Steve Sailer: The Hilarious Life of Alicia Machado, Hillary’s Tragic Latina Victim of Trump’s Sexism

How did Hillary Clinton and her team buy this woman’s story hook, line and sinker? Because it served their narrative against Trump. Hillary and company are willing to believe the most absurd and dangerous people in their desire to destroy Trump.

Steve Sailer writes: Last night, Hillary Clinton chose to wrap up her debate with the sad story of a Latina woman victimized by Donald Trump. Alicia Machado was previously little known in the English-speaking world:

HOLT: Very quickly, because we’re at the final question now.

CLINTON: You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said…

TRUMP: I never said that.

CLINTON: …. women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.

TRUMP: I didn’t say that.

CLINTON: And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman “Miss Piggy.” Then he called her “Miss Housekeeping,” because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.

TRUMP: Where did you find this? Where did you find this?

CLINTON: Her name is Alicia Machado.

TRUMP: Where did you find this?

Screenshot 2016-09-27 20.26.06 CLINTON: And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet…

TRUMP: Oh, really?

CLINTON: … she’s going to vote this November.

TRUMP: OK, good. Let me just tell you…


Thank God this poor Latina immigrant was just last month given the vote in our election in time to wreak her vengeance upon Donald Trump.

Today, this New York Times article totally buys into Hillary’s positioning of Ms. Machado as a sad victim of sexism:

Shamed and Angry: Alicia Machado, a Miss Universe Mocked by Donald Trump

For 20 years, Alicia Machado has lived with the agony of what Donald J. Trump did to her after she won the Miss Universe title: shame her, over and over, for gaining weight.

Private scolding was apparently insufficient. Mr. Trump, who was an executive producer of the pageant, insisted on accompanying Ms. Machado, then a teenager, to a gym, where dozens of reporters and cameramen watched as she exercised.

Mr. Trump, in his trademark suit and tie, posed for photographs beside her as she burned calories in front of members of the news media. “This is somebody who likes to eat,” Mr. Trump said from inside the gym.

On Monday night, Hillary Clinton turned Ms. Machado’s pain into a potent political weapon on the biggest stage.

In the process, Ms. Clinton, the first female presidential nominee of a major party, elevated a largely forgotten tale of Mr. Trump, when his oversight of beauty pageants collided with his unforgiving fixation with female beauty.

And Mrs. Clinton put a spotlight on Ms. Machado, Miss Universe 1996, who says she has never recovered from the experience.

But it turns out that Ms. Machado somehow recovered enough to live an interesting life over the last 20 years, although NYT didn’t see fit to mention any of the following today. From the Associated Press’s archive:

AP , Associated Press
Jan. 23, 1998 6:39 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) _ The Venezuelan beauty queen who made headlines two years ago for putting on weight after being crowned Miss Universe is back in the news.

A lawyer for a man who was shot outside a church in November said Friday that Alicia Machado, 21, was seen driving the car in which her boyfriend sped away from the scene of the shooting. Francisco Sbert Mousko suffered brain damage when two bullets punctured his skull outside a church where his dead wife was being eulogized.

Sbert’s family said the alleged gunman, Sbert’s brother-in-law Juan Rodriguez Reggeti, had accused Sbert of driving his sister to commit suicide.

“Our accusations against Alicia Machado are based on coinciding testimony from witnesses, who place her in the vehicle in which Juan Rodriguez fled the scene,” said Omar Arenas Candelo, one of three attorneys who presented the allegations to a criminal court late Thursday.

A couple of weeks later, the AP also reported:

STEVEN GUTKIN, Associated Press
Feb. 5, 1998 4:36 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) _ A Venezuela judge said Thursday a former Miss Universe threatened to kill him after he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder.

Venezuelan beauty queen Alicia Machado threatened “to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me,” Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television.

The 21-year-old Machado, who created an international stir in 1996 when she gained 35 pounds after being crowned Miss Universe, allegedly called the judge after he issued an arrest warrant Wednesday for Juan Rafael Rodriguez Regetti.

Rodriguez, 26, is accused of shooting and wounding his brother-in-law, Francisco Antonio Sbert Mousko, outside a church in Caracas last November where Sbert’s wife _ Rodriguez’s sister _ was being eulogizing.

Rodriguez apparently blamed Sbert for driving her to commit suicide.

The victim’s family accused Machado of driving the getaway car, but Fuenmayor has not indicted her, citing insufficient evidence. The judge said there were no witnesses to place Machado at the scene _ or to back up her claim she was home sick at the time.

Fuenmayor said he planned to open a new case against Machado for Wednesday’s threatening phone call.

In the past two decades, Venezuela has had four Miss Universes, four Miss Worlds and two Miss Internationals _ the world’s top beauty title record.

But Machado was not convicted on any of the charges.

Machado later became engaged to major league baseball player Bobby Abreu. From Deadspin:

Bobby Abreu’s Otherworldly Restraint

6/13/05 11:42 am

We had heard nothing about this Bobby Abreu story from last month. Maybe it’s because we don’t watch Spanish language TV. But still.

Here’s the details, if you’re as in the dark as we were. The Phillies outfielder — enjoying the greatest season of his career, by the way; right around the time this story broke, he hit homers in six consecutive games — was engaged to former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. In May, she appeared on a Mexican reality television show called “La Granga (The Farm)” and … had sex with a fellow cast member on camera. Needless to say, Abreu was not a fan of this — as Jason Mulgrew points out, Latin men tend not to handle such matters well — called off the engagement and subsequently went on his homer barrage. We still think this might have been cooked up by Phillies general manager Ed Wade and manager Charlie Manuel, like in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, when they smashed Louis’ car right before the football game. But we still can’t believe we hadn’t heard about this, mostly.

From the website

Machado went on to moderate success as a soap opera star, and appeared nude for the Mexican edition of Playboy in 2006.

“Tienes una pinga divina.”

Abreu and Machado were engaged in 2005, when Machado went on a reality TV show. The concept of being filmed for a nationwide (and with the glory that is the internet, worldwide) reality TV show apparently escaped Machado as she had sex with a housemate,… of course, all caught on camera. The photos and video appeared online, and Abreu called off the engagement shortly thereafter.

Abreu dumping Alicia Machado was announced in the Philadelphia Daily News on May 2, 2005. Freed from her, the Phillies outfielder suddenly went on one of the hottest streaks of his career. From Wikipedia:

2005 Season:

In May, Abreu was honored as the Player of the Month in the National League, after he hit .396 and 11 home runs. He also led the NL for the month in slugging average (.792), on-base percentage (.535), and walks (30) and was tied for the league lead with 30 RBI. He became the first player in Major League history to hit at least one home run in nine out of ten team games.

In Mexico a few years later, Machado insisted that her new baby was the child of businessman Rafael Hernandez Linares rather than of narco cartel druglord José Gerardo Álvarez Vázquez, a.k.a., El Indio, as Mexico’s Attorney General claimed….

Alicia Machado is a good example of the ongoing envibrantisimoization of American life. But most American institutions don’t really pay much attention to Latin American pop culture.

For example, today wasn’t the first time the New York Times had written about Alicia Machado. In a long article denouncing Trump in May, the NYT credulously used Machado as their anchorwoman to wrap up their indictement:

Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private

Interviews reveal unwelcome advances, a shrewd reliance on ambition, and unsettling workplace conduct over decades.


But when Mr. Trump lost confidence in women, he could inflict lasting damage on their lives.

After Alicia Machado won the 1996 Miss Universe title, something very human happened: She gained weight. Mr. Trump did not keep his critique of her changing body quiet — he publicly shamed her, she said.

Mr. Trump said he had pushed her to lose weight. “To that, I will plead guilty,” he said, expressing no regret for his tactics.

But the humiliation, Ms. Machado said, was unbearable. “After that episode, I was sick, anorexia and bulimia for five years,” she said. “Over the past 20 years, I’ve gone to a lot of psychologists to combat this.”

Deborah Acosta and Nicholas Casey contributed reporting, and Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Alicia Machado became a U.S. citizen last month, just in time to vote for Hillary.

“One of the requirements for naturalization is good moral character (GMC)” – Vol 12 Part D – CH – 9.

How much of her lurid life did she disclose to the U.S. government? Theoretically, applicants for citizenship must have “good moral character,” but we all know that “vetting” is racist.

More on Alicia Machado from the Daily Mail.

Read Steve’s entire post.


* The new America: one part Jerry Springer, one part World Star Hip Hop News and one part telenovela.

* Boy, the Dems are really batting a thousand on these would-be diversity icons they keep coming up with.

You’d think that in a nation of 320 million, they’d be able to find one honest-to-God poster child who doesn’t wind up confirming all the stereotypes.

* Trump should jump on this, the one woman Hillary chose as her example in the debate was in fact believed by the cops to be the getaway driver in an attempted murder and then threatened the life of the judge.

If Hillary can’t even vet the one woman she’s going to use as a prop in the debate for basic non-criminal background–when there were published stories about her!–how is she going to vet 600,000 Syrians whom we know nothing about.

This stuff writes itself. Get off your ass Trump and get going.

* It’s clear: Trump’s insult turned her to a life of crime.

* The thing that I found amazing during this entire exchange, well given that the question was even asked and addressed by the candidates, that Clinton actually boasted about getting this woman into the United States and making her a citizen.

* Why do super predators hate Trump?

* And the beauty of it all is that her story is literally so salacious that there’s no way the media can fail to pick it up, from the tabloids on up.

And the idiot, slimy NY Times obviously coordinated with the Clinton’s campaign to use Machado. How else would it have an article ready to go on Machado the very next morning after the debate?

The Times is going to look like credulous dupes themselves for failing to investigate or report on this sleazy, and very likely criminal, side of Machado. I mean, a google search would have turned this stuff up. What did the Times do in its “reporting”, just take it all straight from a Clinton campaign memo?

They’ll look like vicious little morons, so eager for a slam on Trump that they’ll repeat any crap thrown their way.

Every day that passes, the Times gets dumber and more embarrassing.

* Harvard economist George J. Borjas writes:

I’ve always found libertarians to be the most unpersuadable people when it comes to immigration; their religious-like attachment to open borders seems totally impervious to facts. So it was a bit of a shock to come across this news article describing Charles Murray’s change of heart when it comes to low-skill immigration:

Charles Murray announced his support for a moratorium on low-skilled immigration…“I want to shut down low-skilled immigration for awhile,” Murray said, explaining it was the only way to find out if it would actually help native low-skilled workers…”I have had to undergo a great deal of re-thinking…The thing that has gotten to me over the course of this year… has been the idea, the very simple idea, that the citizens of a nation owe something to each other that is over and above our general obligations to our fellow human beings. That there is a sense that we should take care of our own, our own in this case being Americans.”

Doesn’t this sound an awful lot like the responsible nationalism now advocated by Larry Summers:

“A new approach has to begin from the idea that the basic responsibility of government is to maximize the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good. Closely related to this is the idea that people want to feel that they are shaping the societies in which they live.”

Who would have thought it would take the rise of Donald Trump for these very wise men to see the obvious?

* Alicia Machado, doing the jobs Americans won’t do-drug-dealing, robbery, murder, porn, gold-digging, whoring. Wonder if Ol’Bill had a hand in her application for citizenship.

* …whole fact check thing is really getting out of hand and is now being used as a weapon to show that everything out of Trump’s mouth is a lie. Obviously we need fact checking, but there is a degree of difference between lying and being slightly off with a figure. For example, Rush brought up how Trump said Hillary has been around power for 30 years. That’s a lie because the correct answer is 26. But the point he was trying to make was valid.

Now Trump seems to have figured this out. At his rally tonight he mentioned that Hillary wanted to increase Obama’s Syrian refugee take by 550 percent. He said he had originally stated the number was 500 percent, but the fact checkers told him he was lying. He asked them to explain and they said the real number was 550 percent. The crowd ate it up.

Maybe this is a new strategy Trump will use. Ridicule every little fact check that is used to make Trump seem like a liar so that the public becomes immune to the constant claims of the fact checkers.

* Please Mr. Trump, return to the subject of Alicia Machado in the next debate.

I think Ms. Clinton has a little explaining to do.

How proud is she that Machado is a citizen? How happy is she to have Machado voting for her, and supporting her?

And the vetting of course, how about that? Better or worse than for the many thousands of Syrian refugees?

* She gained 50 pounds! As Miss Universe she has a responsibility and image to uphold. This would be akin to having an baseball player under gaining too much weight which would affect his performance. Physical appearance is important with Miss Universe. Ask yourself if she would have won carrying that weight? Gaining so much weight after winning goes against one’s responsibility in wearing that crown.

A boxing promoter would have every right to condemn his boxer if he got too fat and out of shape. Likewise a beauty pageant guru has the same right.

* Steve, they don’t care who they are using as poster children, nor do they have to. NYT is not going to do a follow-on correction story on what a tawdry little specimen Machado actually is. Lester Holt is not going to do a 20/20 docudrama on her real life. Pretty much the only people who will know the truth are we band of brothers reading these blogs. Everyone else will buy the sob story hook line and sinker. This is guerilla warfare, plant a limpet mine on the hull then swim away into the murk after the damage is done. The Machado story has put another hole under Trump’s waterline and she will now be dropped down the memory hole like Khan. That’s the power of owning the megaphone.

* Vanessa Williams was pressured to resign as Miss America when nude photos of her came out. So I see nothing wrong with ensuring Miss Universe maintains her physique.

* Here is the original CNN article from January 29, 1997, entitled “Expanding Miss Universe Works to Shed Pounds”.

This excerpt shows CNN had fun with her weight gain. They don’t sound as sympathetic as they do today.

NEW YORK (CNN) — When Alicia Machado of Venezuela was named Miss Universe nine months ago, no one could accuse her of being the size of the universe. But as her universe expanded, so did she, putting on nearly 60 pounds

This excerpt shows others were noticing too. Possibly Kellogg might not have renewed her contract over this.

And as her weight grew, so did reports that Kellogg had canceled a deal for her to appear on boxes of Special K in Venezuela or that Kellogg modified her body on the box. But a Kellogg spokesman said the contract simply expired in December and that they were “real pleased” with the promotion.

This is a great excerpt. Trump decided to work with her and not force her to give up the crown. This sounds quite reasonable.

Rumors also surfaced that she might be forced to give up her Miss Universe crown.

But Trump, as co-owner of rights to the pageant, said he would never let that happen. “We had a choice of: termination or do this,” he said. “We wanted to do this.”

The pageant’s meaning of “do this” was for Machado to get her weight down to about 130 pounds.

Finally, Trump pokes some fun at the media about their weight. Maybe this was done to help make Alicia feel better, or to put some in their place for having made fun of her.

“A lot of you folks have weight problems. I hate to tell you,” Trump told the rowdy pool of reporters.

Posted in America, Journalism, Latino | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: The Hilarious Life of Alicia Machado, Hillary’s Tragic Latina Victim of Trump’s Sexism

On Spencer’s Herzlianism for the Current Year

From Alt Zionism A Home for Dissident Jews:

If not Jew and White, then which?

It is a curious fact that in the Current Year, the Alt Right understands the Jews better than the Jews understand themselves. While legions of ersatz Larry Davids and Brooklyn-accented Californian soccer moms gather in the hallways of the ADL to issue hollow, self-abnegating proclamations that what it is to be a Jew is to be a refugee (1,2),it is only the purported anti-Semites who share the common sense of Herzl in recognizing that the Jews are “a people – one people” (3).

Richard Spencer took this point for granted when, at a recent press conference, he suggested that it would be an insult to call a Jew a European, for to call him a European would be to deny him his heritage (4). To call a Jew a European, on Spencer’s view, is to cut him off from his people, and to suggest that Jews will form a part of a future pan-European ethnostate is do an injustice to the destiny and struggle of the Jews as much as to the struggle and destiny of the Europeans.

Spencer’s view presupposes, of course, that Jewish identity cannot be an instance of European identity in the same way that French identity, for example, is. If this is right, then it must be the case that Jewish identity and European identity are in fact incompatible in such a way that to identify as a Jew is to link oneself to an entirely different people and history than the people and history to which one links oneself in identifying as a European.

There is good reason to think that Spencer is right on this count. To identify oneself as a Jew is to think of oneself as an historical heir to the kingdoms of David and Solomon; it is to think of oneself as kin to Judah Maccabeus, and as having a share in that same historical struggle for independence for which he is remembered; to identify as a Jew is to make the Six-Day War both one’s Thermopylae and one’s Gaugamela. To identify as a Jew is not, however, to think of oneself as kin to Charlemagne and Richard the Lionheart, nor is it to think of oneself as the heir to the dominions of Caesar and Pericles. To attempt to identify oneself both as a Jew and yet also with these hallmarks of European identity would be to identify with such a scattered and confused history that one’s own identity would indeed become incoherent.

Hence, Spencer is right to suggest that Jewish identity and European identity cannot simultaneously be held. In this respect, his position is not unlike that of many of the great figures of Zionism, who recognized early on that no assimilation into European society would be possible in which Jews still maintained their identity as Jews. Indeed, Herzl took this position implicitly himself: when reminded that many European Jews considered themselves assimilated Frenchman, Germans, Austrians and so forth, and on that basis would not leave their adoptive homelands for the land of Israel, Herzl admonished those Jews to mind their own business – “this is a private affair,” he wrote, “for the Jews alone” (5). The implicature is clear: one is either a Jew and a Jew alone, or not a Jew at all. Read on.

Posted in Alt Right, Europe, Jews | Comments Off on On Spencer’s Herzlianism for the Current Year

The Past is a Real-Talking Country

From the blog Those Who Can See:

* We propose five categories of historical realtalk (some of which overlap in our quotes):
Banal my-group preference
The More Able remarking upon the Less Able
The Less Able remarking upon the More Able
Us remarking upon the otherness of Them
True bigotry

We focus on two out-groups with which ethnic Europeans have long been in contact: Sub-Saharan Africans and Jews.

I) They’re not us: In-group preference

‘Birds of a feather flock together.’ With the glaring exception of ethno-masochistic modern NW Euros, preferring to be with one’s own kind is the norm in all times and places. Even today, does anyone raise an eyebrow at Chinatown, Greektown, or Little Havana?

Harry Truman, while still a young man on the farm, often wrote letters to his sweetie. In one from 1911, he admits:

‘I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.’

The evolution of this vignette is telling: It begins bigoted, with a slur against Blacks and Chinese; followed quickly by the avowal that this is lazy, ‘I-picked-it-up-from-my-uncle’ racism; then a more neutral ‘each to his own.’

Robert Schlesinger shares a tidbit about Dwight D. Eisenhower and his speechwriter:

During their summer 1956 [Civil Rights speech] drafting sessions, Eisenhower and Larson fought a tug-of-war about how to handle the issue of civil rights. … Ike explained that just as the Brown v. Board of Education case was based on the inner feelings of black children, so too must the inner feelings of southern whites also be considered. He wanted to make it clear that political and economic equality would not mean social equality—’or that a Negro should court my daughter.’

The idea that inter-racial romance just wasn’t done was common well into the civil rights era. No less than JFK held this view in private. From HBO’s Sinatra: All or Nothing At All documentary, quoting Nancy Sinatra:

‘The Kennedys had a very specific way of thinking and doing things. And at one point, dad’s friendship with Sammy Davis Jr., who was soon to marry May Britt, became a political rub for them. She was a beautiful white blonde actress and they didn’t like the idea of the inter-racial marriage. This is the Kennedys. You would have thought the reverse of them. Dad got a phone call and he was asked to dis-invite Sammy Davis to the inaugural gala. And he actually had to do it.’

A later anecdote about JFK from an interview with White House butler Gene Allen:

“In February 1963, Kennedy invited 800 blacks to the White House to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Louis Martin, a Democratic operative who helped plan the function, had placed the names of entertainer Sammy Davis Jr. and his wife, May Britt, on the guest list.
The White House scratched it off and Martin would put it back on. According to Martin, Kennedy was aghast when he saw the black and white couple stroll into the White House. His face reddened and he instructed photographers that no pictures of the interracial couple would be taken.”

Though it may ruffle our feathers today, we’d do well to remember that this type of in-group preference is hard-wired and universal–we (21st c. ethnic Anglo-Germanics) are the far-out oddities in this case, not any of the people cited above.

II) They’re Less Able than us

Ever since Herodotus traveled the known world scribbling down the habits of the diverse peoples he met, we’ve been hooked on difference. The Age of Discovery brought us into contact with peoples that to us (and we to them) may just as well have come from another planet.

If there is one thing discoverers of all races have agreed upon, it is the perplexingly low level of civilization attained by Sub-Saharan Africans.

Nevertheless, the ‘racist’ quotes so frequently dredged up by today’s Social Justice Warriors are often quite the opposite. While noting the low level of African progress, many learned men blamed the environment, and were hopeful that Blacks would soon break through and ‘join civilization’ as so many other groups had done.

The most learned men of their eras saw things this way. The 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, in its article on ‘The Negro,’ states:

‘Mentally the negro is inferior to the white. The remark of F. Manetta, made after a long study of the negro in America, may be taken as generally true of the whole race: “The negro children [in the South] were sharp, intelligent, and full of vivacity, but on approaching the adult period a gradual change set in. The intellect seems to become clouded…’

‘But though the mental inferiority of the negro to the white or yellow races is a fact, it has often been exaggerated; the negro is largely the creature of his environment, and it is not fair to judge of his mental capacity by tests taken directly from the environment of the white man, as for instance tests in mental arithmetic; skill in reckoning is necessary to the white race, and it has cultivated this faculty; but it is not necessary to the negro.’

The greatest scientific minds were in agreement. Legendary historian Arnold Toynbee in his 12-volume Study of History, analyzed every civilization then known to man, declaring:
‘It will be seen that when we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races, given by this classification, which has not made a creative contribution to any one of our twenty-one civilizations is the Black Race.’ (Vol. I)
Even so, it being 1934, Toynbee feels the need to follow this observation with several pages of apologetics for Africans, explaining that they’re bound to create modern civilizations any day now…

Kenyan archaeologist L.S.B. Leakey, mentor to legends Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey and coiner of the species homo habilis, wrote in 1963:

‘As a social anthropologist, I naturally accept and even stress the fact that there are major differences, both mental and psychological, which separate the different races of mankind. Indeed, I would be inclined to suggest that however great may be the physical differences between such races as the European and the Negro, the mental and psychological differences are greater still.’

Lewis Terman

Psychometric pioneer, president of the American Psychological Association and of the National Academy for Sciences Lewis Terman devoted his life to studying intelligence in children.

His innovative wide-scale IQ testing exposed him to diverse groups of test-takers. Administering the tests to Spanish-speakers and unschooled African-Americans from the Southwest, he concluded in 1916:

‘High-grade or border-line deficiency… is very, very common among Spanish-Indian and Mexican families of the Southwest and also among negroes. Their dullness seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stocks from which they come… Children of this group should be segregated into separate classes… They cannot master abstractions but they can often be made into efficient workers… ‘

James Watson

None of these men took any special joy in pointing out inferiority; they merely considered it part and parcel of their scientific work. Some ethnies could jump higher, live longer, were taller or shorter, and yes, exhibited higher or lower intelligence. Nobel winner James Watson, giant of 20th century genetics and co-discoverer of DNA’s double helix, did not seem to realize times had changed when he said in 2006,

‘[I’m] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa’ because ‘all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.’

Pointing out such banalities was a commonplace in all times before our own. Watson forgot it was 2006, though, and thus saw himself stripped of posts and privileges and labeled a pariah…

Jewish over-achievement, for example, has been complained about for centuries. They were reputed to be extremely energetic, enterprising, smart, organized, ruthless towards out-groups, and champs at ethnic networking (in many ways the opposite of the African.)

Because of these traits, and their diaspora status, comments on their seeming to ‘take over’ were common.

1) In finance and business

Fyodor Dostoevsky

Russian literary giant Dostoevsky, in Diary of a Writer, 1877:

‘. . . I know that in the whole world there is certainly no other people who would be complaining as much about their lot, incessantly, after each step and word of theirs — about their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom. One might think it is not they who are reigning in Europe, who are directing there at least the stock exchanges and, therefore, politics, domestic affairs, the morality of the states.’

Mark Twain

Beloved American satirist Mark Twain comments on same (1899):
‘The Jew is being legislated out of Russia. The reason is not concealed. The movement was instituted because the Christian peasant and villager stood no chance against his commercial abilities. He was always ready to lend money on a crop, and sell vodka and other necessaries of life on credit while the crop was growing. When settlement day came he owned the crop; and next year or year after he owned the farm, like Joseph.’

‘In the dull and ignorant England of John’s time everybody got into debt to the Jew. He gathered all lucrative enterprises into his hands; he was the king of commerce; he was ready to be helpful in all profitable ways; he even financed crusades for the rescue of the Sepulchre. To wipe out his account with the nation and restore business to its natural and incompetent channels he had to be banished from the realm.’

George Sand

French novelist George Sand, in an 1857 letter to her friend the journalist Victor Borie:

‘I saw in “the wandering Jew” the personification of the Jewish people, exiled in the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, they are once again extremely rich, owing to their unfailing rude greediness and their indefatigable activity. … they are at the point of making themselves kings of the world. This people can thank its obstinacy that France will be Judaized within fifty years. Already some wise Jews prophesy this frankly.’

Ulysses S. Grant

Union general Ulysses S. Grant, vexed by their commercial prowess, tried to ban them from Civil War army camps in the South. While in Oxford, Mississippi, with the 13th Army Corps in 1862:

‘I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the special regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officers at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it.’

‘The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.’

Legendary poet Ezra Pound made radio broadcasts from Italy during WWII, pointing out Jewish financial power. Like Charles Lindergh, he wanted the U.S. to stay out of the war:

‘I do not want my compatriots from the ages of 20 to 40 to go get slaughtered to keep up the [Jewish magnate] Sassoon and other British Jew rackets in Singapore and in Shanghai. That is not my idea of American patriotism.’

He spoke directly to the British, telling them Jews’ financial acumen was hurting them:
‘You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, … you stand for nothing but usury. And above metal usury; you have built up bank usury, 60% against 30 and 40%, and by that you will not be saved. … You have for years had cheap goods DUMPED in from Russia. … Your Jews have ruined your home manufactures.’

‘Loans from the city of London, loans to the Orient, interest paid in cheap cotton goods, loans to the South American countries, interest paid in beef from the Argentine, and ruin of English grazing. … there is only one start you can make. And that is a start toward being England. A refusal to be a province of Israel, or an outpost of Yankee-Judaea.’

2) In culture

Charles Lindbergh

Iconic pilot Charles Lindbergh in his famous 1941 Des Moines speech urging the U.S. to stay out of the war, said

‘The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. … Their greatest danger to this country lies in [Jews’] large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.’

Upton Sinclair

Hollywood was widely seen as Jewish-controlled. Socialist novelist Upton Sinclair:

‘In olden times,’ Upton Sinclair once remarked, ‘Jewish traders sold Christian girls into concubinage and into prostitution, and even today they display the same activity in the same field in southern California where I live.’ Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald summed up the Hollywood scene of his era — ‘a Jewish holiday, a Gentile tragedy’.

Truman Capote

Their power was felt in the literary world as well. Novelist Truman Capote, in a 1968 Playboy interview:

‘Well, it has brought about the rise of what I call the Jewish Mafia in American letters. This is a clique of New York-oriented writers and critics who control much of the literary scene through the influence of the quarterlies and intellectual magazines.’

‘Bernard Malamud and Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and Isaac Bashevis Singer and Norman Mailer are all fine writers, but they’re not the only writers in the country, as the Jewish literary Mafia would have us believe.

‘I could give you a list of excellent writers, such as John Knowles and Vance Bourjaily and James Purdy and Donald Windham and Reynolds Price and James Leo Herlihy and Calder Willingham and John Hawkes and William Goyen; the odds are you haven’t heard of most of them, for the simple reason that the Jewish Mafia has systematically frozen them out of the literary scene.’

3) In political movements

Winston Churchill

The Bolshevik movement was widely seen as being fomented by powerful Jews. Winston Churchill, in a 1920 editorial, Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People:

‘There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.

‘Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders . . . In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.’

Kaiser Wilhelm

Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm, in a 1922 editorial in the Chicago Tribune, shared the same view:
‘A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief – even by pogroms, if necessary. The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers.’

Just as with the Chinese in Malaysia or the Indians in Uganda, an over-performing out-group will not go unnoticed– or un-criticized. There may be a bit of envy or resentment in the above remarks, but we still do not qualify them as bigotry…

Complaints about Jews’ refusal to assimilate were common among leaders.

Richard Nixon

Nixon, quoted earlier, said this in a 1973 phone call with Henry Kissinger on an upcoming US-Soviet summit:

‘Let me say, Henry, it’s gonna be the worst thing that happened to Jews in American history,’ Nixon said. ‘If they torpedo this summit — and it might go down for other reasons — I’m gonna put the blame on them, and I’m going to do it publicly at 9 o’clock at night before 80 million people,’ he vowed. ‘I won’t mind one goddamn but to have a little anti-Semitism if it’s on that issue,’ adding: ‘They put the Jewish interest above America’s interest and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.’

..Truman too resented them pushing their own group interests. Henry Wallace, Sec. of Commerce, in his memoirs on 1946 negotiations over the new Jewish state:

Truman was ‘exasperated’ over Jewish pressure that he support Zionist rule over Palestine. Wallace added ‘Pres. Truman expressed himself as being very much ‘put out’ with the Jews. He said that ‘Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on Earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?’ Pres. Truman said he had no use for them and didn’t care what happened to them.

H.G. Wells

Author H.G. Wells pointed out the same:

‘Zionism is an expression of Jewish refusal to assimilate. If the Jews have suffered, it is because they have regarded themselves as a chosen people.’

‘A careful study of anti-Semitism prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritations they inflict.’

Roald Dahl

Beloved writer Roald Dahl (of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fame) said in a New Statesman interview:
‘There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.’

3) Dishonesty with Out-groups

Jews have long been criticized for their perceived dishonesty towards out-groups.

Fyodor Dostoevsky

Dostoevsky, cited above in Diary of a Writer (1877), also says:

‘And, in truth, the whole activity of the Jews in these border regions of ours consisted of rendering the native population as much as possible inescapably dependent on them, taking advantage of the local laws. ….
‘In this respect the Jew preserves all his originality as compared with other Russian aliens, and of course, the reason therefore is that status of his, that spirit of which specifically breathes pitilessness for everything that is not Jew, with disrespect for any people and tribe, for every human creature who is not a Jew.’

Mark Twain

Twain, whom we cited earlier, mounted a spirited defense of the Jew as a fine upstanding citizen and good businessman, yet still conceded that:

‘He has a reputation for various small forms of cheating, and for practising oppressive usury, and for burning himself out to get the insurance, and for arranging cunning contracts which leave him an exit but lock the other man in, and for smart evasions which find him safe and comfortable just within the strict letter of the law, when court and jury know very well that he has violated the spirit of it.’


No less than Napoleon accused them of exploiting outsiders. From an 1806 speech before the Council of State:

‘The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it . . . The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people.’

Emmanuel Kant

Philosopher Emmanuel Kant, from an anthropology lecture he gave throughout the latter 1700s:

The Palestinians [Jews] living among us have, for the most part, earned a not unfounded reputation for being cheaters, because of their spirit of usury since their exile. Certainly, it seems strange to conceive of a nation of cheaters; but it is just as odd to think of a nation of merchants, the great majority of whom, bound by an ancient superstition that is recognized by the State they live in, seek no civil dignity and try to make up for this loss by the advantage of duping the people among whom they find refuge, and even one another.


French Enlightenment hero Voltaire made similar observations, worded somewhat more harshly:

‘We find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.’

4) Lacking Character

Outside observers often felt Jews showed a lack of character.

H.L. Mencken

Writer H.L. Mencken found them vain and cowardly:

‘The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.’

T.S. Eliot

Poet T.S. Eliot, in a 1925 personal letter, found them envious:

‘I am always inclined to suspect the racial envy and jealousy which makes that people [Jews] inclined to bolshevism in some form (not always political).’ Later, in a 1933 lecture, he talked about the importance of ‘unity of religious background…. Reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.’

Karl Marx

Karl Marx, himself of Jewish descent, accused his own group of being money-hungry:

‘What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money. . . . What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage. . . . The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.’

Auguste Renoir

Auguste Renoir, in an 1898 conversation with Manet’s daughter Julie, described them as cowardly and money-hungry:

‘[The Jews] come to France to earn money, but if there is any fighting to be done they hide behind a tree… There are a lot of them in the army, because the Jew likes to walk about wearing a uniform.’ During the same discussion, Julie notes that Renoir also ‘let fly on the subject of Pissarro, ‘a Jew’, ‘whose sons are natives of no country and who do their military service nowhere.’

Differences in character– in future orientation, in out-group attitude, in patriotism– tend to kill multiculturalist dreams in the egg. Ethnic groups with vastly different characters simply do not live comfortably side-by-side. Our forebears, we now see, were not so squeamish about these prickly truths as we are.

Posted in Blacks, Diversity, HBD, Jews | Comments Off on The Past is a Real-Talking Country

Alt-Right Or Alt-White?

Comments at Vox Day:

* We’re indelibly tied to our phenotypic/ethnic/cultural identity by nature of our genetics, our inherited social legacy and the perceptions of others.

Realizing this is it really “selfish” or deplorable to wonder how a new school of political thought would affect those of your group identity?

We can work towards the preservation and revitalization of the West but the reality is that as long as various groups under the banner of ‘Alt-Right’ are vying for ideological and policy supremacy it would be foolish to not consider the consequences of their respective proposals.

Some like Jared Taylor, at least initially, would advocate for the cessation of reverse-discrimination laws and voluntary association enclaves.

Some like Steven Sailor would advocate for a return to meritocracy through a hyperactive civic nationalism where those who don’t perform to standard are rightfully sloughed off benefit from the whole.

Some like Brett Stevens would advocate exiling anyone who isn’t of particular North-Western European ethnicities — not just minorities, but those of Irish lineage and mixed-white backgrounds.

Some still farther to the periphery of the ‘Big Tent’ would advocate for more immediate and violent action as a necessary stopgap to what they see as the immenitized destruction of Western Civilization.

For some there are not enemies to the Right, but there are overt ambiguities that if ignored will coalesce into debilitating problems as this great drama unfolds.

* The various strands of the Alt Right need to talk with one another and focus on what they have in common to work as allies in the fight for the survival of the White race and Western Civilization.

* The issue of Race/Ethnicity may be of less concern to the Alt-West corner of the Alt-Right ‘Big Tent’ but the stark reality is that it is one of the prime issues if not THE defining issue of the Alt-Right as it currently stands.

Brett Stevens often states that any multi-ethnic society is doomed to internal conflict and eventual dissolution.

History bears this to be true but there are outliers — Most notably in the modern world, Singapore, which under a benign dictatorship with a free market is relatively stable for a multi-ethnic society with a sizable Muslim population to boot.

Since any effort to make the United States 90% white again within this century would would most likely include highly unsavory methods under both expanses of the current Overton Window, one wonders if there are any other methods to achieve the preservation of both the Occidental World and the White Race without leaving both in a scenario far worse as a result?

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Alt-Right Or Alt-White?

Debate Reacts

Peter Grant: “What did strike me was the contrast between the candidates’ approaches to the rest of the world. Donald Trump was emphatic about protecting American jobs and our national economy, if necessary by renegotiating international trade agreements, restricting immigration, etc. Hillary Clinton was much more globalist in orientation, looking to admit more refugees, work together with other nations (whatever that means), and so on. She basically saw the United States as just one nation among many, whereas Donald Trump saw it as the ‘first among equals’ with the right to put its own interests first.”

Charles Krauthammer: “It was not exactly the knock out fight that we thought. It was a spirited fight. I think in the end it was something like a draw. But I do believe that the draw goes to the challenger in the sense that Trump did not go over the line. And the very fact he could go 90 minutes on the same stage ultimately elevates the challenger, that’s just automatic for any debate of that support.

I think he did allow himself to get very defensive and she exploited that. She kept coming back for things where he wasted a lot of time on taxes, on some of the other issues he felt personally about, and, as a result, he missed a lot of opportunities. She presented herself as she always does. Solid, solid, knows her stuff, not terribly exciting but reliable. I think that is the best she can do. Likable, she couldn’t but that is not something within her reach.

He contained himself in the sense that I don’t think he committed any gaffes but he allowed himself — she could find out something personal about him that would make him down rabbit holes at a time when he had wide openings to go after her on e-mails and other items, and let them go.”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I swear, my son spent more time prepping this past week for his job interview at Ford this morning (entry level engineering job) than Donald Trump seems to have bothered to spend to become the leader of the free world and perhaps save Western Civilization.

* What did he lose? Did he lose the debate on points? Perhaps. Did he lose because he disqualified himself by fulfilling the MSM narrative that he is temperamentally unfit for office? No, he most certainly did not.

Trump’s main objective was to show the nation that he belongs on this stage and is not the buffoon they say he is. He did that. Do I wish he would have had more debating skills and wiped the floor with Hillary? Heck yes. But he did endure 90 minutes of attacks by Hillary and a moderator that was clearly on her side. And he came through without disqualifying himself with any showstopping gaffes.

All I can say now is let’s see how this plays out with the voters. Hillary supporters think it’s over. Trumpers like me think he pulled through. It’s now up to the 15 to 20 percent of the voters who don’t care too much one way or the other.

* The basics for a change election are obviously in place. Voters overwhelmingly see the country on the wrong track. We’ve had two terms of the Democratic Party in the WH, and the current Democratic candidate is the quintessential status quo candidate. Her opponent is the quintessential change candidate.

Hillary can win only if Trump can be made to look like a wild, risky, out-of-control man. Whether Trump “won” the debate is mostly irrelevant if he managed to come across as a rational character. And in this debate I think he did. FWIW, I watched the debate with two people who, beforehand, regarded Trump as simply a “clown”, but who declared afterwards that he came across as a lot more reasonable than they had expected.

I think that if Trump manages a similar performance in the final two debates, and generally sticks to the knitting, it’s going to be very difficult for Hillary to win.

* Trump could use what Jane Austen called “command of countenance.” Too much smirking, pursuing of lips, head shaking, eye rolling.

Overall, though, I think Trump did fine. Not as well as I might have dreamed, but that would have required someone who is not Trump. He rambled incoherently a few times and failed to make a few strong points when the opportunity arose, but he didn’t shoot himself in the foot.

Thinking about it a few hours later, the point that remains with me is, “Hillary may talk a good game, but she’s not going to deliver. People like her have been running Washington for 30 years, making lot of promises, and nothing ever changes.”

That’s what it really boils down to, not the birther issue or tax forms.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Debate Reacts