Discussion:
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby (1/27/2020)
(too old to reply)
Michael Ejercito
2020-01-29 19:03:05 UTC
Permalink
http://view.email.bostonglobe.com/?qs=2d0fdf3adb221e586b8f27ad00611a16ff91555c0ccbe1f051e849c040b76155eec2783e66ad706232d5d6185b07caa0002df68dab9435cd8c6483f6f3d77421f46da2ae01d680e52b8a0595798f748a98cd4291a0bfaac6


View web version
The Boston Globe
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby

Monday, January 27, 2020



Notes from a survivor's son

“Children of Holocaust survivors,” a friend once said to me, “always know
where their passport is.”

I don’t know whether that statement is categorically true, but I took it to
be shorthand for a broader point: Jews raised by parents who lived through
the Nazi genocide never take their safety entirely for granted. If they are
blessed to live in a free and tolerant country like the United States, they
might be confident that “it can never happen here” — but that confidence
doesn’t amount to absolute certainty. At some level, their parents’
experience in Nazi Europe will have shaped their deepest beliefs about their
own society and their place in it.

Today marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death
camp, and the occasion has spurred a great deal of coverage about that place
of pure evil, and the larger Holocaust of which it was just a fraction. I
have a column on the subject in today’s Boston Globe , which I hope you will
read, but I wanted to write here on a theme I have never directly addressed
before: How has my perspective been formed by my identity as a survivor’s
son?



I can barely remember a time when I didn’t know that my father’s family was
wiped out by the Nazis. How I first came to learn what had befallen them, I
don’t know. I’m sure it wasn’t from my father, since it wasn’t something he
spoke about when I was very young. Yet I clearly recall looking at books
with photographs from the Nazi era and understanding that they were
connected to my own family history. I have a vivid memory of writing
“Hitler” on the bottom of my shoe in school when I was 7 or 8 years old, in
order to scuff out his name as I walked.

So awareness of the Holocaust has been a constant in my life. On a number of
occasions over the years I have written and spoken about my father’s
experience. It would be strange indeed if it hadn’t influenced my worldview
and political opinions. But until now I’ve never tried to summarize that
influence in words. Here is a first attempt.

Growing up with a father who was a Holocaust survivor — and living in a
community that was home to many other survivors — taught me to be deeply
wary of a too-powerful government. My strong libertarian, small-government
streak is rooted in the knowledge that the immense horror and evil of the
Holocaust were engineered by a totalitarian government with unchecked power.
I couldn’t disagree more strongly with the serene view that “government is
simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” The
stronger the government, the more likely it is to disregard what citizens
“choose to do,” and to force them instead to bow to the will of the rulers.
Power tends to corrupt, Lord Acton wrote. The Holocaust shows how black and
pitiless the corruption of a powerful state can become. Some government is
necessary. Too much is lethal.

Also lethal, in my view, is the glorification of politicians . The newsreel
footage of Adolf Hitler addressing those massive, adoring, “Sieg Heil”-ing
rallies left me with an indelible revulsion for mass rallies generally, and
the adoration of political figures in particular. Before the Nazis came to
power, most people would have thought it inconceivable that sober,
civilized, educated Germans could turn en masse to a hate-spewing demagogue,
but turn they did and in staggering numbers. There is an intoxicating
derangement in crowds that creeps me out. I have never been able to see
images of mass rallies — even rallies for causes I admire, like the
anti-China resistance in Hong Kong, or for causes of no real importance,
like the vast Duck Boat throngs when a sports team wins a championship —
without a sense of foreboding. I shudder when I see citizens flock together
by the tens of thousands, screaming themselves hoarse in support of a
politician.

Closely related to that sentiment is my conviction that decency is the most
important criterion in a political leader. Of course I want public officials
who have sound views on the economy and foreign policy, on national defense
and criminal justice. But above and beyond that, I want public officials who
are reasonably honest and moral. The Third Reich stands as the ultimate
example of what can happen when individuals of evil character come to power.
Nothing in America’s experience, thank God, has ever approached Hitler’s
degree of malignance. But politics in this country is increasingly marked by
a blithe disregard, even disdain, for good character. During Bill Clinton’s
presidency, liberals and Democrats were willing to excuse odious and
shameless behavior because the president supported policies they liked. The
depravity of the Clinton years is now being exceeded under Donald Trump:
Countless conservatives and Republicans have decided that character is
irrelevant as long as the economy stays strong and judges they like are
appointed to the bench.

There is an intoxicating derangement in massive crowds that always creeps me
out.


My father’s family was annihilated by a regime that was obsessed with race.
Nazi Germany regarded “Aryans” as the highest and purest race and Jews as
the lowest and dirtiest. From that mindset came racial purity laws and
concentration camps and the extermination of two-thirds of Europe’s Jews. As
the child of a Holocaust survivor, I believe that racial categories are
fundamentally illegitimate . I hate the labeling and sorting of Americans by
race. I’ve always thought the only right approach to racial issues is the
one put into words by Justice John Harlan, the lone dissenter in Plessy v.
Ferguson : “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates
classes among citizens.” As a matter of biology, racial distinctions are
irrelevant — indeed, nonexistent. They’re a social construct, not a genetic
reality. They contribute no more to “diversity” than right- and
left-handedness do. I find it heartbreaking that, 50 years after the civil
rights movement, America’s most powerful institutions — media, academia,
business — are becoming more race-obsessed than ever.

My lifelong hatred for what the Nazis did to Germany and Europe helps
explain my instinctive resistance to political movements that seek to compel
radical social transformations . There may be good arguments in favor of
coercing society to abandon fossil fuels, or to eliminate religion from the
public square, or to accept the existence of more than two genders. But it
alarms me when those with power force such sweeping changes on the public,
using intimidation, sanctions, and government power — not persuasion — to
get their way. I tend to think that most social change should come gradually
and organically. Cultural or political ideologues who resort instead to
bullying make me flash back to the ideologues who caused such devastation in
the 1930s and '40s.

Finally, growing up as the son of a Holocaust survivor has made it
impossible for me not to know that human goodness is fragile . It takes
training and practice. The temptation to do evil to others, or to look the
other way when evil is being done, can be powerful. Civility and
civilization are only thin veneers, stretched like a bandage over a bleeding
wound. It is scary how easily that bandage can be pulled off, exposing the
gore underneath. It happened in the middle of Europe in the middle of the
20th century, and the consequences were diabolical. Those consequences, for
better or for worse, have haunted and molded me all my life.



Don’t want a criminal for a tenant? Too bad

Oakland, Calif., last week became the first city in California to make it
illegal for landlords to run criminal background checks on prospective
tenants. On Tuesday, city councilors voted to bar property owners from
turning away would-be renters because they have a criminal offense — or
multiple criminal offenses — on their record.

The vote was unanimous. The measure was reportedly backed by Representative
Barbara Lee, the congresswoman from Oakland. “It’s past time we put an end
to the open discrimination against people with criminal records,” she was
quoted as saying. Come again? Even for the Bay Area, that seems a little
crazy. But there is now an active movement promoting the idea that just as
landlords cannot turn potential tenants down because of their race or
religion, they should not be allowed to do so because they were in prison.

The Oakland ordinance is more extreme than a “guidance ” issued by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Obama administration.
In April 2016, HUD let it be known that any landlord with a blanket policy
of not renting to people with criminal convictions on their record would be
deemed discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. The theory
was that because blacks and Hispanics commit crimes and go to prison at much
higher rates than whites, a policy of automatically rejecting applicants
with a criminal past would have a “disparate impact” on different racial
groups. Since not all convictions are alike, HUD argued, not everyone with a
criminal record would be a risky tenant.

Certainly it is true that not all ex-cons are alike. As I wrote at the time,
“it isn’t hard to find examples of former convicts who long ago learned
their lesson and went straight, yet find it difficult to secure housing
because background checks always flag their old offenses.” There is no
reason officials shouldn’t remind landlords of that fact, cautioning them
not to paint with too broad a brush, and to remember that many former
prisoners are now law-abiding and peaceable.

But like HUD under Obama, Oakland isn’t content to counsel prudence. Instead
it condemns any landlord that chooses not to rent to ex-cons as, in essence,
a bigot. That’s an outrageous accusation. And it’s outrageously unfair to
the people with the most to lose: landlords whose livelihood and savings are
bound up in the apartments they rent out. Often those apartments are in
buildings bought after years of hard work and frugal living — buildings the
landlords take pride in maintaining and in keeping clean, comfortable, and
attractive. Property owners have a far greater stake than Oakland city
councilors do in screening tenants wisely and approving only residents who
won’t jeopardize their buildings' safety or appeal. Indeed, one councilor
conceded that he supports the measure because his own son is in prison, and
will benefit from the new ordinance upon his release.

Oakland has a high incarceration rate, and former prisoners, shunned by
landlords, have sometimes struggled to find a place to live. That’s a
legitimate concern. But surely it is unjust to ride roughshod over the
rights of people who have done nothing wrong in order to advance the
interests of people who have.

Freedom of association is a fundamental human right. The vitality of our
economic life depends on it. A landlord who rejects tenants with a criminal
past may not always end up making the wisest choice. But why should anyone
but the landlord be entitled to make that choice? Granted, a property owner
with a standing rule against renting to former prisoners may miss out on
some potentially wonderful tenants — tenants that another property owner,
less inflexible or more savvy, is free to snap up. But that’s none of the
government’s business. Absent evidence of illegal racial discrimination, the
government has no excuse to interfere.

Besides, a no-criminal-record rule is not unreasonable. A potential tenant’s
criminal record often is a cause for concern. Recidivism rates in the United
States are sky-high . Former lawbreakers are often future lawbreakers: More
than 40% of offenders return to prison within three years of their release.
Which suggest that a property owner with a no-convicts rule is not being
irrational, only cautious. And caution shouldn’t be illegal, even in the Bay
Area.



‘The spirit which is not too sure that it is right’

Satirist P.J. O'Rourke (left) and Judge Learned Hand

In a video conference Thursday with Boston Globe writers and editors,
Senator Elizabeth Warren was as confident, adamant, and vocal as she always
is. Whatever she was asked about — from the deportation of an Iranian
student to the “corruption” of campaign finance to the economic condition of
working-class Americans to the deployment of US troops in Europe — she
answered with her usual polished and forceful certainty. Her demeanor was
exactly what it has been on the campaign trail and in the TV debates:
assured, tenacious, unbending.

Which, for the most part, is true of the other candidates in the Democratic
race as well (and of the incumbent president they hope to unseat). Not all
of them have released quite as many written plans as Warren has — 70 at last
count — but all of them are absolutely sure they know what America needs,
and are quite convinced that they are the ones to deliver it.

On the same day Warren met with the Globe, the journalist and wit P.J. O’Rourke
had a column in the Washington Post that I wish every candidate — and for
that matter, every voter — would read. Like all of O’Rourke’s writing, it
delivered a critical message in a sardonic manner.

“What this country needs is fewer people who know what this country needs,”
he began. “Our nation faces a multitude of puzzling, complex and abstruse
problems. Most Americans aren’t sure what to do about them. But we lack
politicians with the courage to say, ‘I’m not sure what to do about them
either.’ ”

America is being rocked, he said, by social changes “so swift and profound
that they’d send even the best cultural anthropologist fleeing.” No one can
possibly have all, or even most, of the answers to this country’s thorny
questions. Yet none of the candidates is willing to say so.


It’s time for the rise of the Extreme Moderate. Power to the far middle! Let’s
bring the Wishy and the Washy back together, along with the Namby and the
Pamby, and the Milque and the Toast. . . .

We may be on different sides of the fence, but let’s make that fence top
wider and better padded and go sit on it. Then, no matter if I’m of
conservative ilk and you’re of liberal stripe, we can have a neighborly
chat.

Should the government be Laissez? Should the government be Faire?

We’re all in favor of peace, but when the wolf dwells with the lamb and the
leopard lies down with the kid, how often do we replace those sheep and
goats?


O’Rourke plays it for laughs, but the point he makes in 2020 — “We need a
political system that isn’t so darn sure of itself” — echoes a famous speech
delivered a lifetime ago by Judge Learned Hand, one of the most renowned and
respected jurists in US history. In 1944, just two weeks before D-Day, Judge
Hand addressed a giant crowd assembled at New York’s Central Park for “I Am
an American” Day. To a vast audience that included tens of thousands of
newly naturalized citizens, he spoke about “ The Spirit of Liberty,”
explaining that the essence of liberty was not to be found in constitutions,
laws, or courts, but “in the hearts of men and women.”

That spirit does not consist, he said, in unwavering certitude:

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you
my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that
it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand
the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which
weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.


“The spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” Does any of that spirit
remain in America? Is there any candidate for president — or any other
office — who will channel Learned Hand? I think I could happily vote for a
candidate who had the honesty and humility to say “I’m not sure.” But it’s
been a long time since anyone ran for president who was humble enough to
deserve the job.



What Clayton Christensen believed

Out of the blue one day in 2009, I received a call from Clayton Christensen,
the legendary Harvard Business School professor and author of The Innovator’s
Dilemma , one of the most important, paradigm-shifting books on management
ever written. He had been reading my columns, he said, and wanted to meet.
Could I come over to Harvard to pay him a visit? I accepted with alacrity. I
wasn’t going to pass up the chance to sit and schmooze with someone
described as not only “the most influential business thinker on Earth,” but
also “ the nicest man ever to lecture at Harvard.”

It was splendid to meet him, and our conversation was stimulating and
illuminating. We talked about Harvard and about his famous theory on
“disruptive innovation” — he gave me an impromptu tutorial, which he
illustrated with sketches on a notepad as he spoke. He explained to me what
he had discovered about the “job” of a McDonald’s milkshake . He asked me
about the Boston Globe and my experience of the changing newspaper business.
But more than we talked shop, we talked about family and values, about his
Mormon faith and my commitment to Judaism. Before I left, he told me not to
hesitate to get in touch if I ever thought he could be helpful. A few weeks
later, I was asked to be the master of ceremonies for a dinner at which he
was to receive a “Distinguished Citizen Award.”

“The brand that the Christensens are known for is kindness.”

Last week, Clay Christensen died of leukemia. He was just 67, and it came as
a shock to read of his death. I had known he was ill; I hadn’t known it was
fatal. The obituaries focused not just on his glittering resume, but on his
integrity and passion for helping others. The Wall Street Journal recounted
one occasion on which he convened a family meeting when one of his children
was accused of shoving another child in school. That kind of behavior couldn’t
be tolerated, he told his child, not just because it was wrong, but because
it went against the family’s brand: “The brand that the Christensens are
known for is kindness.”

To prepare for that long-ago dinner at which I was the MC, I spent time
reading some of Clay Christensen’s writing. One was his essay “Why I Belong,
and Why I Believe .” It is an intensely religious piece of writing by a man
whose faith — a faith profoundly different from my own — was at the core of
his brilliant and accomplished life. It was one of the most inspiring and
wonderful things I had ever read, and I said so at the dinner. I’ve just
re-read the essay and found it, if anything, even more uplifting and
affecting than I remembered. Click the link and take 10 minutes to read it
for yourself. You won’t regret doing so.

What an extraordinary man. What a life well lived. RIP.

Subscribe to BostonGlobe.com


ICYMI

My column on Wednesday expressed my grudging respect for the clarity and
authority with which Queen Elizabeth has handled the crisis triggered when
Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, declared their intention to “step
back” from the royal family. I noted that I’m a staunch, small-r republican
who generally thinks that in the 21st century monarchies are an outlandish
anachronism. Yet I couldn’t deny that the 93-year-old Queen rose to the
occasion with impressive — dare I say regal? — decisiveness, defusing a
bombshell whose fallout could have been ugly and painful. I believe this was
the first column I ever wrote to praise a royal.

Last Sunday I wrote about Joe Biden’s persistent claim that he stopped
supporting the war in Iraq “from the very moment” it started. Not true:
Biden, like most Democrats — and most Americans — in 2002 and 2003, was
firmly in favor of going to war to topple Saddam Hussein. As an influential
senator (Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), he continued
to express his support publicly for months after the war began. He ought to
have the integrity to say so now — not only because it is true, but because
the war against Saddam was entirely justified.
plainolamerican
2020-01-29 20:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Ejercito
http://view.email.bostonglobe.com/?qs=2d0fdf3adb221e586b8f27ad00611a16ff91555c0ccbe1f051e849c040b76155eec2783e66ad706232d5d6185b07caa0002df68dab9435cd8c6483f6f3d77421f46da2ae01d680e52b8a0595798f748a98cd4291a0bfaac6
View web version
The Boston Globe
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, January 27, 2020
Notes from a survivor's son
“Children of Holocaust survivors,” a friend once said to me, “always know
where their passport is.”
I don’t know whether that statement is categorically true, but I took it to
be shorthand for a broader point: Jews raised by parents who lived through
the Nazi genocide never take their safety entirely for granted. If they are
blessed to live in a free and tolerant country like the United States, they
might be confident that “it can never happen here” — but that confidence
doesn’t amount to absolute certainty. At some level, their parents’
experience in Nazi Europe will have shaped their deepest beliefs about their
own society and their place in it.
Today marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death
camp, and the occasion has spurred a great deal of coverage about that place
of pure evil, and the larger Holocaust of which it was just a fraction. I
have a column on the subject in today’s Boston Globe , which I hope you will
read, but I wanted to write here on a theme I have never directly addressed
before: How has my perspective been formed by my identity as a survivor’s
son?
I can barely remember a time when I didn’t know that my father’s family was
wiped out by the Nazis. How I first came to learn what had befallen them, I
don’t know. I’m sure it wasn’t from my father, since it wasn’t something he
spoke about when I was very young. Yet I clearly recall looking at books
with photographs from the Nazi era and understanding that they were
connected to my own family history. I have a vivid memory of writing
“Hitler” on the bottom of my shoe in school when I was 7 or 8 years old, in
order to scuff out his name as I walked.
So awareness of the Holocaust has been a constant in my life. On a number of
occasions over the years I have written and spoken about my father’s
experience. It would be strange indeed if it hadn’t influenced my worldview
and political opinions. But until now I’ve never tried to summarize that
influence in words. Here is a first attempt.
Growing up with a father who was a Holocaust survivor — and living in a
community that was home to many other survivors — taught me to be deeply
wary of a too-powerful government. My strong libertarian, small-government
streak is rooted in the knowledge that the immense horror and evil of the
Holocaust were engineered by a totalitarian government with unchecked power.
I couldn’t disagree more strongly with the serene view that “government is
simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” The
stronger the government, the more likely it is to disregard what citizens
“choose to do,” and to force them instead to bow to the will of the rulers.
Power tends to corrupt, Lord Acton wrote. The Holocaust shows how black and
pitiless the corruption of a powerful state can become. Some government is
necessary. Too much is lethal.
Also lethal, in my view, is the glorification of politicians . The newsreel
footage of Adolf Hitler addressing those massive, adoring, “Sieg Heil”-ing
rallies left me with an indelible revulsion for mass rallies generally, and
the adoration of political figures in particular. Before the Nazis came to
power, most people would have thought it inconceivable that sober,
civilized, educated Germans could turn en masse to a hate-spewing demagogue,
but turn they did and in staggering numbers. There is an intoxicating
derangement in crowds that creeps me out. I have never been able to see
images of mass rallies — even rallies for causes I admire, like the
anti-China resistance in Hong Kong, or for causes of no real importance,
like the vast Duck Boat throngs when a sports team wins a championship —
without a sense of foreboding. I shudder when I see citizens flock together
by the tens of thousands, screaming themselves hoarse in support of a
politician.
Closely related to that sentiment is my conviction that decency is the most
important criterion in a political leader. Of course I want public officials
who have sound views on the economy and foreign policy, on national defense
and criminal justice. But above and beyond that, I want public officials who
are reasonably honest and moral. The Third Reich stands as the ultimate
example of what can happen when individuals of evil character come to power.
Nothing in America’s experience, thank God, has ever approached Hitler’s
degree of malignance. But politics in this country is increasingly marked by
a blithe disregard, even disdain, for good character. During Bill Clinton’s
presidency, liberals and Democrats were willing to excuse odious and
shameless behavior because the president supported policies they liked. The
Countless conservatives and Republicans have decided that character is
irrelevant as long as the economy stays strong and judges they like are
appointed to the bench.
There is an intoxicating derangement in massive crowds that always creeps me
out.
My father’s family was annihilated by a regime that was obsessed with race.
Nazi Germany regarded “Aryans” as the highest and purest race and Jews as
the lowest and dirtiest. From that mindset came racial purity laws and
concentration camps and the extermination of two-thirds of Europe’s Jews. As
the child of a Holocaust survivor, I believe that racial categories are
fundamentally illegitimate . I hate the labeling and sorting of Americans by
race. I’ve always thought the only right approach to racial issues is the
one put into words by Justice John Harlan, the lone dissenter in Plessy v.
Ferguson : “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates
classes among citizens.” As a matter of biology, racial distinctions are
irrelevant — indeed, nonexistent. They’re a social construct, not a genetic
reality. They contribute no more to “diversity” than right- and
left-handedness do. I find it heartbreaking that, 50 years after the civil
rights movement, America’s most powerful institutions — media, academia,
business — are becoming more race-obsessed than ever.
My lifelong hatred for what the Nazis did to Germany and Europe helps
explain my instinctive resistance to political movements that seek to compel
radical social transformations . There may be good arguments in favor of
coercing society to abandon fossil fuels, or to eliminate religion from the
public square, or to accept the existence of more than two genders. But it
alarms me when those with power force such sweeping changes on the public,
using intimidation, sanctions, and government power — not persuasion — to
get their way. I tend to think that most social change should come gradually
and organically. Cultural or political ideologues who resort instead to
bullying make me flash back to the ideologues who caused such devastation in
the 1930s and '40s.
Finally, growing up as the son of a Holocaust survivor has made it
impossible for me not to know that human goodness is fragile . It takes
training and practice. The temptation to do evil to others, or to look the
other way when evil is being done, can be powerful. Civility and
civilization are only thin veneers, stretched like a bandage over a bleeding
wound. It is scary how easily that bandage can be pulled off, exposing the
gore underneath. It happened in the middle of Europe in the middle of the
20th century, and the consequences were diabolical. Those consequences, for
better or for worse, have haunted and molded me all my life.
Don’t want a criminal for a tenant? Too bad
Oakland, Calif., last week became the first city in California to make it
illegal for landlords to run criminal background checks on prospective
tenants. On Tuesday, city councilors voted to bar property owners from
turning away would-be renters because they have a criminal offense — or
multiple criminal offenses — on their record.
The vote was unanimous. The measure was reportedly backed by Representative
Barbara Lee, the congresswoman from Oakland. “It’s past time we put an end
to the open discrimination against people with criminal records,” she was
quoted as saying. Come again? Even for the Bay Area, that seems a little
crazy. But there is now an active movement promoting the idea that just as
landlords cannot turn potential tenants down because of their race or
religion, they should not be allowed to do so because they were in prison.
The Oakland ordinance is more extreme than a “guidance ” issued by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Obama administration.
In April 2016, HUD let it be known that any landlord with a blanket policy
of not renting to people with criminal convictions on their record would be
deemed discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. The theory
was that because blacks and Hispanics commit crimes and go to prison at much
higher rates than whites, a policy of automatically rejecting applicants
with a criminal past would have a “disparate impact” on different racial
groups. Since not all convictions are alike, HUD argued, not everyone with a
criminal record would be a risky tenant.
Certainly it is true that not all ex-cons are alike. As I wrote at the time,
“it isn’t hard to find examples of former convicts who long ago learned
their lesson and went straight, yet find it difficult to secure housing
because background checks always flag their old offenses.” There is no
reason officials shouldn’t remind landlords of that fact, cautioning them
not to paint with too broad a brush, and to remember that many former
prisoners are now law-abiding and peaceable.
But like HUD under Obama, Oakland isn’t content to counsel prudence. Instead
it condemns any landlord that chooses not to rent to ex-cons as, in essence,
a bigot. That’s an outrageous accusation. And it’s outrageously unfair to
the people with the most to lose: landlords whose livelihood and savings are
bound up in the apartments they rent out. Often those apartments are in
buildings bought after years of hard work and frugal living — buildings the
landlords take pride in maintaining and in keeping clean, comfortable, and
attractive. Property owners have a far greater stake than Oakland city
councilors do in screening tenants wisely and approving only residents who
won’t jeopardize their buildings' safety or appeal. Indeed, one councilor
conceded that he supports the measure because his own son is in prison, and
will benefit from the new ordinance upon his release.
Oakland has a high incarceration rate, and former prisoners, shunned by
landlords, have sometimes struggled to find a place to live. That’s a
legitimate concern. But surely it is unjust to ride roughshod over the
rights of people who have done nothing wrong in order to advance the
interests of people who have.
Freedom of association is a fundamental human right. The vitality of our
economic life depends on it. A landlord who rejects tenants with a criminal
past may not always end up making the wisest choice. But why should anyone
but the landlord be entitled to make that choice? Granted, a property owner
with a standing rule against renting to former prisoners may miss out on
some potentially wonderful tenants — tenants that another property owner,
less inflexible or more savvy, is free to snap up. But that’s none of the
government’s business. Absent evidence of illegal racial discrimination, the
government has no excuse to interfere.
Besides, a no-criminal-record rule is not unreasonable. A potential tenant’s
criminal record often is a cause for concern. Recidivism rates in the United
States are sky-high . Former lawbreakers are often future lawbreakers: More
than 40% of offenders return to prison within three years of their release.
Which suggest that a property owner with a no-convicts rule is not being
irrational, only cautious. And caution shouldn’t be illegal, even in the Bay
Area.
‘The spirit which is not too sure that it is right’
Satirist P.J. O'Rourke (left) and Judge Learned Hand
In a video conference Thursday with Boston Globe writers and editors,
Senator Elizabeth Warren was as confident, adamant, and vocal as she always
is. Whatever she was asked about — from the deportation of an Iranian
student to the “corruption” of campaign finance to the economic condition of
working-class Americans to the deployment of US troops in Europe — she
answered with her usual polished and forceful certainty. Her demeanor was
assured, tenacious, unbending.
Which, for the most part, is true of the other candidates in the Democratic
race as well (and of the incumbent president they hope to unseat). Not all
of them have released quite as many written plans as Warren has — 70 at last
count — but all of them are absolutely sure they know what America needs,
and are quite convinced that they are the ones to deliver it.
On the same day Warren met with the Globe, the journalist and wit P.J. O’Rourke
had a column in the Washington Post that I wish every candidate — and for
that matter, every voter — would read. Like all of O’Rourke’s writing, it
delivered a critical message in a sardonic manner.
“What this country needs is fewer people who know what this country needs,”
he began. “Our nation faces a multitude of puzzling, complex and abstruse
problems. Most Americans aren’t sure what to do about them. But we lack
politicians with the courage to say, ‘I’m not sure what to do about them
either.’ ”
America is being rocked, he said, by social changes “so swift and profound
that they’d send even the best cultural anthropologist fleeing.” No one can
possibly have all, or even most, of the answers to this country’s thorny
questions. Yet none of the candidates is willing to say so.
It’s time for the rise of the Extreme Moderate. Power to the far middle! Let’s
bring the Wishy and the Washy back together, along with the Namby and the
Pamby, and the Milque and the Toast. . . .
We may be on different sides of the fence, but let’s make that fence top
wider and better padded and go sit on it. Then, no matter if I’m of
conservative ilk and you’re of liberal stripe, we can have a neighborly
chat.
Should the government be Laissez? Should the government be Faire?
We’re all in favor of peace, but when the wolf dwells with the lamb and the
leopard lies down with the kid, how often do we replace those sheep and
goats?
O’Rourke plays it for laughs, but the point he makes in 2020 — “We need a
political system that isn’t so darn sure of itself” — echoes a famous speech
delivered a lifetime ago by Judge Learned Hand, one of the most renowned and
respected jurists in US history. In 1944, just two weeks before D-Day, Judge
Hand addressed a giant crowd assembled at New York’s Central Park for “I Am
an American” Day. To a vast audience that included tens of thousands of
newly naturalized citizens, he spoke about “ The Spirit of Liberty,”
explaining that the essence of liberty was not to be found in constitutions,
laws, or courts, but “in the hearts of men and women.”
What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you
my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that
it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand
the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which
weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.
“The spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” Does any of that spirit
remain in America? Is there any candidate for president — or any other
office — who will channel Learned Hand? I think I could happily vote for a
candidate who had the honesty and humility to say “I’m not sure.” But it’s
been a long time since anyone ran for president who was humble enough to
deserve the job.
What Clayton Christensen believed
Out of the blue one day in 2009, I received a call from Clayton Christensen,
the legendary Harvard Business School professor and author of The Innovator’s
Dilemma , one of the most important, paradigm-shifting books on management
ever written. He had been reading my columns, he said, and wanted to meet.
Could I come over to Harvard to pay him a visit? I accepted with alacrity. I
wasn’t going to pass up the chance to sit and schmooze with someone
described as not only “the most influential business thinker on Earth,” but
also “ the nicest man ever to lecture at Harvard.”
It was splendid to meet him, and our conversation was stimulating and
illuminating. We talked about Harvard and about his famous theory on
“disruptive innovation” — he gave me an impromptu tutorial, which he
illustrated with sketches on a notepad as he spoke. He explained to me what
he had discovered about the “job” of a McDonald’s milkshake . He asked me
about the Boston Globe and my experience of the changing newspaper business.
But more than we talked shop, we talked about family and values, about his
Mormon faith and my commitment to Judaism. Before I left, he told me not to
hesitate to get in touch if I ever thought he could be helpful. A few weeks
later, I was asked to be the master of ceremonies for a dinner at which he
was to receive a “Distinguished Citizen Award.”
“The brand that the Christensens are known for is kindness.”
Last week, Clay Christensen died of leukemia. He was just 67, and it came as
a shock to read of his death. I had known he was ill; I hadn’t known it was
fatal. The obituaries focused not just on his glittering resume, but on his
integrity and passion for helping others. The Wall Street Journal recounted
one occasion on which he convened a family meeting when one of his children
was accused of shoving another child in school. That kind of behavior couldn’t
be tolerated, he told his child, not just because it was wrong, but because
it went against the family’s brand: “The brand that the Christensens are
known for is kindness.”
To prepare for that long-ago dinner at which I was the MC, I spent time
reading some of Clay Christensen’s writing. One was his essay “Why I Belong,
and Why I Believe .” It is an intensely religious piece of writing by a man
whose faith — a faith profoundly different from my own — was at the core of
his brilliant and accomplished life. It was one of the most inspiring and
wonderful things I had ever read, and I said so at the dinner. I’ve just
re-read the essay and found it, if anything, even more uplifting and
affecting than I remembered. Click the link and take 10 minutes to read it
for yourself. You won’t regret doing so.
What an extraordinary man. What a life well lived. RIP.
Subscribe to BostonGlobe.com
ICYMI
My column on Wednesday expressed my grudging respect for the clarity and
authority with which Queen Elizabeth has handled the crisis triggered when
Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, declared their intention to “step
back” from the royal family. I noted that I’m a staunch, small-r republican
who generally thinks that in the 21st century monarchies are an outlandish
anachronism. Yet I couldn’t deny that the 93-year-old Queen rose to the
occasion with impressive — dare I say regal? — decisiveness, defusing a
bombshell whose fallout could have been ugly and painful. I believe this was
the first column I ever wrote to praise a royal.
Last Sunday I wrote about Joe Biden’s persistent claim that he stopped
Biden, like most Democrats — and most Americans — in 2002 and 2003, was
firmly in favor of going to war to topple Saddam Hussein. As an influential
senator (Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), he continued
to express his support publicly for months after the war began. He ought to
have the integrity to say so now — not only because it is true, but because
the war against Saddam was entirely justified.
Today marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death
camp
---
and not a fucking word about the gypsies, gays, twins or mentally ill.

Let us remember that the USA didn't enter WWII to save jews.
Truth and honesty
2020-01-30 07:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Ejercito
Today marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death
camp
---
and not a fucking word about the gypsies, gays, twins or mentally ill.
It certainly came up in the commemoration
Post by Michael Ejercito
Let us remember that the USA didn't enter WWII to save jews.
We know that, no one entered ww2 for the Jews.
NEMO
2020-01-29 21:00:41 UTC
Permalink
During and after WW2, more than 20 million big fat Russian dicks
entered the vaginas, anuses, and throats of German women - repeatedly.
Does this prove Hitler was wrong?
LOL!
plainolamerican
2020-01-29 21:25:50 UTC
Permalink
During and after WW2, more than 20 million big fat Russian dicks
entered the vaginas, anuses, and throats of German women - repeatedly.
Does this prove Hitler was wrong?
LOL!
During and after WW2, more than 20 million big fat Russian dicks
entered the vaginas, anuses, and throats of German women
---
xian women.
Michael Ejercito
2020-01-30 05:19:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:03:05 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
http://view.email.bostonglobe.com/?>>qs=2d0fdf3adb221e586b8f27ad00611a16ff91555c0ccbe1f051e849c040b76155eec2783e66ad706232d5d6185b07caa0002df68dab9435cd8c6483f6f3d77421f46da2ae01d680e52b8a0595798f748a98cd4291a0bfaac6
View web version
The Boston Globe
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, January 27, 2020
Notes from a survivor's son
“Children of Holocaust survivors,” a friend once said to me, “always know
where their passport is.”
I don’t know whether that statement is categorically true, but I took it to
be shorthand for a broader point: Jews raised by parents who lived through
the Nazi genocide never take their safety entirely for granted. If they are
blessed to live in a free and tolerant country like the United States, they
might be confident that “it can never happen here” — but that confidence
doesn’t amount to absolute certainty. At some level, their parents’
experience in Nazi Europe will have shaped their deepest beliefs about their
own society and their place in it.
Today marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death
camp, and the occasion has spurred a great deal of coverage about that place
of pure evil, and the larger Holocaust of which it was just a fraction. I
have a column on the subject in today’s Boston Globe , which I hope you will
read, but I wanted to write here on a theme I have never directly addressed
before: How has my perspective been formed by my identity as a survivor’s
son?
I can barely remember a time when I didn’t know that my father’s family was
wiped out by the Nazis. How I first came to learn what had befallen them, I
don’t know. I’m sure it wasn’t from my father, since it wasn’t something he
spoke about when I was very young. Yet I clearly recall looking at books
with photographs from the Nazi era and understanding that they were
connected to my own family history. I have a vivid memory of writing
“Hitler” on the bottom of my shoe in school when I was 7 or 8 years old, in
order to scuff out his name as I walked.
So awareness of the Holocaust has been a constant in my life. On a number of
occasions over the years I have written and spoken about my father’s
experience. It would be strange indeed if it hadn’t influenced my worldview
and political opinions. But until now I’ve never tried to summarize that
influence in words. Here is a first attempt.
Growing up with a father who was a Holocaust survivor — and living in a
community that was home to many other survivors — taught me to be deeply
wary of a too-powerful government. My strong libertarian, small-government
streak is rooted in the knowledge that the immense horror and evil of the
Holocaust were engineered by a totalitarian government with unchecked power.
I couldn’t disagree more strongly with the serene view that “government is
simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.” The
stronger the government, the more likely it is to disregard what citizens
“choose to do,” and to force them instead to bow to the will of the rulers.
Power tends to corrupt, Lord Acton wrote. The Holocaust shows how black and
pitiless the corruption of a powerful state can become. Some government is
necessary. Too much is lethal.
Also lethal, in my view, is the glorification of politicians . The newsreel
footage of Adolf Hitler addressing those massive, adoring, “Sieg Heil”-ing
rallies left me with an indelible revulsion for mass rallies generally, and
the adoration of political figures in particular. Before the Nazis came to
power, most people would have thought it inconceivable that sober,
civilized, educated Germans could turn en masse to a hate-spewing demagogue,
but turn they did and in staggering numbers. There is an intoxicating
derangement in crowds that creeps me out. I have never been able to see
images of mass rallies — even rallies for causes I admire, like the
anti-China resistance in Hong Kong, or for causes of no real importance,
like the vast Duck Boat throngs when a sports team wins a championship —
without a sense of foreboding. I shudder when I see citizens flock together
by the tens of thousands, screaming themselves hoarse in support of a
politician.
Closely related to that sentiment is my conviction that decency is the most
important criterion in a political leader. Of course I want public officials
who have sound views on the economy and foreign policy, on national defense
and criminal justice. But above and beyond that, I want public officials who
are reasonably honest and moral. The Third Reich stands as the ultimate
example of what can happen when individuals of evil character come to power.
Nothing in America’s experience, thank God, has ever approached Hitler’s
degree of malignance. But politics in this country is increasingly marked by
a blithe disregard, even disdain, for good character. During Bill Clinton’s
presidency, liberals and Democrats were willing to excuse odious and
shameless behavior because the president supported policies they liked. The
Countless conservatives and Republicans have decided that character is
irrelevant as long as the economy stays strong and judges they like are
appointed to the bench.
There is an intoxicating derangement in massive crowds that always creeps me
out.
My father’s family was annihilated by a regime that was obsessed with race.
Nazi Germany regarded “Aryans” as the highest and purest race and Jews as
the lowest and dirtiest. From that mindset came racial purity laws and
concentration camps and the extermination of two-thirds of Europe’s Jews. As
the child of a Holocaust survivor, I believe that racial categories are
fundamentally illegitimate . I hate the labeling and sorting of Americans by
race. I’ve always thought the only right approach to racial issues is the
one put into words by Justice John Harlan, the lone dissenter in Plessy v.
Ferguson : “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates
classes among citizens.” As a matter of biology, racial distinctions are
irrelevant — indeed, nonexistent. They’re a social construct, not a genetic
reality. They contribute no more to “diversity” than right- and
left-handedness do. I find it heartbreaking that, 50 years after the civil
rights movement, America’s most powerful institutions — media, academia,
business — are becoming more race-obsessed than ever.
My lifelong hatred for what the Nazis did to Germany and Europe helps
explain my instinctive resistance to political movements that seek to compel
radical social transformations . There may be good arguments in favor of
coercing society to abandon fossil fuels, or to eliminate religion from the
public square, or to accept the existence of more than two genders. But it
alarms me when those with power force such sweeping changes on the public,
using intimidation, sanctions, and government power — not persuasion — to
get their way. I tend to think that most social change should come gradually
and organically. Cultural or political ideologues who resort instead to
bullying make me flash back to the ideologues who caused such devastation in
the 1930s and '40s.
Finally, growing up as the son of a Holocaust survivor has made it
impossible for me not to know that human goodness is fragile . It takes
training and practice. The temptation to do evil to others, or to look the
other way when evil is being done, can be powerful. Civility and
civilization are only thin veneers, stretched like a bandage over a bleeding
wound. It is scary how easily that bandage can be pulled off, exposing the
gore underneath. It happened in the middle of Europe in the middle of the
20th century, and the consequences were diabolical. Those consequences, for
better or for worse, have haunted and molded me all my life.
Jewcoby has nothing to complain about. He wasn't even born yet when
the war ended, so he has no claims of victimhood as a result of the
war.
Jeff Jacoby was explaining how the Holocausty shaped his political views.
His father should thank his lucky stars that he survived and shut
the fuck up and start acting grateful.
His father is grateful.

His father will continue to stand for truth and morality.
When will these kikes get it
through their collective heads that the war has long been over and the
rest of the world doesn't give a shit. Jeff Jewcoby can go fuck
himself.
They will serve as a living witness to truth and morality.


Michael
Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
2020-01-30 13:49:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 21:19:21 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:03:05 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
http://view.email.bostonglobe.com/?>>qs=2d0fdf3adb221e586b8f27ad00611a16ff91555c0ccbe1f051e849c040b76155eec2783e66ad706232d5d6185b07caa0002df68dab9435cd8c6483f6f3d77421f46da2ae01d680e52b8a0595798f748a98cd4291a0bfaac6
<fluhs Jeff Kakobstein's inane plagiarised jew shite>
Post by Michael Ejercito
Jewcoby has nothing to complain about. He wasn't even born yet when
the war ended, so he has no claims of victimhood as a result of the
war.
Jeff Jacoby was explaining how the Holocausty shaped his political views.
His father should thank his lucky stars that he survived and shut
the fuck up and start acting grateful.
His father is grateful.
His father is a fake...just like Eli 'no tattoo' Weasel.
Post by Michael Ejercito
His father will continue to stand for truth and morality.
His father has always been EXEMPT from truth and morality.

He even changed his jew name to avoid being identifed as a
lying/immoral jew...pointless really when his jew face gives him away.
Post by Michael Ejercito
When will these kikes get it
through their collective heads that the war has long been over and the
rest of the world doesn't give a shit. Jeff Jewcoby can go fuck
himself.
They will serve as a living witness to truth and morality.
They will serve as a living witness to the durability of the BIGGEST
jew HOAX of all time!
Post by Michael Ejercito
Michael
Cheers!

RJ (preferred jew aliash)
--
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus admits he got
no life AT ALL outside stalking on THE Usenet!
"Frankly, if he were gone, I wouldn't know what to do here."
Message-ID: <FCOQt.107901$***@fx13.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus, defending his fellow
Grik sodomite the Grikboxer® and under the delusion that he's
been able to grow a pair: "You'd have to get past me first,"
Message-ID: <LOOQt.337647$***@fx08.fr7>

Yet more proof that the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
thinks he got a pair: "Just to let you know: ANYONE who "befriends"
the subnormal swine will have to deal with me! Get ready, bitch!"
Message-ID: <FHg6t.166438$***@newsfe07.iad>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus STILL seems to think
he got a pair: "Which will NEVER happen! You'd have to get past
me first, poor psycho! LOL"
Message-ID: <MCSIu.1$***@fx32.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus having still MORE delusions
about growing a pair: "If ANYONE dared to grab me by the neck
like that he'd get my fist in his face."
Message-ID: <qeilfu$iog$***@gioia.aioe.org>

In spite of all the evidence, the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
STILL has delusions about growing a pair!
"What kind of other-worldly pussies (men?) are you all? If someone
would dare to grab me by the back of my neck like that and push me
around, my instinctive, AUTOMATIC reaction would be to knock him in
the face! NOBODY is allowed to do that to ANYONE!"
Message-ID: <qfnPE.73303$***@usenetxs.com>

Best of all! From the Foreskin Peeler's doctoral dissertation in divinity,
'University' of Salonica (1992): "The jew g-d is your g-d's dad."
Michael Ejercito
2020-01-30 16:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 21:19:21 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:03:05 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
http://view.email.bostonglobe.com/?>>>qs=2d0fdf3adb221e586b8f27ad00611a16ff91555c0ccbe1f051e849c040b76155eec2783e66ad706232d5d6185b07caa0002df68dab9435cd8c6483f6f3d77421f46da2ae01d680e52b8a0595798f748a98cd4291a0bfaac6
<fluhs Jeff Kakobstein's inane plagiarised jew shite>
Post by Michael Ejercito
Jewcoby has nothing to complain about. He wasn't even born yet when
the war ended, so he has no claims of victimhood as a result of the
war.
Jeff Jacoby was explaining how the Holocausty shaped his political views.
His father should thank his lucky stars that he survived and shut
the fuck up and start acting grateful.
His father is grateful.
His father is a fake...just like Eli 'no tattoo' Weasel.
Mangina, his father survived the olocaust and has the tattoo A-10502.
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
Post by Michael Ejercito
His father will continue to stand for truth and morality.
His father has always been EXEMPT from truth and morality.
Wrong!

You DEFY truth and morality!
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
He even changed his jew name to avoid being identifed as a
lying/immoral jew...pointless really when his jew face gives him away.
He never denied being Jewish.
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
Post by Michael Ejercito
When will these kikes get it
through their collective heads that the war has long been over and the
rest of the world doesn't give a shit. Jeff Jewcoby can go fuck
himself.
They will serve as a living witness to truth and morality.
They will serve as a living witness to the durability of the BIGGEST
jew HOAX of all time!
The Holocaust is truth.


Michael
Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
2020-01-31 13:39:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 08:04:44 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 21:19:21 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:03:05 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
http://view.email.bostonglobe.com/?>>>qs=2d0fdf3adb221e586b8f27ad00611a16ff91555c0ccbe1f051e849c040b76155eec2783e66ad706232d5d6185b07caa0002df68dab9435cd8c6483f6f3d77421f46da2ae01d680e52b8a0595798f748a98cd4291a0bfaac6
<fluhs Jeff Kakobstein's inane plagiarised jew shite>
Post by Michael Ejercito
Jewcoby has nothing to complain about. He wasn't even born yet when
the war ended, so he has no claims of victimhood as a result of the
war.
Jeff Jacoby was explaining how the Holocausty shaped his political views.
His father should thank his lucky stars that he survived and shut
the fuck up and start acting grateful.
His father is grateful.
His father is a fake...just like Eli 'no tattoo' Weasel.
Mangina, his father survived the olocaust and has the tattoo A-10502.
Needledick, his father was never IN the 'olocaust'®™ and his jew
tattoo is FAKE.
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
Post by Michael Ejercito
His father will continue to stand for truth and morality.
His father has always been EXEMPT from truth and morality.
Wrong!
NOT!
Post by Michael Ejercito
You DEFY truth and morality!
YOU are ALSO exempt from truth and morality!
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
He even changed his jew name to avoid being identifed as a
lying/immoral jew...pointless really when his jew face gives him away.
He never denied being Jewish.
He changed his jew name because he thought he wouldn't HAVE to deny
being jewish. But his contorted rodent-like jew face gave him away
evert time.
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
Post by Michael Ejercito
When will these kikes get it
through their collective heads that the war has long been over and the
rest of the world doesn't give a shit. Jeff Jewcoby can go fuck
himself.
They will serve as a living witness to truth and morality.
They will serve as a living witness to the durability of the BIGGEST
jew HOAX of all time!
The Holocaust is truth.
There WAS no 'holocaust'®™. A few thousand jews died but a fucking
WORLD WAR was going on! FAR more HUMANS died...do WE bitch about a
'holocaust'®™?
Post by Michael Ejercito
Michael
Cheers!

RJ (preferred jew aliash)
--
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus admits he got
no life AT ALL outside stalking on THE Usenet!
"Frankly, if he were gone, I wouldn't know what to do here."
Message-ID: <FCOQt.107901$***@fx13.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus, defending his fellow
Grik sodomite the Grikboxer® and under the delusion that he's
been able to grow a pair: "You'd have to get past me first,"
Message-ID: <LOOQt.337647$***@fx08.fr7>

Yet more proof that the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
thinks he got a pair: "Just to let you know: ANYONE who "befriends"
the subnormal swine will have to deal with me! Get ready, bitch!"
Message-ID: <FHg6t.166438$***@newsfe07.iad>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus STILL seems to think
he got a pair: "Which will NEVER happen! You'd have to get past
me first, poor psycho! LOL"
Message-ID: <MCSIu.1$***@fx32.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus having still MORE delusions
about growing a pair: "If ANYONE dared to grab me by the neck
like that he'd get my fist in his face."
Message-ID: <qeilfu$iog$***@gioia.aioe.org>

In spite of all the evidence, the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
STILL has delusions about growing a pair!
"What kind of other-worldly pussies (men?) are you all? If someone
would dare to grab me by the back of my neck like that and push me
around, my instinctive, AUTOMATIC reaction would be to knock him in
the face! NOBODY is allowed to do that to ANYONE!"
Message-ID: <qfnPE.73303$***@usenetxs.com>

Best of all! From the Foreskin Peeler's doctoral dissertation in divinity,
'University' of Salonica (1992): "The jew g-d is your g-d's dad."
The Jews
2020-01-31 15:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Gonadal dysgenesis suffering fake wannabe Nazi Gordon Radovich
[***@tiscali.co.uk], the anally-obsessed, unemployable, impotent,
glue-huffing, passportless, rope-dodging, pedophilic,
bestiality-practicing Serbian coprophiliac Queen Mary Parking Lot
black cock worshipper, who for some reason posts pretending to be
Jewish, hated by Hitler and proven by White Nationalist Scholars to be
inferior to Asian peoples, tried to cover up his abject fear of the
fascist-slapping, Nazi-tormenting, totalitarian-taunting, superior
Jews that torture him daily, and reveal his complete and total
ignorance, and expose his countless excuses to avoid getting
Nuremberged®, by taking time out of his busy schedule of felching his
mother for spending money and then masturbating to kiddie porn (while
he desperately hides from Barry for over 13 years even though he has
his address!) to lie when he pathetically copied a superior being's
words and changed them around a bit to make it look like he was
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
YOU are ALSO exempt from truth and morality!
There WAS no 'holocaust'®™.
It's an established fact that there was.
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
A few thousand jews died but a fucking
WORLD WAR was going on! FAR more HUMANS died...do WE bitch about a
'holocaust'®™?
Millions of people were murdered by the Nazis. Most of them Jews.

In return, millions of Germans were rightfully killed and hundreds of
thousands of German women were impregnated by the victors. Hitler was
burned in a ditch like garbage. Then, Nazis were hunted down one by
one and Nuremberged®!

And now it's YOUR turn to get Nuremberged®!!

Give us proof of your address so we can get you a nice trial!





2020 Score Card for Gordon Radovich


# of jew ani zsuckled - 47,237
# of Jews holocausted to date - 0
# of subhumans deported to date - 0
# of people Gordon has "kicked off" of Usenet - 0
# of times Gordon has been humiliated on Usenet - [infinity]
# of years Gordon has hid from Barry - 13
# of years Gordon has hid from Chris Morton - 17+

"Yes. You WILL hide...jewbois always DO! But to no avail...you WILL
get 'holocausted'®™ regardless!"
-Gordon claiming he'd Holocaust us and didn't need our address.
-Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Michael Ejercito
2020-01-31 17:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 08:04:44 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 21:19:21 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
They will serve as a living witness to truth and morality.
They will serve as a living witness to the durability of the BIGGEST
jew HOAX of all time!
The Holocaust is truth.
There WAS no 'holocaust'®™. A few thousand jews died but a fucking
WORLD WAR was going on! FAR more HUMANS died...do WE bitch about a
'holocaust'®™?
Nithing, these web sites contain Holocaust truth.

Nizkor.org

YadVashem.org

USHMM.org

Remember.org

HolocaustHistory.net

HMD.Org.UK

HolocaustEdu.org

HolocaustMemorial.us

HolocaustMemorialMiamiBeach.org

HolocaustCenter.org

Holocaust.OregonState.edu

IowaHolocaustMemorial.com

IlHolocaustMuseum.org

FLHolocaustMuseum.org
Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
2020-02-01 12:19:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 09:27:10 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 08:04:44 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 21:19:21 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
They will serve as a living witness to truth and morality.
They will serve as a living witness to the durability of the BIGGEST
jew HOAX of all time!
The Holocaust is truth.
There WAS no 'holocaust'®™. A few thousand jews died but a fucking
WORLD WAR was going on! FAR more HUMANS died...do WE bitch about a
'holocaust'®™?
Nithing, these web sites contain Holocaust truth.
Needledick, there IS no 'holocaust'®™ truth. Those jew and shabbos
goy web sites contain ONLY regurgitated jew lies.

Cheers!

RJ (preferred jew aliash)
--
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus admits he got
no life AT ALL outside stalking on THE Usenet!
"Frankly, if he were gone, I wouldn't know what to do here."
Message-ID: <FCOQt.107901$***@fx13.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus, defending his fellow
Grik sodomite the Grikboxer® and under the delusion that he's
been able to grow a pair: "You'd have to get past me first,"
Message-ID: <LOOQt.337647$***@fx08.fr7>

Yet more proof that the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
thinks he got a pair: "Just to let you know: ANYONE who "befriends"
the subnormal swine will have to deal with me! Get ready, bitch!"
Message-ID: <FHg6t.166438$***@newsfe07.iad>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus STILL seems to think
he got a pair: "Which will NEVER happen! You'd have to get past
me first, poor psycho! LOL"
Message-ID: <MCSIu.1$***@fx32.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus having still MORE delusions
about growing a pair: "If ANYONE dared to grab me by the neck
like that he'd get my fist in his face."
Message-ID: <qeilfu$iog$***@gioia.aioe.org>

In spite of all the evidence, the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
STILL has delusions about growing a pair!
"What kind of other-worldly pussies (men?) are you all? If someone
would dare to grab me by the back of my neck like that and push me
around, my instinctive, AUTOMATIC reaction would be to knock him in
the face! NOBODY is allowed to do that to ANYONE!"
Message-ID: <qfnPE.73303$***@usenetxs.com>

Best of all! From the Foreskin Peeler's doctoral dissertation in divinity,
'University' of Salonica (1992): "The jew g-d is your g-d's dad."
Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
2020-02-06 12:43:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 08:09:04 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
[FLUHS Grik skata]...and better air in here again! [sic][SIC!!! LOL]

Watch, it geezer!
You got that right!
Inane!
This article explains how a Holocaust happened.
NO 'holocaust'®™ ever happened, mong!

Cheers!

RJ (preferred jew aliash)
--
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus admits he got
no life AT ALL outside stalking on THE Usenet!
"Frankly, if he were gone, I wouldn't know what to do here."
Message-ID: <FCOQt.107901$***@fx13.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus, defending his fellow
Grik sodomite the Grikboxer® and under the delusion that he's
been able to grow a pair: "You'd have to get past me first,"
Message-ID: <LOOQt.337647$***@fx08.fr7>

Yet more proof that the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
thinks he got a pair: "Just to let you know: ANYONE who "befriends"
the subnormal swine will have to deal with me! Get ready, bitch!"
Message-ID: <FHg6t.166438$***@newsfe07.iad>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus STILL seems to think
he got a pair: "Which will NEVER happen! You'd have to get past
me first, poor psycho! LOL"
Message-ID: <MCSIu.1$***@fx32.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus having still MORE delusions
about growing a pair: "If ANYONE dared to grab me by the neck
like that he'd get my fist in his face."
Message-ID: <qeilfu$iog$***@gioia.aioe.org>

In spite of all the evidence, the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
STILL has delusions about growing a pair!
"What kind of other-worldly pussies (men?) are you all? If someone
would dare to grab me by the back of my neck like that and push me
around, my instinctive, AUTOMATIC reaction would be to knock him in
the face! NOBODY is allowed to do that to ANYONE!"
Message-ID: <qfnPE.73303$***@usenetxs.com>

Best of all! From the Foreskin Peeler's doctoral dissertation in divinity,
'University' of Salonica (1992): "The jew g-d is your g-d's dad."
Michael Ejercito
2020-02-06 15:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 08:09:04 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
[FLUHS Grik skata]...and better air in here again! [sic][SIC!!! LOL]
Watch, it geezer!
We also watch classy young ladies.

http://redbust.com/una-cute-blonde-bathroom/
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
You got that right!
Inane!
This article explains how a Holocaust happened.
NO 'holocaust'®™ ever happened, mong!
Yes, it did.


Michael
Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
2020-02-07 13:36:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:46:22 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
You got that right!
Inane!
This article explains how a Holocaust happened.
NO 'holocaust'®™ ever happened, mong!
Yes, it did.
No, it did NOT. A few thousand jews died...but a fucking WORLD WAR
was being held! Shit happens!
Post by Michael Ejercito
Michael
Cheers!

RJ (preferred jew aliash)
--
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus admits he got
no life AT ALL outside stalking on THE Usenet!
"Frankly, if he were gone, I wouldn't know what to do here."
Message-ID: <FCOQt.107901$***@fx13.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus, defending his fellow
Grik sodomite the Grikboxer® and under the delusion that he's
been able to grow a pair: "You'd have to get past me first,"
Message-ID: <LOOQt.337647$***@fx08.fr7>

Yet more proof that the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
thinks he got a pair: "Just to let you know: ANYONE who "befriends"
the subnormal swine will have to deal with me! Get ready, bitch!"
Message-ID: <FHg6t.166438$***@newsfe07.iad>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus STILL seems to think
he got a pair: "Which will NEVER happen! You'd have to get past
me first, poor psycho! LOL"
Message-ID: <MCSIu.1$***@fx32.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus having still MORE delusions
about growing a pair: "If ANYONE dared to grab me by the neck
like that he'd get my fist in his face."
Message-ID: <qeilfu$iog$***@gioia.aioe.org>

In spite of all the evidence, the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
STILL has delusions about growing a pair!
"What kind of other-worldly pussies (men?) are you all? If someone
would dare to grab me by the back of my neck like that and push me
around, my instinctive, AUTOMATIC reaction would be to knock him in
the face! NOBODY is allowed to do that to ANYONE!"
Message-ID: <qfnPE.73303$***@usenetxs.com>

Best of all! From the Foreskin Peeler's doctoral dissertation in divinity,
'University' of Salonica (1992): "The jew g-d is your g-d's dad."
Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
2020-02-03 12:37:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 08:12:08 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
[FLUHS Grik skata]...and better air in here again! [sic][SIC!!! LOL]

Watch, it geezer!
You got that right!
Inane!

Yup, indeed, it sure is, no doubt about it, like TOTALLY inane!
Michael
Cheers!

RJ (preferred jew aliash)
--
The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus admits he got
no life AT ALL outside stalking on THE Usenet!
"Frankly, if he were gone, I wouldn't know what to do here."
Message-ID: <FCOQt.107901$***@fx13.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus, defending his fellow
Grik sodomite the Grikboxer® and under the delusion that he's
been able to grow a pair: "You'd have to get past me first,"
Message-ID: <LOOQt.337647$***@fx08.fr7>

Yet more proof that the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
thinks he got a pair: "Just to let you know: ANYONE who "befriends"
the subnormal swine will have to deal with me! Get ready, bitch!"
Message-ID: <FHg6t.166438$***@newsfe07.iad>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus STILL seems to think
he got a pair: "Which will NEVER happen! You'd have to get past
me first, poor psycho! LOL"
Message-ID: <MCSIu.1$***@fx32.fr7>

The Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus having still MORE delusions
about growing a pair: "If ANYONE dared to grab me by the neck
like that he'd get my fist in his face."
Message-ID: <qeilfu$iog$***@gioia.aioe.org>

In spite of all the evidence, the Illiterate Foreskin Peeling Grik anus
STILL has delusions about growing a pair!
"What kind of other-worldly pussies (men?) are you all? If someone
would dare to grab me by the back of my neck like that and push me
around, my instinctive, AUTOMATIC reaction would be to knock him in
the face! NOBODY is allowed to do that to ANYONE!"
Message-ID: <qfnPE.73303$***@usenetxs.com>

Best of all! From the Foreskin Peeler's doctoral dissertation in divinity,
'University' of Salonica (1992): "The jew g-d is your g-d's dad."
Michael Ejercito
2020-02-03 16:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Professeur de merde, Baruch 'Barry' Shein
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 08:12:08 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"
[FLUHS Grik skata]...and better air in here again! [sic][SIC!!! LOL]
Watch, it geezer!
Mangina, we also watch classy young ladies!

http://redbust.com/cute-teen-redhead/


Michael
Loading...