a hate-crazed Black in Pittsburgh.
What we must think about instead of what happened to little Kayla
is that other little White girls like Kayla all over America, in
most of the schools in America, are exposed every day to Blacks
like the one who murdered Kayla; that evil people in Washington
and Hollywood and New York have deliberately imposed on our country
policies which make it impossible for little White girls like Kayla
to escape being exposed to Blacks.
Of course, most little White girls like Kayla don't get shot to
death by six-year-old primates who have been declared equals and
given seats in their classrooms by evil men in Washington who know
better. Many more are raped than are shot. Even more are lured into
the hip-hop life-style, into the jungle culture of rap and filth
and drugs promoted by the Hollywood and New York Jews who control
the entertainment media to which millions of little White girls
like Kayla become addicted, because it is fashionable to be addicted.
And 30 or 40 years from now all little White girls like Kayla-every
little White girl in America--will be obliged to live in a society
in which there is no protection at all because Whites will be a
minority: a society in which interracial marriage will be the norm,
encouraged by Hollywood even more than it is today. That's what
the Jews of Hollywood and New York and the treacherous politicians
of Washington who serve them are planning for America. That's why
they always overemphasize the rare White-on-Black crime stories
and minimize the Black-on-White crime stories. And that's why any
incident, no matter how horrible or painful, which makes us think
about the future, which alerts us to what is in store for us, should
be welcome.
When I see the Hollywood Jews presenting an interracial couple
on television in an attempt to persuade young White girls that dating
Blacks is fashionable and is something they ought to try themselves,
I'm angrier than when I read about the murder of a little White
girl by a Black classmate. In the long run it's the interracial
sex which is more destructive. And it is the evil men who have deliberately
imposed on America the policies which brought about little Kayla's
murder who are more reprehensible, more deserving of hanging, than
the juvenile primate who shot her.
As early as the 1920s the Jews of America were openly and aggressively
promoting their program for multiculturalizing us, for breaking
up our homogeneous White society and making us instead into a cosmopolitan
hash of various racial minorities which they could more easily penetrate
and control. I said "as early as the 1920s"; actually, this behavior
on the part of the Jews of working to destroy the solidarity and
homogeneity of a society they intend to penetrate and control is
thousands of years old. It's in their genes. But in America by the
1920s it was open and very obvious.
America was at that time a mixture of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic,
and Mediterranean peoples, part Protestant and part Catholic, but
all Europeans, all Whites. The freed Black slaves and their descendants
had their own separate society. The Indians lived on reservations.
It was a White country, and nearly everyone but the Jews assumed
it would stay that way. We wanted it to stay that way. Most of our
people never dreamed that anyone would want to force White Americans
to accept their former African slaves as "equals" and encourage
our daughters to bed down with these "equals." We never dreamed
that anyone was scheming to change our immigration laws so that
they could block the flow of our people from Europe and instead
bring in millions of Chinese and Vietnamese and Pakistanis and Haitians
and Mexican mestizos and Soviet Jews and use them to destroy our
cities and our neighborhoods and our schools and organize them into
voting blocks for the purpose of disempowering and dispossessing
us. We didn't dream that such a thing could happen or that anyone
would want it to happen.
We knew that Jews usually were up to no good, and we had signs
at the doors of many of our better hotels and restaurants and business
establishments: "No Jews Admitted." But most of us never dreamed
that this clever but despicable minority would succeed in turning
our society upside down, in capturing control of our government,
in destroying our institutions, in suppressing our traditions and
our values and our standards of behavior, and in making a multicultural
pigsty of our country. We never dreamed that the day would come
when White parents would be forced by law to send their six-year-old
daughters to school with little Black monsters descended from their
African slaves. And of course, in the 1920s we never dreamed of
television and of the destructive power of a Jew-controlled Hollywood.
To be sure, some of our people did try to warn us. In the 1920s
the Iron Curtain of Political Correctness had not yet descended
on our universities, and many historians, biologists, anthropologists,
and other scholars were not afraid to write frankly about racial
matters and Jewish matters. Unfortunately, it was all done very
politely, in a very gentlemanly manner, and the average White voter
never looked up from his funny papers.
The Jews, on the other hand, were organizing and propagandizing
at all levels, with 3000 years of practice behind them. They were
recruiting the more venal and unscrupulous elements among the Christian
clergy; the most resentful, neurotic, and ambitious elements among
the academics; the most empty-headed and trendy of the would-be
"intellectuals." They infiltrated our universities and took over
whole departments. They bought our politicians by the hundreds.
And of course, they were buying up the mass media as fast as they
could elbow their Gentile competitors out of the way. The "culture
war" of the 1920s and 1930s was short and decisive. We never even
took our gloves off, and they whipped us good. Then they were able
to lie us into the Second World War, and after that our goose was
cooked.
They used the dislocations associated with the war to introduce
far-reaching changes into our society, and within 15 years after
the war they had our whole society in turmoil. And today White children
and White women are dragged to death behind cars being stolen by
Blacks, and the media keep it hushed up while saturating us with
images of a few Whites committing crimes against non-Whites. And
six-year-old White girls are murdered in their classrooms by little
Black monsters who are treated as victims of a White-racist society.
And all the while they hammer into us day and night with their media
the defeatist notion that the multiculturalism they have imposed
on us is here to stay, that there's nothing we can do about it,
and so we'd better get used to it.
They believe that they've got us beaten down to the point now where
nothing will make us rebel. Well, listen Jewboys! You're dead wrong.
Just let a few more of our women and children get butchered by your
multicultural pets, and you'll see what we can do about it. The
war isn't over, and this time we'll fight with our gloves off. Payback
day is coming. We'll start with the traitors among our own people,
with the politicians and the journalists. But we will get around
to you. Believe me, we will!
Luke responds with some points that Prager would make, I think,
if he cared to comment on the above:
One. Dennis Prager said about (former Klansman) David Duke's success
- that when good people fail to make needed points, bad people will
make them. Dr. Pierce raises some good points. Our media does obsess
far more over whites killing blacks than blacks killing whites.
To me, such murders are equally evil.
Two. Heterogenous societies are more violent and crime ridden than
homogenous ones. Australia, when it only allowed white people to
immigrate, had very little crime. Since it's opened up its immigration
policies, crime has soared. America's great diversity is a two edged
sword. Differences energize us. At the same time, blacks, whites,
asians, Jews, etc frequently feel less connection to those who are
different. This breaks down community and leads to crime.
Three. I agree with Dr. Pierce that Hollywood is overall a force
for evil in our society though I do not regard promotion of interracial
mating as bad.
Four. I see some frightening parallels between America today and
the Weimar Republic of the 1920s, when the country polarized into
left and right. The Left so insulted traditional German values,
like the American Left is doing today, that it paved the way for
a huge Nazi reaction.
Five. The best solution to violent crime is that people feel a
strong part of their community, particularly a religious community.
If people don't bond over values, such as religion, many will primarily
bond over ethnicity, which is dangerous.
PS. I just saw the movie "The Closer You Get" which features
an inspiring theme of people mating with their own kind.
Avi writes Luke: Stick to porn and other similar topics and leave
out the racist crap. You really diminish your site and yourself
by putting that trash up.
Music critic J.D. Considine writes: "Luke -- I have to second
Avi's opinion. Stick to porn. Contrary to what that crackpot Pierce
insists, Kim Davis' race was reported in many papers (mine included).
And the reason Jake Robel's death was more widely reported than
other carjackings has nothing to do with black-on-white crimes.
It was big news because the victim was a child -- a child whose
mother tried desperately to save him.
"As for your comment, " I see some frightening parallels between
America today and the Weimar Republic of the 1920s, when the country
polarized into left and right." -- what parallel universe do you
inhabit? I'd love to know where this alleged American left is, because
there's no evidence of them being active in politics. In 1968, when
Hubert Humphrey ran against Nixon, he was considered a centrist
Democat. This year's Democrats, Bradley and Gore, are considerably
to the right of Humphrey. They could be considered "leftist" only
if your notion of the conservative mainstream is Pat Buchannan.
Get a gip, Luke. This stuff is much more disturbingly delusional
than those gun photos and the "Luke is gay" riff."
Jeff: violence, be it racially motivated or not, will always be
worse than porn if you ask me. porn just shows people having sex
which is natural, and i dont think hollywood promotes interracial
dating if theyre still nervous about showing blacks and whites having
sex, at least in porn they show interracial scenes. i think instead
of focusing on the blacks shooting people what does he have to say
about the white men killing people in the name of white power?
Laura writes: Luke even though I know your politics are right wing
I was still surprised you could find even some agreement with that
nazi lowlife bastard Pierce's rantings. Of course it goes without
saying that violent crime committed by blacks on whites is just
as evil as whites on blacks, I doubt anyone would dispute that.
But conservatives like you would have everyone believe liberals
feel otherwise. Also your assertion that a multicultural society
breeds more crime than a homogenous one is contradicted by the fact
that violent crime is down considerably, at its lowest level in
years at a time when our country is becoming more culturally, ethnically
and racially diverse. Furthermore your contention that we need more
religion to bring us together and reduce violence also makes no
sense by virtue of the fact that we are the most religious country
in the western world and yet are the most violent among them. It's
good however that you publish these nazi ravings and bring to our
attention the views and agenda of these sick extremists. And finally
what's with the remark "an inspiring story of people having sex
with their own kind" in commenting on a particular movie? You sound
almost as bad as Pierce.
Chaim Amalek writes: Pierce is a bit too hydrophobic for my taste.
Likely, this sort of drooling fanaticism is why he is one of the
establishment's preferred faces of white racism. Far more interesting
commentary is to be found elsewhere on the web. The most intellectually
rigorous (which is NOT to say that I am in agreement with it - I
am NOT) racist/antisemitic commentary - and therefore the most dangerous
to the Geffens of the world - is to be found at: http://www.ddc.net/ygg/
This is a collection of essays that have appeared on the internet,
first in Usenet, then on the web, over the last five years, under
the pen-name of "Yggdrasil". Not even the ADL has been able to figure
out who this person really is. Indeed, so prolific a writer is he
that some feel that it is the pen name used to cover an entire organization's
output. Interesting to think that 80 years ago, 95% of what Yggdrasil
writes would have been considered mainstream.
I want you all to know that I post this sort of information on
my web site as a public service announcement, to warn the masses
of the dangers that lurk out there. It is also pro-porn, in that
the sooner the authorities realize that the choice is between a
population that spends its time watching porn and TV, and a population
that becomes radicalized through its access to racist web sites,
the sooner the System will come down in favor of internet porn.
And isn't that what all of us really want? In an age in which the
only acceptable religion is no religion at all, porn is the opiate
of the masses. Inhale deeply!
Chaim Amalek writes: Luke, one of the secular jewish pornographers
who read your site recently criticized your analysis of the Pierce
essay thusly: "Also your assertion that a multicultural society
breeds more crime than a homogeneous one is contradicted by the
fact that violent crime is down considerably, at its lowest level
in years at a time when our country is becoming more culturally,
ethnically and racially diverse."
Actually, you are both somewhat wrong. The strongest marker for
violent crime in a randomly selected American community is not,
strictly speaking, its level of racial diversity, but the number
of Negroes (especially young male negroes) that it contains. A community
that is utterly lacking in racial diversity because it is all black
likely will be a very violent place indeed; increase the level of
diversity by displacing black faces with white, and the amount of
criminality and other social pathology will decline. Of course,
move in the opposite direction by turning a white community into
a racially integrated community of blacks and whites (long championed
by liberal jews like Laura), and the level of violence rises.
It is a well established fact of life in this and other countries
that blacks commit more crime per capita than whites, no matter
the absolute level of crime, and even after correcting for income.
For example, consider murder, the category for which the most accurate
statistics are available: black people commit about eight times
as much murder per capita as white people. And this holds true for
other civilizations as well. African cities, including those in
South Africa, are very violent places, but not appreciably more
so than predominately black cities in the United States like Washington,
DC.
In mentioning the drop in the rate of violent crime in many American
cities, Laura fails to mention the cost that all of these cities
have had to pay to achieve that drop - the mass incarceration of
millions upon millions of black men. Our prison population is at
an all-time high, and the per-capita rate of incarceration in the
U.S. is exceeded only by Russia, with its long history of abusive
state power. The cost to the law-abiding has been in the extra taxes
we must pay to build prisons to house and feed all of these criminals,
and in hiring vast numbers of policemen to protect us from them.
(New York City is guarded by an armed force of over 40,000 mostly
white policemen - the equivalent of about four army divisions.)
And we have also paid for this drop in crime with a concomitant
loss in our basic civil rights, as we grant ever more power to the
state to defend us from our increasingly racially diverse population.
And yet even with all this imprisonment, America was a safer place,
with a far lower incarceration rate and fewer gun laws when it was
less racially diverse, many decades ago.
Finally, cultural chauvinists like Laura need to appreciate that
ours is not the only nation to experience the effects of diversity.
There are many tribally diverse societies in the world, and they
can teach us a thing or two about the affect of diversity on social
harmony. In Africa, people have been facing off against each other
on ethnic/linguistic/tribal grounds since prehistory. To cite just
one example from Africa of the often catastrophic effect of diversity,
the Hutus murdered about 500,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, all in
the space of a few months. Someone forgot to tell these people that
diversity was something to be cherished. Ditto disputes between
Ibo and Biafran in Nigeria, between Northern muslim Sudanese and
their Christian "brothers" to the south, etc.
And lest anyone think I am picking on Blacks to make this point,
consider the epic communal violence that wracked India as it was
partitioned into Muslim and (predominately) Hindu states, or the
violence that persists there to this day within ethnically diverse
India (there is far less communal violence in less-diverse Pakistan).
In riotously diverse Indonesia, Christians and Muslims, ethnic Chinese
and non-Chinese, have been slaughtering each other by the tens of
thousands over the last few decades of Indonesian independence.
And let us not forget the many examples of tribal butchery provided
by the Europeans. Most recently, has the linguistic/religious/ethnic
diversity of the Balkans made this a better place to live? Of course
not - these folks would slaughter each other to the last infant
if they could. Closer to home, has linguistic diversity (French
vs. English) made Canada a more stable place, or has it brought
Canada to the edge of disunion?
The grim truth is that where nations have arrived at the sort of
racial/ethnic/linguistic diversity that Jewish Lauras claim to prize
(except regarding Israel, which jews seem to want to keep jewish),
they have become far less stable than homogeneous lands like Japan
or Iceland, which have very little diversity and very little crime.
And where would you rather live - the Balkans, or Iceland?
All of this is not to say that there is no benefit to be had from
the movement of people and ideas across national borders. In the
past, you needed some of the former to tap in to the latter. But
in a world in which ideas can flow electronically at the speed of
light, we really do not need to transplant a hundred thousand Haitians
to Florida to gain an understanding of whatever advanced technology
and sophisticated ideas that Haitian culture (to give but one example)
has produced.
The media-approved notion that unlimited diversity is typically
a source of strength in most nations is a transparent lie, as can
be seen almost every night with the latest news reports of communal
violence from anywhere on earth. Worse, it is a lie that opinion
makers and the rest of us are expected to pay public obeisance to,
under threat of loss of income (e.g. John Rocker) or other severe
penalty. If the only people permitted to note this fallacy in public
are the extremists, then it is the extremists to whom thinking men
and women will ultimately turn to for guidance should the proponents
of diversity prove to be as wrong here as they demonstrably have
been elsewhere. -Luke Ford
PS JDC is correct that the "left" is mostly gone, if he is using
that term in its Cold War sense. However, these days, there is such
a thing as a "cultural left," even if it is fully capitalistic in
its economics.
March 10
Chris Bolton writes on the Prager List about Prager's appearance
last night on Larry King Live: I want to make a few points -
1. I was disappointed that Dennis kept saying that marriage is
not a civil right. The Supreme Court in Loving said it was.
2. Dennis kept bringing up the idea of siblings marrying if we
ok it for gays. In doing so, Dennis, and the other panelists, ignored
the dual nature of marriage - the moral/spiritual aspect and the
legal aspect. Those who can't see this dual nature are willing to
throw out the legal aspects of equality because SSM violates their
own subjective moral/spiritual ideals. Government however shouldn't
be in the subjetive moral business, but rather in the personal freedom
business. Gays should have the legal rights and those religions,
such as mine, that condemn homosexuality, should also be free to
condemn it and not perform gay marriages. Let's keep church and
state seperate. 22 supporters seem to want the state to enforce
their own subjective moral code. This is Talibanesque. If this seperation
of legality and morality leads to siblings marrying or polygamy,
so what? My moral sensitivities should not dictate the freedoms
of others (1 Cor. 10:27-29). What happened to "I may disagree with
what you say, but will defend to the death you right to say it"?
There are no patriots in the pro 22 camp.
3. The panel was poorly made up. Having the former talk show host
on with "Bulldog" was redundant. They had a talk show host for each
side, a clergyperson for each side and to provide balance for the
gays for 22 guy, they should have had me as the Mormon against 22.
Since the Mormons provided so much of the legwork and the money,
they should have been represented. Perhaps the Baptist from Kentucky
should have been replaced with a local LDS spokesman. I would have
loved going after him.
4. The gay for 22 guy seemed to simply be a conservative gay who
faced rejection by most gays due to his conservative stance on other
issues and this rejection lead him to support 22. I can't imagine
why he would reject simple civil rights for gays, even it wasn't
called marriage. I think he may be of the opinion that having gay
marriage now who cause a backlash against gays and he would rather
take a more slow / go along to get along style.
5. dennuis also kept bringing up adoption. this, as we've discussed
is a red herring since gays can adopt now anyway and that there
are 100k+ kids in long term foster care because they are not likely
to be adopted.
I forgot to add that I was disappointed that Dennis said a number
of times that we live in a democracy and that majority rules. I
was glad that the other host, Mr. Perez, set him straight about
civil rights not being up for a vote.
March 9
Prager talked about a film he liked - American Beauty. Its only
healthy people are a gay couple.
Prager thought the characters in the film were caricatures. But
his wife Fran, a former actress, pointed out that is how film and
art works.
If all the characters in the film were black or Jewish, it would
be regarded as bigoted, says Prager.
Prager notes a philosophical divide (generally between liberals
who love it and conservatives who hate it) among reviewers of the
film. Though Stanley Kaufman writes in the The New Republic: There's
nothing fresh here. It is a tired journey.
Prager answers: A film can be great without breaking new territory.
Prager loved the film upon seeing it but upon reflection became
ambivalent. After reading critics, Prager devoted an hour of his
nationally syndicated show to discussing "American Beauty."
Prager sees deep emptiness in much of American life. He attributes
it to a lack of religiosity.
P. agreed with Kaufman that the film's characters were, at the
same time, caricatures and painfully real.
The gay couple are the only ones content with themselves. The other
characters were destroyed because they couldn't confront who they
were.
In his third hour, Prager discussed a finding by a recent survey
- about half of working women see their husband only in passing,
because the two work different shifts.
March 8
Chris Bolton writes Prager: Dennis, I was your first caller off
of the Internet about year ago and I still listen over the Internet
most days during the 10-11am PST hour while eating lunch. The purpose
in my writing is to express my confusion over your support for Prop.
22. I've heard you say many times that you'd like to see a people
that are religious but a government that is secular. By imposing
a certain set of morals on people, government no longer is really
secular.
Government shouldn't be in the morality business, but in the freedom
business. People should be allowed to do as they wish as long as
no one else is harmed. As you are one who opposes bans on smoking
due to some unproven/alleged harm, we should be in agreement here.
Allowing gays to marry harms no one, only someone's subjective morality.
Bans on alcohol, pornography, etc...fall into the same category.
I think it is a sad commentary on people in general and 22 supporters
in particular in that they don't care about voting for something
that is obviously unconstitutional due to denying full faith and
credit and equal protection. They don't care about the rights of
an unpopular group. You, as a Jew, should realize that allowing
laws to be passed that unjustly harm an unpopular minority is wrong.
I believe you've also stated something like you don't care what
religion one belongs to as long as you are embarrassed by it now
and then. As a Mormon, I am embarrassed by my church's pro 22 stand.
The church ignored the words of past church presidents and also
ignored LDS scripture which states that unconstitutional laws are
evil. They also ignored a passage in the Christian Bible (1 Cor.
10:27-29) that says that one person's subjective morality has no
power over those that don't hold it and that it shouldn't be forced.
I would like to apologize to the state of California and to gays
everywhere for what the church helped pass.
Shannon: Well said Chris. The passing of Prop 22 largely I would
imagine by voters who generally vote Republican just further cements
my belief that Republicans are no more interested in getting government
out of the lives of the individual than are Democrats. The smarmy
disingenuousness of Prager (I tuned him in this morning) claiming
that people who voted yes to this redundant issue were not motivated
by anti-homosexual sentiment is just incredible. His slippery slope
stance, "why not, siblings or Inter-Species?" are typical Prager
fallacious arguments. When Lovings Vs. Virginia passed in the late
1960's prohibiting states from enforcing anti-miscegenation laws
(those that prevent interracial marriage), I am sure there were
Pragers in abundance then..."What next, two men or two women?"
Dennis Prager talked this week about how Republican candidate John
McCain self-destructed. He picked too many needless fights with
Republicans. Prager particularly chastised McCain for calling Pat
Robertson and Jerry Fallwell "evil." Prager interviewed
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer who said he was in
love with McCain.
Prager admits that George Bush is a weak candidate and Prager fears
what will happen when he debates Al Gore.
Prager discussed the media's perception that the Republicans are
out of touch with the American people. Why doesn't anyone say that
Gore is out of touch for opposing Proposition 22 (defines marriage
as taking place between a man and a woman) which passed overwhelmingly.
|