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.
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.
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.
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.