When A Neighbor Moves, Do You Miss Him?

I think it depends on how much he contributed to your life. We tend to miss people who have enhanced our life and we tend to not miss those who did not contribute.

If you are on a floor at work, and somebody obnoxious leaves, you don’t miss him. If somebody leaves who would clog up the frig with smelly food, you don’t miss him. If somebody leaves who helps out other people and usually maintains a cheerful demeanor, you miss that person. The more they contribute, the more you miss them.

I think this same thinking should apply to groups. Those groups that contribute the most to America would be the most missed if they left. Those groups whose contributions are outweighed by their harms are not missed. In fact, they are in danger of the majority eventually acting in their self-interest and forcefully expelling or killing them.

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off on When A Neighbor Moves, Do You Miss Him?

Does America Benefit From The Presence Of Millions Of Foreign Students?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Far more Americans are against the influx of foreign students than you give credit for.

Even the Young Turks argue that US colleges should obviously give preferences to American citizens ahead of foreigners. The bottom line is that money talks. It doesn’t really have that much to do with PC, so I would argue not a case like HBD where a minority viewpoint is getting shut down due to political correctness. Most people realize that as exemplified by institutions such as college athletics, where there’s money there’s bound to be corruption in our college system.

Chinese birth tourism, while it obviously sucks on principle, doesn’t seem to be as overwhelming a problem as people sometimes make it out to be. IIRC the most recent numbers I read were that there were ~60,000 or so such births in 2014. (Now one could argue whether or not that in fact is overwhelming.)

* Universities in the UK and especially Australia also admit large numbers of overseas students, lots and lots of them Chinese, and charge them pretty much full fare in most cases.

This story at UCSD is really interesting. If Chinese students (and their money-hemorrhaging parents) start to wake up to 1) how much they’re being discriminated against in terms of college entrance requirements; and 2) how much they’re expected to pay in comparison to other students, there could be some fireworks down the road.

* For all of Mao’s and Stalin’s many many flaws neither of were in the slightest PC or pro-diversity. Celebration of ethnic diversity is a complete heresy in the eyes of a committed Marxist because it distracts from the class struggle, which is supposedly the only struggle that counts. Both Mao and Stalin considered that Mankind’s goal was to create a technologically advanced, educated society based around a canon of great works and noble historic figures, with no tolerance for deviant sexual behavior, superstition, “feudal traditions” or any sort of 3rd world romanticism.

* The expression “politically correct” originated in Soviet Russia in the 1920s, and meant any opinion approved by the bolshevik party. In the USSR it fell into disuse later on, but was adopted by the Chinese communists, who used it extensively in the 1960s during the cultural revolution. This is whence 1960s counter-culture types took it, but it only became widespread in the 1980s. Its meaning is essentially still unchanged: it still means anything approved by the official far-left propaganda outlets.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Does America Benefit From The Presence Of Millions Of Foreign Students?

Tom Friedman: “President Trump, Will You Save the Jews?”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* When some future Gibbon writes the Rise and Fall of the American Empire, I have little doubt that the death of freedom of association will figure prominently. I think you can really boil virtually any of the PC nonsense (i.e. conventional wisdom of the Current Year) down to the i-th iteration of the attack on freedom of association. Jews didn’t care for Obama’s policy toward the Jewish homeland so they don’t care to associate with him. Oh the horror.

* It’s hilarious. If Stalin had been an open-borders, politically correct, SJW fanatic bent on world revolution in the name of overthrowing the decadent micro-aggression masters, he could not have engineered the 3 acts of self-defilement Trump has oh-so-masterfully, yet at the same time so off-handedly, provoked in less than a month in office.

Let’s see – he’s gotten “Christian” leaders to declare that rescuing Christian refugees from the Middle East facing genuine religious persecution is decidedly NOT what their mission is. He’s gotten a Jew to declare that intra-ethnic solidarity and standing up for Israel is just not worth it if it requires using the most inhumane methods of the enemy (country club membership vendettas- oh the humanity!). And, oh yeah, the (anti-)Pope just chimed in this week about the Dakota pipeline, saying the preservation of native ancestral lands is very important to the Catholic Church, because heathens and their local spirits have been part of who we Roman Catholics are as a people from the very beginning.

* The suffering and oppression of the Palestinians is a consequence of ingrates such as yourself egging them on to fight conflicts they cannot possibly win. The historical record is very clear.

* Most Jews support a two state solution, because that means there is still an Israel.
I have yet to talk to a single, solitary Palestinian who would accept a permanent two state solution under any terms.
Only a tiny fraction of Muslims in general would accept a two state solution, and then only as an interim step to a single state.
Palestinians regard Israel as utterly illegitimate, and a toxic foreign body lodged in the Arab world. They intend to struggle until it is all Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. The more moderate and Westernized ones indulge in the self-delusion that the new Palestine would be a secular state with a place for everyone, except whatever happens to the Zionists will be a bed they made for themselves.
How anyone solves this historical dilemma; I have no more idea than anyone else.

* I think it’s obvious that generally speaking, neither the Palestinians or the Israelis want a 2 state solution – they each one a single state with most of the population of their antagonist gone or subjugated.

Conflicts persist until one of the belligerents loses the will or ability to keep fighting, not by imposing a ‘peace’ that neither side wants.

* There cannot be a 2 state (or binational single state) solution now, because there isn’t enough land in the West Bank, and hard line Russian immigrants have altered Israeli politics. There is going to be an Apartheid system unless the Arabs are removed. VDARE

* I want to see a movie about a vulgar Mexican construction magnate named Eddie Guerrero joining a stuffy Germanic Jewish country club. Eddie brings in a Mariachi band during the Holocaust remembrance ceremony. He blows out the minora during Hanukah with a fart. He hosts a pig roast for the local Rabbi’s birthday. Another time Eddie gives tequila to the Stuffy Rachel Goldberg daughter’s Bat Mitvah because he thinks it’s a Quinceañera and all the kids are vashnigyered!

What’s a rich Jew to do?

* Trump just made the Israel-Palestine conflict real interesting for the rest of us. He fielded the one-state solution.

Liberal Zionists claim that this is an act of dangerous, ill informed buffoonery by Trump and that the Arabs would never accept this anyway. Why wouldn’t they? If they are smart, they would accept second class citizenship for Palestinians and play the long game of demographics and liberation. That’s already their strategy for Europe.

Radical Zionists are more interested in sacred land than in demographics. They believe their own propaganda. They are somewhat similar to cuckservatives who wanted amnesty with second class citizenship for illegals in the US. Zionists, unlike cuckservatives, are prepared to enforce Apartheid though.

The real losers are the liberal Zionist diaspora. They get diversity and inclusion of Muslims … in Israel. Most importantly for us, their “ethno-nationalism for us, but not for you” narrative faces collapse.

Trump is playing 3d chess after all.

Richard Spencer should seize this trolling opportunity and endorse the two-state solution as the only peaceful, demographically sound, ethno-nationalist option. That would be hilarious.

* Isn’t this the exact opposite reason why country clubs were created in the first place? Wealthy people created them to socialize with like minded people with whom they shared a common background and beliefs. It is no wonder why they are struggling to maintain their historic membership levels with this mentality. I can’t wait until someone proposes scholarship memberships for underrepresented minorities in the name of diversity.

* Friedman is wrong (no surprise) about the two-state solution. It is far from the only option that would preserve Israel as a Jewish majority and democratic state. Other, possibly better, alternatives include:

1) Israel annexes Area C of the West Bank which contains almost all of the Jews (“settlers” in the biased language of the MSM) but only a handful of Arabs. The rest of the West Bank unites with Gaza or forms its own state. This is ‘two state lite’ and solves the supposedly awful, awful problem of Palestinian Arabs having Jews living in their territory.

2) Israel annexes Area C of the West Bank. The rest of the West Bank reunites with Jordan (it was part of Jordan from 1948-1967) and Gaza reunites with Egypt (same). This makes the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza citizens of large, relatively stable Arab states that are all at peace with Israel. Three state solution.

3) The Emirates plan. Scholars have noted that Arab countries do not do well when combining different tribal and familial groups. On the other hand, emirates based on one local dominant clan such as Qatar and the UAE countries are stable and prosperous (oil helps, of course). The West Bank should be divided into seven emirates, to be ruled by the dominant family of each region. Gaza would be an eighth emirate, ruled by Hamas for the time being.

The main obstacle to the media and individuals understanding that there are good alternatives out there is that people have been propagandized by the fiction that Palestinian Arabs are a distinct, coherent people and therefore absolutely need one state. That is simply not the case. The Palestinian identity was invented in the 1970s. Before that, no Arab considered themselves to be a “Palestinian,” other than a political status.

* The Right caving in to the ’64 Civil Rights Act was the introduction of an insidious but lethal disease.
The Act’s continuing attack on freedom of association has been devastating.
Integration was proceeding at its natural pace, and would have found its natural equilibrium point desired by society, both black and white.
Instead it has been rammed down our throats de jure (though we are still quite segregated de facto).
Freedom of association absolutism would solve may of the ills we face.
Down deep, ignoring the hypocrisy, it is what we all want for ourselves.

* One of two sides is going to occupy that land. My money’s on the Jews–they’re smarter, wealthier, and better fighters.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Tom Friedman: “President Trump, Will You Save the Jews?”

Race & Nation

Yoram Hazony writes:

It is important to notice that the Israelites’ conception of the nation has nothing to do with biology, or what we call race. For biblical nations, everything depends on a shared understanding of history, language, and religion that is passed from parents to children, but which outsiders can join as well. Thus the book of Exodus teaches that there were many Egyptians who attached themselves to the Hebrew slaves in fleeing Egypt, and that they received the Ten Commandments (more accurately translated as the “Ten Precepts”) at Sinai with the rest of Israel. Similarly, Moses invites the Midianite sheikh Jethro to join the Jewish people. And Ruth the Moabite becomes part of Israel by declaring “your people will be my people and your God will be my God”—her son being the forefather of King David himself.

But the ability of Israel to bring foreign-born individuals into its ranks always depends on these individuals’ willingness to accept Israel’s God, its view of history, and its laws. Without embracing these elements of the national identity, foreigners will not be able to contribute to Israel’s cohesion and strength in times of hardship. They will not be part of the Israelite nation.

And yet Jews form a distinct gene pool aka a race. Jon Entine writes for the Forward, May 4, 2012:

Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People
By Harry Ostrer
Oxford University Press, 288 Pages, $24.95

In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

“Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.”

For most of the 3,000-year history of the Jewish people, the notion of what came to be known as “Jewish exceptionalism” was hardly controversial. Because of our history of inmarriage and cultural isolation, imposed or self-selected, Jews were considered by gentiles (and usually referred to themselves) as a “race.” Scholars from Josephus to Disraeli proudly proclaimed their membership in “the tribe.”

Ostrer explains how this concept took on special meaning in the 20th century, as genetics emerged as a viable scientific enterprise. Jewish distinctiveness might actually be measurable empirically. In “Legacy,” he first introduces us to Maurice Fishberg, an upwardly mobile Russian-Jewish immigrant to New York at the fin de siècle. Fishberg fervently embraced the anthropological fashion of the era, measuring skull sizes to explain why Jews seemed to be afflicted with more diseases than other groups — what he called the “peculiarities of the comparative pathology of the Jews.” It turns out that Fishberg and his contemporary phrenologists were wrong: Skull shape provides limited information about human differences. But his studies ushered in a century of research linking Jews to genetics.

“Legacy” may cause its readers discomfort. To some Jews, the notion of a genetically related people is an embarrassing remnant of early Zionism that came into vogue at the height of the Western obsession with race, in the late 19th century. Celebrating blood ancestry is divisive, they claim: The authors of “The Bell Curve” were vilified 15 years ago for suggesting that genes play a major role in IQ differences among racial groups.

Furthermore, sociologists and cultural anthropologists, a disproportionate number of whom are Jewish, ridicule the term “race,” claiming there are no meaningful differences between ethnic groups. For Jews, the word still carries the especially odious historical association with Nazism and the Nuremberg Laws. They argue that Judaism has morphed from a tribal cult into a worldwide religion enhanced by thousands of years of cultural traditions.

Is Judaism a people or a religion? Or both? The belief that Jews may be psychologically or physically distinct remains a controversial fixture in the gentile and Jewish consciousness, and Ostrer places himself directly in the line of fire. Yes, he writes, the term “race” carries nefarious associations of inferiority and ranking of people. Anything that marks Jews as essentially different runs the risk of stirring either anti- or philo-Semitism. But that doesn’t mean we can ignore the factual reality of what he calls the “biological basis of Jewishness” and “Jewish genetics.” Acknowledging the distinctiveness of Jews is “fraught with peril,” but we must grapple with the hard evidence of “human differences” if we seek to understand the new age of genetics.

Although he readily acknowledges the formative role of culture and environment, Ostrer believes that Jewish identity has multiple threads, including DNA. He offers a cogent, scientifically based review of the evidence, which serves as a model of scientific restraint.

“On the one hand, the study of Jewish genetics might be viewed as an elitist effort, promoting a certain genetic view of Jewish superiority,” he writes. “On the other, it might provide fodder for anti-Semitism by providing evidence of a genetic basis for undesirable traits that are present among some Jews. These issues will newly challenge the liberal view that humans are created equal but with genetic liabilities.”

…Both the human genome project and disease research rest on the premise of finding distinguishable differences between individuals and often among populations. Scientists have ditched the term “race,” with all its normative baggage, and adopted more neutral terms, such as “population” and “clime,” which have much of the same meaning. Boiled down to its essence, race equates to “region of ancestral origin.”

Ostrer has devoted his career to investigating these extended family trees, which help explain the genetic basis of common and rare disorders. Today, Jews remain identifiable in large measure by the 40 or so diseases we disproportionately carry, the inescapable consequence of inbreeding. He traces the fascinating history of numerous “Jewish diseases,” such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher, Niemann-Pick, Mucolipidosis IV, as well as breast and ovarian cancer. Indeed, 10 years ago I was diagnosed as carrying one of the three genetic mutations for breast and ovarian cancer that mark my family and me as indelibly Jewish, prompting me to write “Abraham’s Children.”

Like East Asians, the Amish, Icelanders, Aboriginals, the Basque people, African tribes and other groups, Jews have remained isolated for centuries because of geography, religion or cultural practices. It’s stamped on our DNA. As Ostrer explains in fascinating detail, threads of Jewish ancestry link the sizable Jewish communities of North America and Europe to Yemenite and other Middle Eastern Jews who have relocated to Israel, as well as to the black Lemba of southern Africa and to India’s Cochin Jews. But, in a twist, the links include neither the Bene Israel of India nor Ethiopian Jews. Genetic tests show that both groups are converts, contradicting their founding myths…
Although Jews make up less than 3% of the population, they have won more than 25% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to American scientists since 1950. Jews also account for 20% of this country’s chief executives and make up 22% of Ivy League students. Psychologists and educational researchers have pegged their average IQ at 107.5 to 115, with their verbal IQ at more than 120, a stunning standard deviation above the average of 100 found in those of European ancestry. Like it or not, the IQ debate will become an increasingly important issue going forward, as medical geneticists focus on unlocking the mysteries of the brain.

Posted in Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off on Race & Nation

Can Trump Get It Done?

Chaim Amalek writes: If his critics are right, Trump may simply not have the intellectual toolkit to be an effective president, even though he was and is right on two very critical issues (immigration and trade). What’s that you say, “The Establishment does not like me, and they oppose me”? Cry me a river. Competent leaders, once they assume the reins of power, move beyond that. If they are any good. So is Trump any good? Well, just because you are in the right on some issues does not mean you have the necessary competence to move forward on any of them. His reliance on his kids for advice is strictly 3rd World stuff. Ball remains in his court, let’s see what he does with it. Too bad he did not hire AMALEK to guide him.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Can Trump Get It Done?