Forward: “Is Donald Trump’s Endorsement by 88 Retired Generals a Secret Neo-Nazi Code?”

Steve Sailer writes: Do you ever get the impression that the Establishment is undergoing a nervous breakdown?

By the way, if we’re going to wander off into Minister Farrakhan-style numerological fever swamps, the number 88 means a lot more to Trump speechwriter Stephen Miller in the context of the Group of 88 leftist Duke professors who helped promote the hate hoax against the Duke lacrosse athletes.

COMMENTS:

* This is some epic trolling by Trump. I wonder if that was Miller’s idea.

* The letter was organized by Major Gen. Sidney Shachnow, a 40-year Army veteran and Holocaust survivor, Hollywood should make a movie about MG. Shachnow but I’m sure they won’t do that now that he’s endorsed Donald Trump.

* It doesn’t hurt that the 88 is a famous Nazi artillery piece.

* It seems the female ‘journalist’ who published this inanity is a German Jew with an M.A. in Jewish Studies (concentration, the Holocaust) who interned at PolitiFact and is now marinating in politically correct lies via NYU J-School’s grad program.

According to her bio, “{i}n 2007, I founded a bimonthly European youth magazine, Schnipsel (“papercuts”), that was awarded funding by the European Union”.

* “The Anti Defimation League calls 88 “one of the most common white supremacist symbols”

Just imagine – Vladimir Horowitz, Emmanuel Ax, Arthur Rubinstein, Vladimir Ashkenazy – they were all playing Nazi pianos, and never knew it.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Forward: “Is Donald Trump’s Endorsement by 88 Retired Generals a Secret Neo-Nazi Code?”

The Specter of the ‘Alt-Right’

From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

It began, as many instances of sliming do, with curiosity, following Hillary Clinton’s August 25 speech denouncing Donald Trump’s ties to the so-called alt-right movement. Living as I do in a bubble, I had never heard the term alt-right before. In fact, my acquaintance with alt as a prefix was more or less limited to the Alt key on my keyboard, which I never understood in the first place and which has now been replaced by the Option key on my Mac. (I use it for diacritics, though I’m sure it’s useful in other ways.) I had at least understood alt as an abbreviation of alternate or alternative, which made sense in terms of keyboard functioning and also worked for alt-rock, which was a movement seeking independence from mainstream rock ’n’ roll in the 1990s.

But alt-right, Clinton made clear, presents not so much an alternative as an extreme. When I found Slate’s explanation of the movement, I could not believe the sources to which they sent me were truly propounding the views attributed to them. I was wrong.

First, Taki’s Magazine, to which the Slate article sent me to find the origin of the term alternative right (it was used in a headline over the text of the philosopher Paul Gottfried’s address to the H.L. Mencken Club in 2008), seems to expound nativist, misogynist, racist ideology to a fare-thee-well, including headlines like “Feminist Witch Hunts Are Rape” and “L.A.’s Dirty Little Brown Secret” (a doozy that gives a thumbs-up to ethnic cleansing). I got even more curious when I spotted a strange, froglike creature next to the headline “Getting the Alt-Right Wrong.” Since the article itself didn’t explain the green cartoon guy, I had to read further to learn that he was Pepe, originally a mascot on the trolling website 4chan and since co-opted by extreme conservatives as an avatar of their movement. (At the point in Clinton’s speech where she first used the term alt-right, someone shouted out “Pepe!”) That the green Donald Trump image I’ve now picked to accompany this post looks completely creepy to me but is celebrated by some of his ardent supporters should have told me that researching this topic further was not going to make me feel any better.

But I couldn’t help myself. I traveled through the vortex into the even more extreme Radix Journal, where “Hannibal Bateman” (a merging, I assume, of Hannibal Lecter and Patrick Bateman), sitting on a leather couch backgrounded by a gray stone wall that brings man cave to mind, refers to the “emphasis on freedom” in Western democracies as “a negative ideal.” Bateman — er, Richard Spencer, who seems to use Bateman as an alter ego — appears again in an even more alarming video explaining the innocuously titled National Policy Institute. Touting “the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States,” this video reminded me of the chilling “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” scene in Cabaret.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Specter of the ‘Alt-Right’

Compared To America, Israel Is A Low-Trust State

There are parts of American life that are considerably lower trust than parts of Israeli life. Overall, however, Americans have more trust in their government and in each other than do Israels.

So what about Jews in the West? Jews have much lower crime rates than the average citizen so I would expect that the presence of Jews in a Western country increase social trust.

I notice that English Jews are the most polite Jews and that the more generations Jews have lived in the West, the more likely they are to be polite (as compared to the bluntness of semitic peoples).

All semitic cultures are low-trust societies. Ashkenazi Jews are a higher trust culture than Sephardim and Mizrahim.

Chaim Amalek: “How many of their daughters – and sons – must the muslims rape before the Nordic states become low-trust?”

Ouriel Baruch Winn: “I don’t think so. Israeli society is mostly Mizrachi, and a very high trust society. In America, if you lose your wallet it will never get returned. Happened to me twice in israel, wallet returned with all the money.”

From the blog Those Who Can See:

David Pryce-Jones, who lived many years among the Arabs:

“‘Public welfare’ is a concept without meaningful application [in the Arab world]; there is no common good. Generosity is suspect as a ploy for advantage. Idealism and sincerity are penalized. Self-sacrifice is akin to lunacy or martyrdom.”

David Lamb, after three years in Cairo: “But here’s the curious thing: While Egyptians are content to live in filthy, battered buildings, the insides of their homes are always immaculate. … When I asked friends if anyone had ever considered a neighborhood block association or an owners’ association to clean up common areas, they would chuckle and say “Oh, THAT would never work here.” No doubt it wouldn’t. My friends did not feel that their responsibility extended beyond their own boundaries.”

Steve Sailer quotes Iranians Firoozeh Dumas and Dayi Hamid on the Persian concept of ‘zerangi’:

“… When we first came to America in 1972, my father was amazed at the way Americans waited in line at Disneyland. No complaints, no cutting. In Iran, we have zerangi, a concept that loosely means “cleverness.”

… Most, if not all the time in Iranian culture and society, a zerang person is seen in a positive light … For example, a person who knows how the American legal system works and is able to work it to his or her advantage is zerang. A person who is resourceful in business and has made something of himself is zerang. … It does not stop here; a person who is able to wittingly cheat people, companies, businesses, governments of money is zerang and an idol for many Iranians. …We Iranians, although outwardly criticize corruption, internally glorify it and wish to master it.”

Aside from driving politely and not littering, another ‘lesser virtue’ which the Teutonics hold dear, and their immigrants seem unaware of, is the art of queuing:

“When Israeli-born author Ayelet Tsabari first immigrated to Canada in 1998, a strange sight caught her eye on the sidewalks of Vancouver. Beneath every Canadian bus stop sign, as if commanded by an invisible drill sergeant, citizens young and old automatically formed into neat, ordered lines. “I was wondering, ‘Why are people standing like that?’” she said.

And the phenomenon is not only baffling to Israelis. Ms. Tsabari described bonding with an Iraqi friend over the “foreign and strange” practice. But from Russia to China to Italy to the entire Middle East, there are billions of people around the world who are genuinely confused by the penchant of English-speaking peoples to constantly form into queues.”

A Jewish friend says:

The problem since WWII no one can honestly discuss the risks and advantages of having a Jewish population. Fortunately, church and state are separated in the U.S. so Jews have been able to flourish with no ghettoization. But you can see from having read Albert Lindemann and to a lesser extent Kevin MacDonald the recent historical basis for anti-semitism, and through William Pierce, Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson and others the problem within a pluralistic liberal democracy. I think that if the U.S. had a screening program for immigrants including identifying which groups would exercise traditional friendliness and courtesy in the sense it had been practiced in the US until recently, one would exclude 90% of Israelis, 80% of Russian Jews and 50% of all other Jews.

It is difficult, because of the concept espoused by Garrett Hardin in the Tragedy of the Commons, for any one individual (or for that matter any small group) to hold back for fear that others will get more. How do you inculcate that attitude? You need a dominant culture and a fairly homogenous and high trust population.

Having an open discuss of the suitability of various groups for one’s country would encourage minority groups to behave better.

Los Angeles Times July 25, 1997:

It’s a Sin to Be a Sucker in Israel: Fear of being seen as a freier creates an unbending approach to life–from parking to peace talks. Israelis say the desire to be tough is rooted in history of survival.

JERUSALEM — Why does an Israeli driver speed up when another car signals its intent to enter his traffic lane? Because he doesn’t want to be a freier–a sucker.

What do Israelis say when dodging military reserve duty? “What do I look like, a freier?”

And how does the Club Riviera advertise its five-star apartments? “Only Freiers Pay More!”

If Israelis could agree on anything–a highly unlikely prospect, but if they could–it just might be that the cardinal sin is to be a freier.

“It’s a national characteristic,” said author Zeev Chafets, who included a chapter on the subject in his book about Israelis, “Heroes and Hustlers, Hard Hats and Holy Men.” The topic “is something we talk about all the time.”

A freier, in Israeli eyes, is a shopper who waits in line to pay retail. It is a driver who searches for legal parking rather than pulling onto the sidewalk with the other cars. And if he does this in a rush to file a tax return, he is the consummate freier.

In short, a freier is anyone who cedes ground, plays completely by the rules or allows someone to get the better of him. The ideal Israeli is clever and tough, and a freier is the opposite. A pushover–in the way that Israelis often perceive Americans to be.

Of course, no one likes to be a sucker. The weakling who gets sand kicked in his face is universally scorned. Men and women all over the world lift weights to avoid this fate. But even muscle-bound Israelis dread a face full of sand on a daily basis, and the fear of being a freier plays into every aspect of life, from the most mundane task to the peace process with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

This has earned Israelis an international reputation as rough and gruff, more brash than New Yorkers and ruder than the French. It is a stereotype that Israelis readily accept, adding only that a true Israeli is like the native sabra, or prickly pear–sharp on the outside but soft and sweet inside. And they explain that, like everything else in the Middle East, the fear of being a freier is rooted in at least 2,000 years of history.

Freiers are naive, apt to fall into a trap. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu beat the Labor Party’s Shimon Peres in elections last year in large part because of Peres’ nice-guy image and view that Israel must be generous from its position of strength, giving up land now to gain long-term peace.

“He was misperceived as someone who would make us freiers,” lamented former aide Uri Dromi, “even though he never made concessions or compromises on something important to us.”

Now, Netanyahu makes the point wherever he can that he is no sucker. In a recent interview with the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot, he credited his muscle-flexing for the drop in terrorist attacks against Israel. “The Palestinians have learned that we aren’t freiers,” he said.

Two months ago, a Maariv newspaper reporter asked Netanyahu, “Would you agree that Arafat is no freier?”

“Yes, but neither am I,” Netanyahu blustered.

The Middle Eastern Way of Negotiating

So does the fear of being a sucker bear upon peace negotiations?

Israel’s bottom line in a peace accord with the Palestinians will be determined by “the sense that they are making decisions governing the existence of the Jewish state and future of the Jewish people,” said a U.S. diplomat in Israel. Not by the fear of being a sucker.

And yet, peace negotiations are affected by the fact that neither Israelis nor Palestinians want to risk being a sucker by making concessions before the other side does.

In negotiations, an American generally will put his cards on the table, expect the other side to do the same and assume that a happy compromise lives somewhere in the middle. But Israelis and Palestinians do not bargain in this way.

“Both sides believe anything offered up first will be pocketed by the other side,” said the diplomat, who asked not to be identified. “Whenever things break down, this is usually the problem. They will hold out carrots but do not want to give one up until they are sure the other side will give.”

Lucy Shahar, co-author of the book “Border Crossings: American Interactions With Israelis,” explained that, in the case of Israelis, this is because they do not share the American belief in win-win negotiations. “In his heart of hearts, an Israeli believes that is impossible,” Shahar said. “In the Middle East, usually someone loses badly. Nothing in the Israeli experience suggests that everyone wins here or in the diaspora.”

Because of this, business deals with Israelis also frequently start out on a more stubborn note than they do with Americans and Europeans. In the early stages, Israelis may see negotiations as more of a contest of wills than as potential cooperation. When an Israeli businessperson says “no,” it may be a bargaining position rather than the final answer a foreigner thinks he is hearing…

The fear of being a sucker makes Israel a more rough-and-tumble place than its modern malls and high-tech industries might suggest. It turns driving into a bumper-car competition and makes grocery shopping as trying as arm wrestling.

Disregard for rules–of common courtesy or the road–makes life unpredictable.

n Maariv’s weekly column, “Who Is an Israeli?” readers define themselves as the anti-freier:

* “An Israeli is someone who lets you back out of a parking spot only if he needs it himself.”

* “An Israeli is someone who pretends to be asleep when an old man gets on the bus.”

* “An Israeli is pro-peace–as long as it is not made with enemies.”

Memories of Years in the Diaspora

Theories abound on the origin of an Israeli’s fear of being a freier. Social commentator Stuart Schoffman says it is a response to the Jews’ victimization in the diaspora. Israelis built their own state to ensure they would never again be oppressed by the goyim, or non-Jews, and they mean to be strong. Nobody’s freier.

“If Jews were scholars and merchants in the diaspora, the new Israelis would be fighters and farmers,” Schoffman said. A country settled by fighters and farmers is hardly tentative. Pioneers are macho–they are not freiers. They lay claim to the land rather than ceding ground.

But Israel is a small and crowded country of scarce resources dug out of a grudging desert. There is only so much ground to go around. Add to that nearly 50 years of conflict with Arab neighbors over land and you get an Israeli who has grown up staking territory in a semipermanent state of tension, never certain if he would be going to work or going to war.

Perception of Life as a Zero-Sum Game

“There is a perception here of life as a zero-sum game that stems from being a minority in a hostile area and fighting for survival,” said Yoram Peri, a former newspaper editor at Hebrew University’s Communications Department.

A zero-sum game leaves losers. Intent on winning, Israelis walk around with their guns drawn–in full view, that is, from the waistband of their bluejeans–and their chests thrust out as if to say, “Just try me. I am not a freier.”

Amnon Dankner, a commentator for the daily newspaper Haaretz, offered a different explanation for the Israeli concern with being a freier: It stems from a feeling of deception. Israel was founded by socialist Zionists who urged their followers to sacrifice for the good of the Jewish state. Work hard and stay away from luxus–luxury–they were told. ” ‘Careerist’ was an ugly word,” Dankner said.

But while many Israelis stayed in the army and slaved on the kibbutz, the children of political apparatchiks went to university to become professionals–particularly some of the Ashkenazim, or Eastern European Jews. Now they belong to a yuppie elite in a wealthier Israel that is abandoning the collective ideology for free-market individualism, Dankner said.

The farmers and fighters, meanwhile, are left feeling like freiers.

Today, many parents try to keep their sons from serving in combat units in southern Lebanon, a nagging war of attrition with Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas. Soldiers engaged in this dangerous duty feel that they do not get enough respect. “We want more appreciation,” a paratrooper complained recently in the Jerusalem Post, “and we don’t want to be spoken of as the suckers in Lebanon.”

While the vast majority of Israelis still fulfill obligatory army service, increasing numbers say the follow-up reserve duty is for freiers. As is paying full taxes and obeying the law to a T.

But why do Israelis rebel against the government of the Jewish state they have worked so hard to build? “We’re still battling the 2,000-year-old Jewish tendency to distrust government, because the government was outsiders,” said Chafets, the author.

To prove he is no freier, an Israeli will argue a point with all his heart and both hands. Even when saying “yes,” he will shout as if contradicting someone who already has said “no.” And he will let you know the customer is always wrong–unless it happens to be him.

“In London, the culture is to give way, be a gentleman, don’t compete,” said Peri, the former editor. “But an Israeli is the opposite. If you are stronger, why should you give way to someone weaker? In a debate, the British will say, ‘You have a point.’ In a debate here, no Israeli will admit he has been persuaded to change his mind. That shows weakness,” he said.

Americans as the Biggest Freiers of All

Americans often find the Israeli attitude intolerably rude. Israelis, meanwhile, find Americans to be the biggest freiers of all. They are naive idealists. Whether tourists or Jewish immigrants, they are seen as easy marks.

Author Shahar, a dual citizen of Israel and the United States, said Americans are perceived as innocents who follow the rules and who believe a person will actually do what he promises to do. “An American is willing to trust until someone proves to be untrustworthy,” Shahar said. “Israel is much more like the rest of the world, where the basic assumption is that people . . . should not be trusted until proven trustworthy.”

Israelis, she said, view rules as something to be challenged. If a sign says “no entrance,” Israelis will try the door anyway. If a doctor’s assistant says no appointments are available today, an Israeli will keep pushing in the belief that exceptions will be made. Only a freier takes no for an answer.

Israelis see this rule-bending as an advantage, particularly in times of war, when flexibility and improvisation can be a key to victory.

Americans see used-car dealers as villains and sympathize with the consumer who has been had. But buy a lemon in Israel, and you are at fault. “You were naive and stupid enough to buy the car,” Shahar said. “You were the freier.”

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off on Compared To America, Israel Is A Low-Trust State

Conservatism Failed

Vox Day writes: I don’t know who “Publius Decius Mus” is, except in the Samnite War sense, but this is the best article I have ever read at the Claremont Institute. It very clearly makes the case for the need for the Alt-Right, if not for the Alt-Right per se. And in doing so, it also underlines the petty narcissism of the dwindling #NeverTrump crowd:

If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.

But it’s quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America” and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,” with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke. Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve “civic renewal”? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.

Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of “stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national solidarity at home’ through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’ and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion.” That sounds a lot like Trumpism. But the phrases that Continetti quotes are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously—one might even say fanatically—anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right stance on today’s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won’t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that he will. It’s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler’s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals, and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.

Yet we may also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad—But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different! The obvious answer is that they don’t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little, they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation until we have disproved all the others.

Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.

Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.

One thing that I expect has become clear to most readers here, whether of the Alt-Right or the conservative persuasion, is that conservatism is utterly unequipped to deal with the current situation. Even if conservatism were a coherent ideology – it isn’t, read Cuckservative – or if it were not partially culpable for the current situation – and it is – conservatives are both intellectually unarmed and emotionally unprepared to deal with the ongoing transition from ideology politics to identity politics.

Posted in Alt Right, Conservatives | Comments Off on Conservatism Failed

WSJ: Jewish Baby Boom Alters Israeli-Palestinian Dynamic

By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
July 14, 2016 8:37 a.m. ET

JERUSALEM—Israel’s peace camp and its international backers have long used one crude but powerful argument: Arabs make more babies than Jews and unless a separate Palestinian state is created, a demographic time bomb will turn Jews into a dwindling minority akin to white South Africans.

That prospect certainly seemed real when the Oslo peace process began in the 1990s. Fertility among Israeli Jews stood at an average of 2.6 children per woman, compared with 4.7 among Muslims in Israel and East Jerusalem and 6.0 among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Yasser Arafat at the time famously declared that the womb of the Palestinian woman was his people’s most potent weapon.

Yet over the past decade, a demographic revolution with long-lasting political consequences has occurred. Jewish birthrates in Israel have spiked while Arab birthrates in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the Middle East have declined. …

The Jewish fertility rate in Israel was 3.11 per woman in 2014, the last full year for which data is available, while among the Arab citizens of Israel and East Jerusalem residents it was only a notch higher at 3.17, according to Israel’s statistics bureau. Palestinian fertility rates have fallen to 3.7 in the West Bank from 5.6 in 1997, and to 4.5 from 6.9 children in the Gaza Strip, according to the Palestinian statistics bureau.

Regardless of its political implications, Israel’s baby boom represents a puzzling exception to the world’s demographic trends. Usually, as countries become wealthier and as women become more integrated in the workforce, fertility rates plummet—sometimes well below the natural replenishment level—as happened in nations from Japan to Italy.

But in Israel, even as per capita income soared above the European Union’s average over the past decade, families began having more children. This gave the country by far the highest fertility rate among the world’s advanced economies. Israeli Jews nowadays have more children, on average, than Egyptians, Iranians or Lebanese.

“This is the uniqueness of Israel that you will not find in any other society in the world. It’s a fact of life—we are different,” said Arnon Soffer, a professor at Haifa University and one of the country’s leading demographers.

Remarkably, this baby boom is happening mostly among the secular and moderately religious Jews: Over the past decade, fertility rates have declined in the ultraorthodox community.

COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:

* Doesn’t Israel have a border fence (or wall)? And, doesn’t Israel have a fairly low rate of immigration? Especially compared to Western nations? Like, how many Syrian refugees and peoples from Islamic nations (and Sub-Saharan nations) has Israel taken in over the last fifteen or so yrs?

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on WSJ: Jewish Baby Boom Alters Israeli-Palestinian Dynamic