Do You Want To Live In A World Without Borders?

Steve Sailer writes: The world today is organized around the principle of nationalism, with which Trump identifies. All land except the South Pole and (on paper) the West Bank and the Golan Heights is divided up under the dominion of territorial states. Perhaps this isn’t ideal, but it is the way the world works. Everybody more or less controls their own territory.

And the world works relatively well under the current order. Interstate wars have been decreasing, in part because borders are (finally) reasonably well established and enduring.

In particular, Americans benefit from their ancestors having carved out a huge chunk of temperate land protected by oceans from the teeming masses of the Old World.

And yet, fashionable opinion in America is increasingly hostile toward the very existence of borders, which provide the essential building blocks of peace and prosperity.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on Do You Want To Live In A World Without Borders?

The Ferguson Effect

Politico: FBI Director James Comey is again sounding the alarm about a surge in murders in several American cities and is publicly complaining that the problem isn’t getting much national media attention because the victims are minorities who live in particular neighborhoods.
“I was very worried about it last fall and I am in many ways more worried,” Comey told reporters during a question-and-answer session at FBI headquarters Wednesday. “The numbers are not only going up, they’re continuing to go up faster than they were going up last year. And I worry very much it’s a problem that most of America can drive around….I don’t know what the answer is, but, holy cow, do we have a problem.”

Posted in Crime | Comments Off on The Ferguson Effect

Why George Washington Would Have Agreed With Donald Trump

Michael Hirsch writes for Politico: For all the lamentation about the level of rhetoric in this Trumped-up election year, the race between Donald Trump and all-but-certain Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is already shaping up to be a debate over America’s global role of the kind we haven’t had for decades, perhaps since the last “America First” movement of the late ‘30s. And it is a debate that some foreign-policy experts suggest is long overdue, even if it tends to distress U.S. allies around the world. (“The unthinkable has come to pass,” Germany’s Die Welt wrote after Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee this week.)
It is also a debate that, were they still around to witness it, a majority of past U.S. presidents going back to George Washington would probably welcome—and most of them, believe it or not, might well take Trump’s side.
In his big foreign-policy rollout speech last week, Trump declared it was time “to shake the rust off of America’s foreign policy” and drop American pretensions about remaking the world in our image any longer. Or as he put it, in an obvious reference to the failed invasion of Iraq and intervention in Libya, America should abandon the “dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western democracy.” Brazenly calling his agenda “America First”—never mind that was the name of the notorious pre-World War II isolationist movement—he also directly challenged the 70 years of bipartisan consensus over the post-World War II global order that America created. He suggested that the world needs America far more than the other way around, and he effectively warned U.S. allies that without a new global deal that demands a kind of tribute paid to Washington for its defense umbrella—he wants them to “prove” they are our friends, he says—he’d walk away from the world’s trade table, so to speak.
“We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” Trump said. “The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down.”
Predictably, Trump’s views have outraged commentators who lament the allusions to the prewar, anti-Semitism-laced isolationism of Charles Lindbergh and other members of the America First movement. His statements have also invited mockery from allies of Clinton, who as a pro-interventionist former secretary of state sees Trump’s turn away from the world as a naive and dangerous anachronism. Madeleine Albright, a mentor to Hillary on foreign policy and, as a refugee from Nazi Germany, a lifelong and passionate advocate of the idea that America is the “indispensable nation” in overseeing global order, accused Trump of historical illiteracy. “Maybe he never read history or he doesn’t understand it,” former Secretary of State Albright told reporters in a conference call organized by Clinton’s campaign…

So Trump may be an “id with hair,” as Hillary Clinton calls him, but at least when it comes to his foreign policy views, he’s an all-American id. His “America First” campaign theme has far deeper roots in the history of this country than most pundits are acknowledging. Indeed, Trump shouldn’t be dismissed as a mere apostate in his view of America’s role in the world; against the backdrop of all 239 years of America’s existence, he represents more a reversion to the American norm. Trump, in condemning one of the worst instances of American overreach in U.S. history, the Iraq invasion, declared in his speech: “The world must know we do not go abroad in search of enemies.” The line was an allusion to the famous injunction of John Quincy Adams in 1821 that America “does not go in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” Adams went on to warn, somewhat presciently, America should know that “once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.”

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why George Washington Would Have Agreed With Donald Trump

Would President Donald Trump be good for Israel?

My primary question is whether Donald Trump would be good for America. As far as I know, Donald Trump is running to be president of the United States, not the prime minister of Israel. His primary concern should be America’s welfare.

If American Jews want to be accepted as Americans, they have to put Americans interests first and write fewer columns about whether or not a particular American politician is good for Israel.

Israel is a strong country. It can take care of itself. It has the strongest military in the Middle East and it is the only country there with nuclear weapons.

America and Israel would each be better off with a more independent relationship.

If Israel decides to kick out all its Arabs, I don’t see President Trump getting upset. On the other hand, President Hillary would not be down with that.

I do not care if the American president is uninterested in all three of the questions below posed by the editor of the Jewish Journal. Israel has as much importance for America’s security and well-being as Chile does and a hundred other countries.

America has no vital national interests with Israel.

Israel is of great concern for me as a Jew, but that does not mean I am going to lie on Israel’s behalf about America’s concerns.

Rob Eshman writes:

1. Does the president recognize Israel’s unique history and the special connection it has to the United States?

2. Does the president recognize the unique external and internal threats to Israel’s security?
Trump’s AIPAC speech listed as the main threats to Israel the Iran deal, Palestinian incitement and terror, with the United Nations and President Barack Obama also competing for the top spots.
He did not mention the internal demographic threat to Israel and Israeli democracy arising from its occupation of the West Bank — a concern that has consumed Israeli and U.S. governments for 50 years.
As for what he would do about the Iran deal? He’ll make a better one. How? “We will, we will,” Trump said in his major policy address. “I promise, we will.”
Many Republican Jews are unwilling to take an untested businessman at his word. When Trump announced that he thinks Israel should expand its West Bank settlements, the right-wing Zionist Organization of America sent out a press release trumpeting the statement. A Republican Jewish leader in Los Angeles told me he sent the ZOA a reply. “Don’t get so excited,” he wrote. “Who knows what Trump will say next week?”
3. Is the president able to use American power, influence and resources to help Israel face its threats?

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Would President Donald Trump be good for Israel?

Meet the French Jews Who Love Marine Le Pen and Her Far Right Party

Forward: Samuel Johnson’s riff on female preachers and walking dogs — “It is not done well, but you are surprised to find it done at all” — comes to mind with the news from France of the creation of the UPFJ, a bland acronym that stands for the Union des Patriotes Francais Juifs, or the Union of French-Jewish Patriots.
That Jews can be French patriots is, of course, not surprising. Ever since the events of 1789 transformed them into citizens, French Jews have long privileged their Frenchness over their Jewishness. What is surprising, though, is that French Jews would join the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and (formerly) anti-Semitic party Front National.
Yet this is the raison d’être of the UPFJ. The organization, which recently held its first meeting, is the brainchild of Michel Thooris. When not working as a gendarme, Thooris — whose mother is Jewish — serves on the FN’s central committee. While the UPFJ has no formal ties with the FN, Thooris coordinated its creation with Louis Aliot, vice president of the FN and companion of Marine Le Pen. (A few years ago, Aliot, who accompanied Thooris on a visit to Israel in 2011, revealed that his maternal grandfather was an Algerian Jew.) Thooris acknowledges the informal but intriguing ties between his fledgling movement and the FN: “Everything that I say or do [as president of the UPFJ] will be seen” in the light of his membership in the FN.
Will Thooris, to echo Johnson, do it well? Will the UPFJ become a robust organization, dedicated to the goal of proportional voting (a mainstay of the FN platform) and to the ideal of a “non-communitarian” France (which aligns with Le Pen’s repeated attacks against the “communitarianism” of French Muslims)? Or will it, instead, remain little more than an idea? (As such bringing to mind another Johnson riposte, this time against a dim-witted critic: “Sir, you’ve just one idea, and it is the wrong idea.”)
For the moment, the organization is as skeletal as its website, carrying little more than its logo: a Jewish star framing Marianne, the personification of French republicanism. Only the coming months, as the political parties prepare the ground for the 2017 presidential election, will tell if Thooris can make this logo stick — if he, in a word, can do it well.
Should we be surprised, though, that Thooris has done it at all? It was not that long ago that the sight of a French Jew rallying to the FN was not just surprising, but shocking. The Front National, after all, is the 40-year-old vehicle of Jean-Marie Le Pen. Bolted together with scratched but salvageable parts from the ideological junkyard of France’s dimmer past, the FN at times sputtered, at times soared on the fumes of anti-Semitism. A political movement many believed was destined to become a detail of history instead proved to be remarkably resilient, not least because its leader insisted the Holocaust was itself a mere detail of history. While Le Pen’s repeated anti-Semitic forays limited the FN’s appeal to a wider public, they also galvanized his party’s base, composed of those who waxed nostalgic for the days when France was still Catholic, Algeria was still French, and the nation’s watchwords were “work, country, family.” (As for “liberty, equality, fraternity,” not so much.)
Inevitably, the occasional Jew nevertheless insisted on joining a club that, in principle, did not want him in the country, much less in its ranks. Most notable is the case of Robert Hemmerdinger, who after having fought in the Resistance became, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, a diehard militant of French Algeria. In the 1980s, after losing as an FN candidate for the European Parliament, Hemmerdinger founded the Cercle National des Français Juifs. While Hemmerdinger failed to square this particular circle — under his watch, the CNFJ never amounted to more than a curiosity — the FN nevertheless resurrected it in 2011. Its aim, as Aliot announced, was to counter the attacks made against the FN by the leaders of the French Jewish community.

Posted in France | Comments Off on Meet the French Jews Who Love Marine Le Pen and Her Far Right Party

My People

My primary concern is the survival and prosperity of my people.

Michael: “Your concern is misplaced, your concern should be for the well-being and basic human rights for all people, regardless of which you identify. The great ones have always been able to rise above their ethnicity/religion/color and look at the the entire picture, which ultimately affects your ethnicity/religion/color.”

Chaim Amalek: The problem with that attitude is that it does not reflect how the rest of the world works. The Chinese, for example, care first and foremost about the welfare of the Chinese people, both at home and abroad, and about the welfare of say, American industrial workers not at all. That’s just how the world works. And that’s how Torah works, too. Or, as the Arabs say, “My brother and I against our cousin; my cousin and I against the stranger.”

I want America’s leaders to take the world as it is in defining policy. After all, we are not neocons here.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on My People

Steve Lopez: Five ways to end homelessness in L.A.

Here are some of my ideas:

* Put the mentally ill in hospitals. That will solve about 90% of homelessness.
* Figure out why there are so few asian or latino homeless and see if there are things that can be emulated.
* Provide a place for them to go that is far away from respectable citizens.
* The nicer Los Angeles is to the homeless, the more homeless it will get.

Steve Lopez writes:

But the $138 million budgeted by Garcetti this year is more goal than guarantee, with roughly half of it still something of a mirage.

L.A. County has a more solid $150-million budget for homelessness, and even at that, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl warned that modest sums won’t counter economic trends that are “forcing people out of their houses.”

Translation: The steady advance of tent cities and rolling homes is headed soon to your neighborhood, if it’s not already there.

It’s time for Garcetti, and Kuehl, and other city and county officials, to start campaigning for a reliable source of funding — a sales tax, a bond measure, or fees on new development.

Come on, somebody has to take this on. We’re going to become the next Calcutta unless some 21st-century hero steps up.

Posted in Homeless | Comments Off on Steve Lopez: Five ways to end homelessness in L.A.

Trump’s Foreign Policy: A View from Israel

Israeli professor Yitzchak Klein writes:

1. Limiting Foreign Interventions

Trump has got this right. Many Israelis were skeptical about the United States’ nation-building efforts in the Middle East from the start—from the Bush variety, which ended up handing most of Iraq to an Iranian proxy, to the Obama variety, which demolished an American ally and temporarily handed Egypt over to radical, authoritarian Islamists. That the Iraq adventure was supposedly undertaken by policy experts who may have thought they were helping my country is ironic but irrelevant. Israel, too, undertook a nation-building adventure, in Lebanon in 1982–84, and it worked about as well as the United States’—enough to make us vow “never again.” Military interventions should be short, sharp and directed to achieving a well-defined and critical military goal.

It may be the height of political incorrectness to point out that one of the longest-running, most expensive and least successful adventures in Middle East nation building involves the Palestinians—an adventure my country participated in for a good while, until it blew up in our faces in 2001 and again in 2006. The failure is a fact, inconvenient but incontrovertible.

The current situation is not good for Israel or the Palestinians. A proper respect for experience, however, should lead a prudent American president to be wary of nation-building by fiat in a Palestinian cultural space suffused by Islamic radicalism. Any diplomatic “legacy” President Obama tries to leave behind on this issue will not change these facts…

3. Putting America First—Economically

Here again, Trump is correct. A nation’s domestic economic and social health is the foundation of its foreign power and should be its first concern. The question is how this can be achieved. America’s least skilled and least educated workers have suffered from changes in the global economy over the past forty years. Nothing is less likely to help them, however, than a trade war that plunges the entire global economy into a further prolonged recession. In such recessions, the least skilled are always the first to lose their jobs, and the jobs they can do are the least likely to attract any available investment capital. A near-autarkic American economy will resemble the 1930s, not the 1950s.

Here in Israel, we have our own ill-educated and under-skilled populations, particularly Arab citizens of Israel and ultra-Orthodox Jews. But it would never occur to us to try to fix the problem by reverting to the overprotected, import-substituting economy of the 1950s. Our challenge is to liberalize domestic markets, especially the education and skill-acquisition markets, so that as many of our citizens as possible can learn skills that equip them for manufacturing and service jobs in the globalized economy. The Germans do it; we can too. If half the wealth that might be destroyed in a global trade war were invested, instead, in effective education and training, that would do far more for the United States’ least advantaged workers.

Posted in America, Israel | Comments Off on Trump’s Foreign Policy: A View from Israel

The Joseph Story

Chaim Amalek: The Koranic version of the biblical story of Josef makes the Jews look much better than the version in Torah, in which the Jews look like and are depcted as financial predators, feasting on the misfortune of others. Indeed, the Torah version reads like something out of Der Sturmer.

Genesis 47 is brutal. Talk about exploitation.

Joseph and the Famine

13 There was no food, however, in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. 14 Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. 15 When the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all Egypt came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? Our money is all gone.”

16 “Then bring your livestock,” said Joseph. “I will sell you food in exchange for your livestock, since your money is gone.” 17 So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, their sheep and goats, their cattle and donkeys. And he brought them through that year with food in exchange for all their livestock.

18 When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. 19 Why should we perish before your eyes—we and our land as well? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh. Give us seed so that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.”

20 So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude,[c] from one end of Egypt to the other. 22 However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

Chaim Amalek: This actually is how Goldman Sachs got its start.

Posted in Bible | Comments Off on The Joseph Story

It Is Good To Feel Heard

Goy Philosopher tells me: Yes and that’s such a rare experience, feeling that you’ve been heard and truly heard the other person. And especially rare for people with our outsider beliefs and attitudes. One reason why I like your blog. I have lost a lot of friends over the years. I am always being told that I’m ‘extreme’, that my ideas are ‘disturbing’ or ‘menacing’, symptoms of some mental problem. ‘Why are you so angry all the time?’, ‘Why do you always focus on the negative?’, ‘Why do you hate so many people?’, and so on. Even close long-time friends and people who are fairly tolerant and open-minded will usually eventually end up saying things like that. I don’t know how to respond. As far as I can tell, I’m just right, basically, about what is going on. I didn’t make the world, and I can’t help caring about myself and my descendants and the cultural world that my ancestors created. My whole civilization and race are dying, and no one cares. I wish someone could convince me I’m wrong about this. I’d love to never think about these topics again. But no one has anything convincing to say. So how else am I supposed to be? Anyway, I’m grateful that there are some like-minded people out there.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on It Is Good To Feel Heard