Genetic citizenship: DNA testing and the Israeli Law of Return

ESSAY: The Israeli State recently announced that it may begin to use genetic tests to determine whether potential immigrants are Jewish or not. This development would demand a rethinking of Israeli law on the issue of the definition of Jewishness. In this article, we discuss the historical and legal context of secular and religious definitions of Jewishness and rights to immigration in the State of Israel. We give a brief overview of different ways in which genes have been regarded as Jewish, and we discuss the relationship between this new use of genetics and the society with which it is co-produced. In conclusion, we raise several questions about future potential impacts of Jewish genetics on Israeli law and society.

Posted in Genetics, Israel | Comments Off on Genetic citizenship: DNA testing and the Israeli Law of Return

49ers’ Colin Kaepernick ignores the contradiction of his outrage

Lowell Cohn writes: All this makes you wonder what is going on with Kaepernick.

How about this? Kaepernick is desperately flailing for attention. And he’s getting it. He always has been an attention junkie — all that “Kaepernicking” — kissing his bicep. He filed for a trademark for that in 2013. Quite the capitalist Kaepernick despite our corrupt system. And that “7tormscoming” hashtag I’ve never understood. Big ego. Me-firster.

He’s getting less attention for his quarterbacking.

He only started his protest this year when he was out of the headlines. Needed to find another way to get ink and air time. It’s all about him, not the team. Maybe not even about society. When asked what one thing he would change in America right now, he said, “That’s a tough question because there’s a lot of things that need to change. That’s something that it’s hard to lock down.”

Really? Not one thought yet?

It’s the attention he needs. He’s shot as an athlete. His confidence is gone, has been since last season. The Cardinals called him out, said they could intercept him if he threw outside the numbers. Proceeded to intercept him four times. His confidence probably was gone before that. He’s afraid to compete with Gabbert, is using his complaint against America as an excuse. I wonder if he even knows what he’s doing.

In spite of his diminishing returns, he’s the center of the sports world now. He is the center of hard news in America. This Kaepernick news cycle way exceeds the time the 49ers offense controlled the ball Friday night.

Again, what do I really see? I see Kaepernick grabbing the spotlight any way he can.

What Kaepernick did — he will continue to sit in future games — changes his equation with the Niners. They issued a statement defending his right to protest. You can bet it galled them to do it.

Last week, he made snotty comments about Trent Baalke. He’s doing everything he can to make himself persona non grata, to get cut or traded. Taking the focus away from football and from the team with the season fast approaching. What football team needs that?

Of course, when the 49ers get rid of him next week, Kaepernick will say, “It’s not because of my play. It’s because I took a political stance.”

He’s created a can’t-lose system for himself, a way to cushion the blow.

Posted in Football | Comments Off on 49ers’ Colin Kaepernick ignores the contradiction of his outrage

Jews, Nationalism and the Alt-Right

I’ve been writing on this subject since 1998 when I read The Bell Curve which made it obvious what I had always suspected — different races have different gifts.

In 1999, I started reading William Pierce and I saw a powerful white nationalist movement brewing. As perverse as this might sound, I saw some of what Pierce was saying as fitting into certain patterns in Jewish history when Jews overreach for power and create a nasty backlash.

Just as Jews want to control their own destiny in their own state, so too Germans and Americans and French want to control their own national destinies and they don’t always want alien groups such as Jews running important things such as media and finance.

I think I understand white nationalists — they want the same kind of cohesion that the Torah seeks for Jews. Torah makes no provision for non-Jewish citizenship in the Jewish state, so why should Jews expect goyim to give them full citizenship in gentile states?

White nationalists, by and large, see organized Jewry as deliberately trying to inflict white genocide by promoting non-white immigration and multiculturalism, thereby rendering whites minorities in the countries they created. People, be they Jews or non-Jews, rarely care about the motives of people who hurt them. They judge individuals and groups based on their actions. So white nationalists understandably see the multiculti push by organized Jewry as malicious.

In his essay on the Alt Right for the Forward.com, Joshua Seidel describes the multi-culti push of organized Jewry as crazy and self-destructive.

I don’t see things quite that way. I see organized Jewry as acting out of a tribal addiction (all groups have blind spots, that’s a normal function of social identity formation, ties bind and blind) when it reflexively promotes minority rights and multiculturalism to the goyim while seeking the opposite (unity, strength and cohesion) for Jews. As a result of historical trauma, organized Jewry has a reflexive fear of gentile nationalisms and thus promotes diversity and globalism and tikkun olam (social justice). In diaspora movements that promote minority rights as against the rights of the majority, you find many Jews. In diaspora movements to promote majority rights over minority rights, you rarely find Jews.

So when American Jews such as Stephen Steinlight point out to organized Jewry the great harm mass immigration will do to Jews, the organized Jewish community can’t see it because of the blinders imposed by their tribal addiction. They can’t see themselves as doing any harm to their host countries. They think they are only doing good by promoting multi-culturalism, mass non-white immigration and minority rights.

I have never heard a Jew say or read a Jew write that he wants to weaken gentile racial, religious and national identity so that gentiles are easier to manipulate (aka make America and other gentile countries more “user-friendly” for Jews). That sounds crazy, even though it is the upshot of what organized Jewry in the diaspora pushes (cohesion for Jews, diversity for goyim).

Why can’t organized Jewry see that they are doing harm by always siding with minorities as against the white core? Because of a tribal addiction. This addiction pushes reset whenever organized Jewry begins to think they might have made a mistake, so they always double down on multiculturalism and diversity and increased immigration.

The best way to see this tribal addiction, reset addiction, is among the frumies (Orthodox) who have the most negative views of gentiles. Think about the Orthodox Jews always defending Shlomo Rubashkin. Nobody what you said, they had an answer. If they accepted he did some wrong things, they would then argue that everyone in the meatpacking industry does wrong things. The difference is that the average gentile meatpacker, when reprimanded by the feds, mends his way but Shlomo Rubashkin and company just kept on brazenly breaking the law and getting the complete support of their community.

So now that organized Jewry in America is facing a rising tide of implicit white identity in the form of the Donald Trump campaign, how are they reacting? Are they having second thoughts about pushing multiculturalism and increased immigration? No way! Organized Jewry has an addiction. They can’t see the harm they are doing. They don’t see the danger they are facing. So they double down on the multi-culti agenda.

I rarely see organized Jewry pushing for the same things for gentiles that it seeks for Jews such as unity and cohesion but I don’t think this is done with conscious malicious intent most of the time. Most people are unaware of their hypocrisies. This rule applies equally to Jews as to non-Jews.

So why do my Jewish friends and I see things the way we do? Because we don’t assume that Jews as a group are always innocent. Instead, we see Jews as like other people in that they have gifts and flaws and that their actions affect other people, not always for the good as no group always acts for the good of other groups.

Few people are willing to take stock of the harm they have done. Jews are no different from non-Jews in this regard.

Absent a religious faith, there are no good guys and no bad guys in the world. There are just different forms of life fighting to perpetuate their genes.

All forms of life have a group evolutionary strategy. Jews have one, Arabs have one, Africans have one, Chinese one. It is rare that a member of a group can see his group’s evolutionary strategy.

Every life form has a strong reaction against anything that threatens its survival. Groups normally need cohesion to survive. Threats to group cohesion, such as multiculturalism, should be expected to produce violent responses.

Shutter Island (2010) is Martin Scorsese’s film about Jewish tribal addiction, aka Jewish resetting to its default position that Jews are always right and gentiles wrong whenever there is a conflict of interest. Organized Jewry calls this conflict of interest anti-Semitism.

Scorsese has spent his career working in Hollywood and he knows Jewish blind spots. This movie is his perspective on the Jewish addiction to hitting reset whenever uncomfortable perspectives come up that show Jews are not innocent (no group is innocent, but because Jews are particularly smart, hard-working, organized and passionate, they are usually more influential than most groups in things such as finance, politics, and media).

The movie is set in the 1950s and almost everyone is white. The clue that this movie is really about the Jews is the German doctor.

The protagonist is a stand-in for Jews. The whites want him to accept responsibility for his actions and to act white aka responsible. They don’t want to go nazi on him, but when he keeps pushing them, they finally go nazi.

That’s like white nationalists such as Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, Richard Spencer, Gregory Hood, etc. They don’t want to go nazi on the Jews, but if they have to to survive, to protect their people, they will, just as Jews will fight for the preservation of the Jewish state against all enemies.

A goy says to me: “it’s important to remember that parasites don’t survive if they kill off all the hosts. If this theory holds up, Jews will have an incentive to continue providing benefits to their host nations while also undermining the original culture in order to gain power and safety. Theoretically, there will be a cap on the negative influence of Jews, but I’m not really seeing one.”

Another goy says: “Eyes Wide Shut is absolutely [Stanley] Kubrick’s knowledge of the cabal. Kubrick attended the Rothschilds ’70s party with bizarre masks.”

Yggdrasil (John Gardner) wrote in 2009:

For some time I have been concerned that we in the nationalist movement pay insufficient attention to culture and the arts. I am convinced that the same sensitive “code” antenna that we apply to news articles can be applied to movies. So let’s place a few under the “Jewelers loop” and discover the deeper meaning.
Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is a 10 karat D flawless — as good as it gets!
If you have already seen this movie I want you to see it again. If you haven’t seen it, go. And enjoy the female nudity. It is all for a good cause.
For the truth is that Kubrick has grabbed the football and scored a touchdown. Many have seen the movie but (almost) nobody saw the quarterback sneak.
The kick off to my curiosity about this movie came in two parts; first, a clear memory of Kubrick’s past masterpieces packed with profoundly politically incorrect content. He is not above using sex and violence to lure us to the theater to see messages that are profoundly disturbing to universalist egalitarians. 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange are classic examples. This is another.
Next, and more important, were the uncomfortable movie critics on TV who, while admitting that this movie was about sex, thought that the American public would not want to see it.
At the first exhortation not to see this film, my code antennae sprung erect.
A clear warning that something in this film is at odds with the agenda of the inner party culture destroyers.
(For a subtle piece that uses every tool in the Hollywood arsenal of culture destruction to maximum effect see The Election.)
The clear message from the inner party critics was that they wanted this movie to fail at the box office. Of course, I did not expect them to articulate their own reasons why. That isn’t how our social signaling and instruction system works here in America. But in truth, I am not sure the inner party critics could articulate their reasons. Most likely, they watched the movie and smelled vague danger, but because the movie lacked any easily recognizable tag of hostility, they could not instantly summon the appropriate verbal script of rebuke.
Yes folks, its that good!
And the reason is the movie’s simple act of deception. The inner party cannot recognize that a candid, relaxed portrait of themselves in their element is a hostile act. They may not like it, but they cannot bring themselves to bitch out loud.
In order to tell you why it is that good, I am going to have to “spoil” the movie for you. But since the movie does not really center on a plot, there is little suspense to spoil, and of course there are higher values involved.
Tom Cruise, plays an outer party doctor living and practicing medicine in New York City. It is Christmas time in New York, and you cannot help but notice Kubrick’s deft portrait of Christmas in New York as something quite different from, for example, Christmas in Oklahoma. Few apartments we see house Christians, but all have “Christmas” trees and ornaments. Not a crucifix nor a manger to be seen anywhere. (For reasons that entirely escape me, our ancient paganism is improbably and yet profoundly comforting to the inner-party alien, who for inexplicable reasons is frightened to death by the sermon on the mount. If they think Christ is scary, just provoke us into bringing Thor’s Hammer out of retirement! — but then I digress.)
Tom and his wife, Nicole Kidman are on their way to a Christmas party hosted by his wealthiest patient.
At the party, a guest attempts to seduce Kidman, while Cruise has to attend to a nude model or prostitute who has overdosed in the bedroom of his host. The host appreciates Cruise’s emergency services and his discretion. The host’s ethnic origin is entirely obvious (played by Sydney Pollack). On his way back to join the party, Cruise is accosted by two models who apparently want to double team him.
The sexual predation at the party is blatant. It is also accepted by all the party goers as if it were the natural state of enlightened humanity.
Cruise spots a friend who dropped out of his medical school class playing piano at the party. Cruise promises to come see him play at a local club.
The next evening, (actually, the movie moves quickly, and I might have the events a bit out of order) Cruise and Kidman decide to share a marijuana smoke before they get intimate, and this provokes a remarkably aggressive verbal attack from Kidman in which she talks about a fantasy of making love with another man.
Cruise, in his intoxicated condition gets called by the daughter of another wealthy patient who has just died. Cruise goes to the apartment of the patient. The daughter, who is engaged to be married, comes on to Cruise, with her fiance in the next room. Cruise maintains his professionalism.
After the visit, he takes a walk and is accosted by a prostitute on the street. He goes with her to her apartment and is interrupted by a cell phone call from Kidman wanting to know if she should wait up. He says no, but the mood is spoiled so he leaves.
He then goes to the club to see his piano playing friend, and is told of parties where his friend is paid a fortune but must play blindfolded. The friend never knows where the parties are and only finds out that one is starting and given the password for entry an hour in advance. He is escorted to the party by guards. After the piano player’s cell phone rings, Cruise twists his friend’s arm for the location and password. At this point the serious adventures begin.
To gain access to the party, Cruise must rent a costume and a mask, which he does, from an amusingly predatory costume rental proprietor.
He takes a cab to the party at a huge mansion out on Long Island.
He walks in on an orgy unlike any other you have seen or imagined. It is highly organized. There is more voyeurism than action. The entire performance seems carefully orchestrated, and the participants, including the master of ceremonies, the nude entertainers, and the masked party goers all seem to know each other and what to expect. Neither the need for nor the function of the masks is entirely clear.
The master of ceremonies is an old man with a staff who directs the nude ladies with cabalistic chants.
Cruise is approached by one of the young ladies who warns him to flee or he will be killed. Cruise declines, and is exposed by the master of ceremonies. The girl who warned him offers to sacrifice herself if he will be allowed to leave alive, the deal is struck, and Cruise is expelled by the guards and goes home.
The next day, he notices a news item to the effect that the girl who sacrificed herself for him was found dead. He goes to look at her in the morgue at the hospital.
He returns the costume (with the exception of the mask) to the predatory owner, and his girlfriend.
He tries to track down his piano playing friend, can’t find him, and notices that he is being followed.
That evening, he visits the prostitute’s apartment, and encounters her female roommate who lets him in. The roommate delivers the bad news that the prostitute tested positive for HIV and is gone.
Tilt!
The problem with this movie is that you tend to get caught up in the swirl of action, and the message can rip right past you. But when the roommate conveys the bad news about HIV, I am jolted erect in my seat. The Hollywood culture destruction machine would never allow this sort of scene in one of its movies.
So what is going on here?
At a minimum, we have a conservative message being thrust upon an unwilling audience, but perhaps there is much more. The AIDS interruption lifts me up out of the delirium of action and forces me to whip out that jeweler’s loop.
And suddenly it is painfully obvious.
Cruise is a typical outer party professional earning a good living in an intensely remote and hostile land. You are instantly struck by his isolation, and the isolation of his family. No co-workers to talk this over with and to understand or come to his aid. And he is utterly unwelcome in the cabal. His role is to work, pay taxes and not think too hard!
Like all outer party elites in the big city, he is absolutely clueless about how the society around him really works, and why it works the way it does, and then suddenly he stumbles upon the inner sanctum of the inner party. He sees the rewards and entertainments that draw them together, and he also experiences first hand the terror they can inflict on wayward members or unwanted intruders.
Movie hell! This feels like real life in the big apple!
The ending to this movie has two parts. First, his wealthy patient friend, played by Sidney Pollack, calls and asks him to come over. Pollack then explains that he was at the orgy, that Cruise is in “way over his head,” that it was he, Pollack, who had him followed. His piano playing friend was put on a plane back to Seattle, the girl wasn’t killed but died of an overdose, and nobody was killed by this Cabal that he is a part of. He, Pollack, is explaining because he trusts Cruise to stop investigating and just forget this ever happened.
The movie goer is left with an intense feeling of alienation. There is a powerful and disciplined cabal that runs things from behind the scenes, and maintains its membership with corrupt entertainments and enforces discipline with terror.
But, of course, according to one of its organizers, It’s harmless. Just a few nebbishes from Brooklyn who wouldn’t hurt a fly havin a little fun. Hey, it might be a dictatorship, but it is a benevolent and fun loving dictatorship, so that makes it OK!
All the while , of course, Pollack is delivering a not-so-subtle economic threat, which as we all know, is exactly how it works in real life.
In the meantime, of course, Cruise has explained to Kidman the whole series of misadventures before his meeting with Pollack, and is fearful that his marriage might be in danger. He has arranged with her and their daughter to go Christmas shopping, which sets up the final scene in FAO Schwartz.
Now curiously, the critics hate this ending, claiming it is no ending at all.
But to normal viewers, the conclusion is absolutely pre-ordained. My wife knew the outcome ten minutes before the end.
After all, Cruise and Kidman are sojourners in a hostile and alien land. When Cruise pops the fateful question, Kidman responds as she must, but in a playful and hip way.
So it is no wonder that critics absolutely hate this movie.
The reason they hate it is that the typical outer party viewer is left with a powerful feeling of vague threat from a predatory culture in which a cabal such as the one portrayed in this movie makes perfect sense. The kabal is populated with people who show harmless and genial public faces during the day, but cannot show their real faces among themselves at private parties after dark.
It is some of the richest symbolism I have seen on celluloid. This flick veers awfully close to the truth folks. And it gets away with it!!

Posted in Alt Right, Hollywood, Jews | Comments Off on Jews, Nationalism and the Alt-Right

Jeffrey Toobin Reveals Patty Hearst’s Real Crime

“In the end, notwithstanding a surreal detour in the 1970s, Patricia led the life for which she was destined back in Hillsborough. The story of Patty Hearst, as extraordinary as it once was, had a familiar, even predictable ending. She did not turn into a revolutionary. She turned into her mother.”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Toobin also cheated on his wife with the daughter of his CNN colleague and knocked her up. If I recall correctly he was not entirely chivalrous with regard to his bastard offspring either.

A defense of Clinton probably has a lot to do with a defense of himself.

* History, even recent history, is cyclical. 1975 was probably the height of both second-wave feminism and official sympathy for what was then called “black power”, effectively exculpating blacks from any agency in their low culture and high crime rate. Feminists did not want to admit the fragility of the female mind (particularly the young female mind), and the government/media did not want to admit the scope of the racial animus inherent to all black power movements, not just the SLA. So, Patty Hearst had to be guilty.

The tide turned with Reagan, and more so with Giuliani, and we have had a more or less three decade reprieve from this foolishness; but now we have come full circle with grrl-power media, Hillary (who is nothing if not a sclerotic 2nd-wave remnant), and Black Lives Matter, which might as well be the SLA, and probably soon will be (at least the parts that get frozen out of the Soros money).

* What a coincidence that I’m reading the book right now. About 3/4 the way through. It’s probably the best true-crime book I’ve ever read, right up there with In Cold Blood. Very difficult to put down.

The author says Hearst was 100 lbs when she was arrested. She was a voracious smoker and was thin before she was kidnapped.

The other living SLA members in jail said all the sex was consensual (and that DeFreeze never did it with her), and that specifically she was in love with one of her captors: Willy Wolfe. She had lost her virginity at 15 and had been living with her fiance, Steve Weed, when she was abducted at 19. She falls in love with Weed, then Wolfe, then after he’s dead, another guy named Steve Soliah. She sends him love letters while they’re both in jail. Then she gets close to one of her lawyers during the trial. Toobin doesn’t say they have a relationship, though.

Basically she’s a love-sick teen who falls for whatever guy can sweep her off her feet. Her revolutionary feminism just sounds like self-defense because she can’t stop falling in love. Who can blame her for that? But participating in so many violent felonies, according to the author, makes her sound like the fierce, revenge and hate-filled guerrilla that so many youngsters get sucked in to be. Apparently there were bombs going off all over California at that time. The term “boomers” is starting to make more sense for that generation.

* Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing but at some point Patty seemed to have become a real convert. After the bulk of the SLA including DeFreeze were killed in a shootout with the cops, she stayed with the remnant of the group for a year. By the end she was with only 1 – Wendy Yoshimura. She could have escaped many times. Even someone who is brainwashed must have moments of clarity where they remember their former selves. I’m not sure that it was really wrong to hold her accountable for her acts after her “conversion”. What if she had actually used the rifle she carried in the bank robbery and killed someone? Would she have had no responsibility for that?

During the course of one of the SLA bank robberies, Emily Harris murdered a customer who was waiting in line to make a deposit. Somehow, the state of California did not get around to prosecuting her until 2003 and then she got only 8 years. For killing someone during a bank robbery. Maybe there really is a double standard for SWPL type white people.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Jeffrey Toobin Reveals Patty Hearst’s Real Crime

Esther Jungreis, Orthodox Jewish Outreach Pioneer, Dies at 80

She had a gift, she had passion, she was a mighty warrior for her people and she did all her campaigning within the strict confines of Orthodox Judaism. There can be a public role for women in Orthodox Judaism.

Esther Jungreis never claimed to be a rabbi. She believed in separate roles for men and women.

(JTA) — Esther Jungreis, a pioneer in the Jewish outreach movement and founder of the organization Hineni, died Tuesday. She was 80, according to the Vos Iz Neias blog.

An announcement published in October on the site Only Simchas indicated Jungreis was “in serious condition” and fighting an infection, but did not specify her ailment.

Jungreis was born in Szeged, Hungary, in 1936, where her father was chief rabbi. A child survivor of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, she and her family resettled in 1947 in Brooklyn, where she married her distant cousin, Rabbi Meshulem HaLevi Jungreis, according to the Yeshiva World. She and her husband, who died in 1996, founded the North Woodmere Jewish Center/Congregation Ohr Torah on Long Island in 1964.

Jungreis, known universally by the honorific rebbetzin, founded Hineni in 1973 in order to bring young Jews closer to Orthodox Judaism by offering Torah classes, singles events, and Shabbat and holiday services. She spoke to audiences across the United States, including at Madison Square Garden in 1973.

She was known for her work in outreach to young Jews, as well as for self-help books about a variety of topics, including marriage and relationship advice, as well as how to deal with challenges in life.

Jungreis drew inspiration from her experience as a Holocaust survivor to fight for Jewish continuity and against intermarriage. But her statements comparing assimilation to the Holocaust sometimes sparked controversy.

“To be a Jew is the greatest privilege,” she implored at a speech in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1999. “To be unaware of it is the greatest catastrophe — spiritual genocide.”

Posted in Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Esther Jungreis, Orthodox Jewish Outreach Pioneer, Dies at 80