Explanation: “The root Eskimo points to 2006 Amren conference. Created into existence by, spontaneous I assume, words of Guillaume Faye.
“The water is immigration,” he continued. “We must fight on two fronts, but not by the same means. We must be very acute in our strategy. The best thing is to not speak about the Jews. They don’t exist. For me, they are like Eskimos.”
Celia’s Twitter bio says: “I’m an actor and a writer and I have no current plans to kill myself.”
Wow. She links to her IMDB page from where I take this lovely photo.
According to her IMDB bio: “Celia Finkelstein is an actress and writer, known for Horrible Bosses (2011), Contracted (2013) and You or a Loved One (2014).”
Here are some of her tweets:
* weird how kangaroos are basically always pregnant and no one has ever really loved me the way I deserve to be loved
* it’s ? not ? my ? job ? to ? teach ? you ? about ? feminism ? pick ? up ? a ? book?
* breakups are dope because three months later you think you’re fine but then you burst into tears at the cheesecake factory in glendale
* I just want to be successful enough that I no longer live in a deep abyss of sadness and terror lol jk that doesn’t happen
* I used to date a guy who thought Frank and Claire Underwood were the healthiest couple on TV and that’s why I’m not allowed to date anymore.
* four men sexually harassed me today I have been awake for 7 hours total WHO is telling you guys that we care if you want to fuck us
* who wants to come snuggle up with me and check our privilege
* I’m white but I’m not deny-that-I’ve-benefitted-from-a-racist-system-that-harms-my-fellow-humans-therefore-denying-their-experiences white
* there are like maybe three straight white men I care to listen to and that is because they have fully embraced misandry
* guys I compared trump to hitler days ago I want a think piece about me
Most Jews I meet look white to me. As to whether they identify as white, when it is advantageous to identify as white, such as pre-1960s America, Jews identified as white. Since victimhood became cool in the 1960s and being white became uncool, Jews have increasingly identified as non-white.
Jews respond to incentives just like everybody else. Right now, the major incentives are to identify as a victim of whites.
If America became governed by white nationalists who wanted to expel most non-whites, Jews who wanted to stay in America would quickly and loudly identify as white.
Women tend to be conformist in their thinking. Here’s an example.
In response to Haaretz article “Jews, white privilege and the fight against racism in America” (by Benjy Cannon 4/12/14) I would like to say loud and clear: Ashkenazi Jews are not white.
Every time I read about a Jew somewhere identifying as a white person, I cringe. As an Israeli Jew, who like most other Israeli Jews, is completely foreign to the concept of Jews being “white” I would like to address this article to my Jewish brothers and sisters in America.
Ashkenazi Jews who identify as “white”, please understand the following:
1. History and identity – As late as 1987 the US legally defined Jews as non-white. To the best of my knowledge, 50 years ago Jews had the same skin color as they do today. I deduce that white is not skin color, it is first and foremost an issue history and identity. The “white people world” is represented by its European (often colonial) history, it’s culture, heroes, it’s Kings, ethos, faith etc. – and Ashkenazi Jews are not part of that world. Their heroes are the Maccabees and not the Vikings or Joan of Arc, their Kings are David King of Israel and Hezekiah King of Judah (both archeologically confirmed historical figures) and not Kings Edward and George.
Secondly, Jews are not a “religion”. While in the Western world identities fall under the categories of religion or race, Middle Eastern people have tribal identities that are based neither the former nor the latter. Jews, similar to Pashtuns (who also often have pale skin and yet would not identify as white people) and other Middle Eastern Tribes, are neither religion nor race but a tribe. Jewish identity since the days of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel had always been a tribal/national peoplehood. While tribal practices and customs (which are often incorrectly referred to as “Judaism”) and a strong biological link between many of the members are certainly present, Israelite identity was never based on either of these. Israelite identity has always been a tribal membership that goes by lineage (being born into the Tribes of Israel) or tribal acceptance (which is incorrectly translated as “conversion”). The identity Ashkenazi Jews have today is identical to that of King David whose great grandmother was a Moabite convert, but was nonetheless a Jew by virtue of being born into the Tribes of Israel by lineage.
You are Jews not because of your “religion” (are you even religious?), but because you were born into a tribe/people called the Nation of Israel. You are not “white people” with a “Jewish religion”, you are Jews – members of a people who origniated in Judea, whether you adhere to the laws of the tribe or not.
Thirdly, Ashkenazi Jews have been the victims of Europeans and Western imperialism for centuries precisely because they were not perceived as part of the “white people world”, beginning with the Roman colonialism of their nation state and ending with 6 million of them being killed precisely because they were non-whites.
2. Culture – Whether it’s the Hebrew calendar, the tefillin they put on at their Bar Mitzvah identical to the ancient second Temple tefillin found in Qumran and across Israel or celebrating the Judean revolt for independence in our historic homeland on Hanukkah – Ashkenazi Jews have kept the entire indigenous culture, customs, traditions, books, and to a high extant language and of their ancestors – Judeans and other Israelites.
3. Biology – Although biology is not the main part of the issue, Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically white either. An extensive number of genetic studies show they originated in the Middle East, that despite European admixture they are genetic brothers of other Jews, Palestinians, Druze and Lebanese Arabs and share a highly significant amount of ancestry with Sephardi Jews to whom they are genetically almost identical. Tests also show Ahskenazi Levites are descendants of Hebrews, and Ashkenazi Cohanim share lineage with Sephardi Cohanim.
Lastly, Ashkenazi Jews, whether the world likes it or not (and apparently it does not), are direct descendants of the Tribes of Israel, as we know from history, culture, science and a little something I like to call reality. Those who wish to deny it for political or theological reasons, should try forming an alliance with holocaust deniers because the two are no different.
Jews are not white. People who try to argue otherwise are not only abrogating history and denying our people’s authentic identity, they are in fact (even if unintentionally) also practicing a form of Western imperialism, as nobody has the right to superimpose an artificial Western identity on a people with an ancient Middle Eastern-tribal identity. Nobody has the right to try and make Jews, or any other Middle Eastern people, feel they “need” to fit into the “neat” Western categories of religion and race. Nobody has the right to force Jews into identifying as white people when they are clearly not. As for Jews who identify as white without being forced to do so – please decolonize your identities and understand that the identity your claim to express is a falsification of who you really are.
Comment: Judaism is all about survival and perpetuation of the in-group, exclusion of out-groups. Everything about it. Think of it as an extremely effective, self-perpetuating social machine.
I got thoroughly red pilled several years ago. Then I read the Bible straight through.
I was struck by the Old Testament. Some of my takeaways (your mileage may vary):
– Religion is a powerful force for social structure and order. It grants special privileges to those at the top (e.g. the Levites) who then have a vested interest in its perpetuation.
– All the rules about what you can wear, what you can eat, how much to sacrifice to G-d, blah blah in the Book of Deuteronomy boil down to one game concept — Compliance. Getting people to follow small, meaningless rules conditions them to accept authority and follow larger rules. My conclusion was that rules in all religions, not just Judaism, are about reinforcing compliance.
– Rules banning adultery, homosexuality etc on religious grounds are about reinforcing social order. Things break down and men fight if wives fuck around or men don’t reproduce.
– Judaism is built upon the fact that they are above all other peoples. They are “chosen” by G-d. This is a bedrock belief. It explains why when they arrived in Canaan from the desert they felt entitled to kill EVERYONE there. Those people were subhuman and unworthy. G-d is one their side. He has destined them to rule over all other peoples.
– The “Jews are chosen and others are subhuman” theme pops up frequently. There’s a whole book in the Old Testament on rule for business dealings. It states clearly that a Jew should always pay a debt to another Jew, but does not really have to pay a debt to an outgroup member. This is moral and just.
– Judaism has an incredibly effective immune system that identifies and eliminates threats so it can perpetuate itself. If a family member begins to follow other gods, it is G-d testing your faith. It’s your duty to kill him.
At the time there were lots of religions and gods in the region. It put Judaism into crisis after crisis as Jews wandered off to other faiths. For Judaism to survive it had to evolve strong mechanisms for rejecting and excising invading beliefs. The story of the revered prophet Elijah is a big example. He singlehandedly led a movement to expel foreign faiths and rejuvenate Judaism.
– The in-group/out-group dynamic has always relied heavily on emphasising external threats. Hence, the need for Jews always to feel under siege in order to maintain in-group unity and cohesion. If Jews don’t have a big threat they manufacture one.
I really enjoyed reading the Bible. Oddly, many “religious” people I speak to about the Bible have never actually read it. They’ve just read a passage here or a passage there, with the “meaning” spoon fed to them by a clergy member.
If you have a good red pill grounding and you want to understand the role of religion and the tenets of Judaism, you might consider reading the Bible. I found the New International Version to be the most readable.
* All religions preach a level of superiority and special benefits of some sort to the followers.
Maimonides preaches tolerance to outgroups, but there, is of course, some level of superiority/inferiority. Judaism is really a reaction to contempory Poz pagan cults (nature cults, decadent cults (bhaal), collectivist cults (egypt)multi-culturalism (tower of babel), Sadism cults) etc..
There is an idea that Israel is G-ds gift to the Jews.
Frankly, the ingroup loyalty of Jews is something that WN laughably overstate. Most secular Jews are hopelessly jealous of each other. The “Transparent” show shows the collapse of the Jewish family. Jewish loyalty among American Jews is DOA.
If a Jew ever appeals to your mutual sense of Jewish identity it often means that he plans on ripping you off (unless he’s a hard boiled Zionist or enthusiastic Orthodox). Irish have a greater sense of in-group loyalty.
Does anti-Gentilism or pro-Globalism primarily motivate diaspora Jewish Leftism? Submitted for your consideration, two insightful comments, the first arguing for the former explanation and the second for the latter explanation.
Arguing the anti-Gentilism case, reader Name Redacted writes from his personal experience,
Having been raised a Catholic who married into a Jewish family and lived among the Tribe for a decade or so, I think I am uniquely qualified to address this issue.
Jews in the U.S. support left-wing causes not for the causes themselves, but because they see those causes as a way to stick it to the Christian majority. I don’t think most of them do this consciously. But a lot of them equate “white America” with “oppression” and “conformity” and believe the patriarchal white majority is something that needs to be usurped.
This explains why Jews were the architects of feminism and the backers of the ’60s Civil Rights Movement. What better way to screw up Christian families and majority-Christian neighborhoods? This also explains a lot [about] 20th century art. Jews don’t create to entertain so much as “break boundaries” — boundaries which, of course, were put there by Christian morality.
This also explains why different rules apply when it comes to Jews and Israel vs. Jews and America. “Open borders for thee, but not for me!”
This way of thinking is so ingrained in Jewish families, I’m not sure they’re even conscious of it. But once you start realizing this is what they’re up to, a lot of things take on a more sinister tone, such as their obsession with calling out so-called Christian hypocrisy.
This includes everything from Paul Simon’s snide “Jesus loves you” lines in “Mrs. Robinson” to Billy Joel’s anti-Catholic “Only the Good Die Young” to the trashy “Two and a Half Men” airing in prime time to countless Hollywood films that trash Middle American values. I’d give examples of the last of these, but generally avoid mainstream movies. [ed: “American Beauty” is a subversively vile representative of the genre.]
Then there are the scads of Jewish “sexperts,” and the people of the porn industry, all of whom want to “liberate” your daughters from the “oppression” of the very Christian values that made this country work to begin with.
Put it all together, and basically it comes down to “how can we destroy the Christians of America?”. Christians — or people who just think Christianity is what helped make America — should think about this before consuming any Jewish art — from books to CDs to movies to porn. You’re essentially paying for the demise of society by buying it — or buying into it.
One thing I’ve seen a lot more of recently is open Jewish-American hostility to “nativists”. I can only guess that a lengthy time in power has fractured the filters that used to massage this kind of anti-White rhetoric into something more palatable to a wide audience.
***
Arguing for the more benign, less overtly antagonistic pro-Globalism (aka pro-Rootless Cosmopolitanism, pro-“one happy family”) explanation is a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.
Really interesting posts re: Jews and Leftism. Lots to think about, and I think you’re on target or close in several areas. There are a couple more things worth thinking about, because they either pertain to the alt-Right or serve as food for thought.
—-SHAITAN’S LURE
I think The Man Who Was isn’t entirely wrong, but the answer to the “why” here goes into history and psych in other ways. It has a lot to do with a Jewish split in the modern era, where a significant chunk of Jews became very attracted to the 2 great poles of modernity: Britain/ the USA, and Marxism/Soviet Union. Both, in their own ways, promised them the same thing:
“You can be one of us/ ‘normal’ here.”
Obviously, the ironies abound in both cases. But that was the lure, and it was a doozy.
It’s a whole book to explain how that spun out, and I don’t think it has been done. But the route through The Cathedral becomes pretty obvious when those are your 2 magnetic poles. And in psych terms, if that promise meant a LOT to you, but you were always worried about it turning out to be a mirage… what might one predict as traits, allegiances, and then the follow-on effects of traits and allegiances compounding? [ed: a genetic, innate neuroticism would exacerbate any worries about “fitting in”, possibly driving those worries to a pathological (self-harming) degree of expression.]
In Israel, you will still hear an echoing longing to be a ‘normal’ country among the Left. You can likewise imagine where this leads in r/K terms.
The irony that the actions produced by one’s fears and perceived lacks will end up conjuring the very things one fears in the end (hellooo every beta!)… well, humans are smart but that rarely means rational.
I’ll finish with a triggering thought: the alt-Right’s relationship to The Cathedral has a ton of things in common with the Jewish situation during the Middle Ages.
Which means a dispassionate analysis of Jewish history, options, and decisions (good/ stupid/ otherwise) would actually be very productive for its thinkers. Yeah, I know, the Jamaican bobsled team is more likely to win Olympic Gold. Still…
DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT – OF THE JEWISH “MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE”
The real answer to Ponce’s “who are the seculars” question is:
Maybe you know some Christians that only go to Church once a year, if that, and who would have 50/50 odds that they could correctly recite a prayer if their life depended on it? It’s a lot like that.
There are Consequences.
Unsurprisingly, Jewish intermarriage outside the religion within the American secular/”Reform” community approaches 70%. Yes, there’s much hand-wringing. But objectively, why not 70%? Jews who don’t really believe in Judaism marry Christians who don’t really believe in Christianity. The Cathedral is their real mutual religion, and religion it is. Few stay Jewish. If they do, they’re in the Cathedralized sectors of Judaism (esp. “Reform”).
Note that for Reform/secular Jews in America, I think fertility is about 1.8. That, plus intermarriage, is Chekov’s Gun.
Intermarriage is much lower among the Orthodox, and families north of 5 kids are common and expected. Indeed, there are special community institutions designed to make this affordable – which the alt-Right should research to copy. Low intermarriage. Early marriage (indeed, some are still arranged marriages), and the requirement of a religious divorce alongside the civil (you can’t remarry within the Orthodox without a “Get”), tends to lock both men and women down. Women marry early and have kid after kid during their fertile period. They exit the other end well past The Wall. Men are faced with 5+ kids at 40, imagine the child support costs.
It takes about 3 generations for a 90/10 population ratio with these kinds of contrasts to make the 10% a majority – and the leap to majority status isn’t linear. Within the American Jewish community, that 3rd generation is just being born.
Demography is destiny.
DO WE NEED A HEBREW WORD FOR ‘SHITLORD’?
Israel may be different, but only because the Orthodox there are shifting the whole population to be more religious and have more kids of their own. Israel is moving in the opposite direction to most Western countries, and you’d expect that result when a culturally cohesive group with a program like that can be a much bigger slice of the national culture (still only 15-18% – THIS generation).
It’s fascinating to watch.
Liberal Jews are openly nervous, in an era when those Jews who have bowed down to Leftism must pledge hostility to Jewish expression as part of the bargain. Secular/Reform Jews would often rather dialogue with Muslim terrorists than the Orthodox. Which of course. Rabbits gonna rabbit.
You may start to notice unflattering portrayals of Jewish Orthodox, starting recently with kerfuffles about them not wanting to sit next to women on airlines. I expect that to ramp up. And guess who is super-visible and will be targeted first by the Mideast Die-versity mainstream Judaism has shepherded in?
I know you aren’t exactly friendly to Jews. [ed: this is not true in practice. only in the abstract, where ideas about the national question get tossed around] And I get why. Many have betrayed the only non-Jewish civilization that offered them any real hope. That they betrayed their G-d and religion first doesn’t soften the blow much.
All I’ll say is, imagine a group who takes religion seriously, has a tested program that controls hypergamy, has a raw grudge to nurse with Leftism, and believes in various shadings of separation in place. Imagine that such a group becomes the default concept of “Jew” within 20 years.
It’s easy if you try.
Now, the allegiances of that group – and their situation – those are big TBDs. I really wonder if Neoreaction’s Plan (per free Northerner) might work well with this set, when the time comes. And there might be some clever ways to plant that seed now, while strengthening the alt-Right’s program.
Well, let’s face it — a secular Jew will be a lot more fun at a party than an Orthodox Jew. But, to depart from my poolside location for a moment, a nation is more than the sum of its parties.
Here’s a question I have for any geneticists lurking: Are Orthodox and Secular/Reform Jews from different gene pools? That is, do the Orthodox in America (and Israel) hail from different regions than the regions secular Jews left behind for America (and Israel)? I suspect that the differences between the two groups go deeper than religious/cultural preferences.
This gets to my contention that more than cultural experience is at work in the Jewish predilection for open borders leftism and their knee-jerk hatred for even the most innocuous expressions of nationalist populism (e.g., keeping out rapefugees, building a wall). If, as I have theorized, secular American Jews have inherited and brought with them to their new lands a suite of personality traits — the Tikkun Olam Triad — that predisposes them to radical anti-Gentilism and/or pro-Globalism, then this would partly explain the noted observation that Israeli Orthodox Jews aren’t nearly as Left Wing as their secular Jewish-American cousins.
Because, in fact, they may be more like third cousins than brothers.
Anyhow, at the end of the day American Jews (and as the disproportionately influential gatekeepers of the media megaphone, it’s right to address them separately from the garden variety shitlib Gentile) are going to have to come to terms with the reality that opening America’s borders to the world’s wretched refuse (and vehemently chiding those who fight back against their demographic dispossession) will, inevitably, make America more wretched and full of refuse: a much less livable, lovable place that no one, not even rootless cosmopolitans, will want to call home.
You can read this post as a sincere appeal to common sense. To noblesse oblige instead of noblesse malice. Let’s hope there’s enough of that magnanimity left in those still nursing age-old resentments at having to work to fit in.
COMMENTS:
* An example similar to “American Beauty” is the film version of “The Graduate.” Interestingly, the movie is about the pain of being Jewish in a WASP society, but this message was included because of the director’s subconscious bias. It didn’t even make sense in the context of the movie because Hoffman’s character (the Jew outsider) is supposed to be the son of a WASP couple. This ridiculous oversight by the director was apparently parodied in a humor magazine shortly after the movie came out.
* Steve Sailer writes: Nichols likes to claim that he hadn’t realized what The Graduate was actually about until he saw it parodied in a juvenile humor magazine in October 1968:
It took me years before I got what I had been doing all along — that I had been turning Benjamin into a Jew. I didn’t get it until I saw this hilarious issue of MAD magazine after the movie came out, in which the caricature of Dustin says to the caricature of Elizabeth Wilson, ‘Mom, how come I’m Jewish and you and Dad aren’t?’ And I asked myself the same question, and the answer was fairly embarrassing and fairly obvious: Who was the Jew among the goyim? And who was forever a visitor in a strange land?
This may be a story that has gotten better in Nichols’s retelling because the ethnic angle had not been so mysterious to Nichols’s underlings. J. W. Whitehead’s book Appraising The Graduate includes Hoffman’s memory of protesting to his self-confident director the implausibility of his casting:
“I’m not right for this part, sir. This is a Gentile. This is a WASP. This is Robert Redford.” …
Nichols replied, “You mean he’s not Jewish?”
“Yes, this guy is a super-WASP. Boston Brahmin.”
And Mike said, “Maybe he’s Jewish inside.”
During filming, Hoffman picked up his first groupie: ‘‘Beautiful, thin, a real shiksa goddess. I think Nichols took that as a sign — at least somebody found me attractive. And it didn’t get past me, either!’‘
Screenwriter Buck Henry argued for Hoffman’s plausibility in the role by appealing to Cesare Lombroso‘s 1870s theory of racial atavism:
“You know my theory about California genetics? Jews from New York came to the Land of Plenty, and within one generation the Malibu sand had gotten into their genes and turned them into tall, Nordic powerhouses. Walking surfboards. We were thinking about how these Nordic people have Dustin as a son, and it’s got to be a genetic throwback to some previous generation.”
At whatever point Nichols got the idea, he ran with it:
“He couldn’t be a blond, blue-eyed person, because then why is he having trouble in the country of the blond, blue-eyed people? It took me a long time to figure that out—it’s not in the material at all. And once I figured that out, and found Dustin, it began to form itself around that idea.”
Whitehead says, “Nichols wanted Hoffman to project an estrangement that began in the blood.”
In 1938 Nichols had arrived in America from Berlin, where his anti-communist Jewish ancestors had found refuge from the Soviet Union. His father quickly became successful again in the US. And the son became even more so, first triumphing at stand-up comedy with Elaine May, then directing Neil Simon blockbusters on Broadway. His first movie, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, earned him an Oscar nomination. He’s since completed the coveted EGOT career grand slam, winning four Emmys, one Grammy, one Oscar (for The Graduate), and nine Tonys.
But everybody feels a bit estranged and unappreciated, even if (or especially if) he is Mike Nichols.
Ultimately, The Graduate is about the pain of being Jewish in a gentile society. This theme had been downplayed by previous generations of Jewish filmmakers, who were grateful for how nice Americans had been to Jews. But as the years went by, Jewish-American artists discovered that there was little danger and much profit in violating this old norm.
Not surprisingly, Nichols’s ethnic alienation is reflected throughout The Graduate. In the wake of Israel’s smashing June 1967 triumph in the Six Day War, this proved tremendously popular with the American public at large.
For example, in the first scene in the hotel lobby, the unaggressive Benjamin has to step aside while dozens of pushy WASPs in formal attire shove through a revolving door ahead of him. And, of course, there’s the memorable last scene in which Benjamin rescues his shiksa goddess from her new husband at the Methodist church by swinging a giant crucifix at the resentful blond beasts.
It doesn’t get much more obvious than that.
* One rumour that I heard, possibly via the film critic Mark Kermode, was that even though the character is a tall, good-looking, all-American boy Dustin Hoffman was cast in the role because of the character’s insecurities. Essentially, deep down the character looked tall and confident but felt small and Jewish, ie neurotic. Dustin Hoffman was portraying how the character felt.
* All that blather aside about “how the character felt”, the big tell of the movie’s intention was the final church scene. They love to desecrate churches and crosses (little yid even uses the latter as a weapon and then to bar the doors). And check out the truly Aryan groom and his parents, their distorted faces of hate get REAL close up shots as Hoffman is banging on the glass to disrupt the service.
And oh, that grand finale! Beautiful shicksa bride screams out her love’s name and runs to him, abandoning would-be husband, family, friends, and indeed, church.
A yid nerd’s wet dream… touted to the skies then, and even to this day as an “important, ground-breaking film.”
* Well, plastics IS the future, you know… I, too, loathe the endless blasphemy/desecration/mockery of all things Christian that hwood loves to throw at the public. I want more people to open their eyes to see it for what it is. But, like you said before, people will say, since there was only one scene that showed someone shitting in the Holy water, it’s not an anti-Christian movie. Morons all.
* American Beauty can be summed up in a George Orwell-esque way:
“Normal bad, disordered good!”
* Mike Nichols thought he was making a movie about “The Generation Gap” but was actually just about how WASPs, conformity, privilege, and rules suck.
* I don’t feel this applies so much to British Jews. Three points spring to mind.
1) Michael Howard – Leader of the Conservative Party in the 2005 ran a campaign that mentioned cutting immigration (despite being descended from a central European Jewish family – original name: Hecht). He got attacked from non-Jews for being uncaring. Anti-immigration sentiment was NOT thick on the ground back them.
2) After riots in the early 1980s, the Church of England produced a report itled ‘Faith in the City’ which Thatcher cricicised as containing “nothing about self-help or doing anything for yourself”. By contrast, Britain’s chief Rabbi, produced a rebuttal called From Doom to Hope: A Jewish view of “Faith in the City”, which argued that the Jewish contribution to eradicating poverty “would lay greater emphasis on building up self-respect by encouraging ambition and enterprise through a more demanding and more satisfying work-ethic, which is designed to eliminate human idleness and to nurture pride in “eating the toil of one’s hands” as the first immediate targets” and that “blacks should not look to the state but instead to themselves and take responsibility for their poverty and should learn from the Jewish experience of working themselves out of poverty, educating themselves and building up a “trust in and respect for the police, realising that our security as a minority depended on law and order being maintained”.
3) Keith Joseph – Another Conservative Party politican who was the intellectual force behind Margaret Thatcher. Could perhaps have become party leader were it not for a 1974 speech in which he gave so much RealTalk that outraged everyone at the time despite being spot-on. I’m going to give you the key line that should be carved on Britain’s gravestone.
“A high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world…. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness…. They are producing problem children…. The balance of our human stock, is threatened…”
I am not Jewish but I am British. I can honestly say that in Britain you get more Marxist pseudo-intellectual drivel from the Church of England than from Jews. It seems to be different here (and no, I haven’t forgotten or forgiven the Mandelson and the dreadful Millibands).
* It’s not even about the Holocaust. They’ve been outsiders in the societies of other people for 2000 years. Them siding with outsiders in any society they might be in is just an evolved reflex, genetic or cultural.
* Jews have an epic right tail in 4-8 SDs. As evidence, Nobel Prizes, Fields Medal, etc. are won by non-Orthodox Jews x120-x300 times their global population. Jews have won 22% of ALL Nobel Prizes. I can’t imagine stronger evidence.
You complain that there was no “Jewish Goethe,” but, as you know, this was impossible. Jews were emancipated in 1820. Prior to that they were not writing. Spinoza was published posthumously and was excommunicated for his writings. You are a little hard on Maimonodes, who strikes me as ShitLord, but I am no expert.
It is also worth noting that Christianity has a sublime aesthetic sense and appreciation of beauty. Judaism does not. Christians are inspired by their religion to produce tremendous works of art (or even rejection of Christianity). There were staggering passions at work. Christian culture (1500-1900) will simply outweigh anything any other culture could make, ever.
There were some nice non-Poz Jewish contributions: Heifetz, Mendelssohn, Mahler, and Irving Berlin. I can’t think of any non-Poz writer off hand other than Boris Pasternak.
* Everyone here should watch the Amazon series Transparent. Sure, the transsexual storyline hogs all the media attention. But the bigger theme is the nastiness and misery of a modern secular Jewish family. I’ve never seen a more despicable family portrayed in a drama (when the family is the protagonist).
I wish someone would compile a list of disparaging comments made by Jews, especially Jewish women, about Gentile women. I think this shiksa hatred is a primitive reaction against their sexual competitors and the vitriol exceeds your typical female catfight. Jewish female journalists and politicians were insanely spiteful towards Sarah Palin. Stupid people like Palin can usually be ignored, but Sarah was resented mostly for her attractiveness.
* I think the shortcut to this would be to cull the routines of Amy Schumer and Sarah Silverman.
* Jews are Semites. To paraphrase the future Pope in The Godfather, Part III, for centuries they have been surrounded by Christ (and even interpenetrated with White blood), but it does not live in them. In their instincts, aptitudes, and attitudes, they are creatures of the Desert, akin to the Arabs, the Persians, even the Brahmins of India. Razib Khan and the Jews belong together in the same (pricklish, snotty, fugly) continuum: neither of them in a White one.
Spiritually, they belong in that world, not in the West. Perhaps, in time, they could learn to be happy in it. Perhaps the best destiny for Israel is to accept becoming some sort of Singapore for the Middle Eastern world, a vaguely more equitable (if they can manage it) version of Qatar. Their evident hard-on for Islam betrays this. Whatever individual Jews may– even passionately– believe, MOST of them belong spiritually in an entirely other civilizational context than the White one.
* When I worked for a heavily Jewish tech company in the late nineties I (still blue pill at the time) was struck how freely and openly Jews would denigrate Whites and Christianity in front of and directly to Whites and nominal Christians like me. Naturally enough even a mere hint of something similar towards the Chosenites would set off anti-semitic alarm bells, resulting in severe retribution for the offender.
* Secular Jews are often hard right tail IQ neurotic/narcissistic. The perfect analogue is Tony Blair. Super-IQ Irish Catholic narcissist who backstabbed England with 3 million Muslims out of some narcissistic injury handed to him? Obama has a similar insanely sadistic trait from untold narcissistic injuries (black, no dad, gay teen). Merkel? So, they aren’t Jewish, but they are *Acting Jewish* in their sadistic rage at the Christian male establishment.
Some Jews are WASP assimilated. William Shatner or David Frum are nice examples. Note the conspicuous lack of sadistic “edge” in their personalities. Contrast with Podhorertz who just called me a “jew poseur” because I reminded him that Jews would take the blame if Trump were usurped.
Orthodox Jews are more agreeable people, which is why they chose Orthodoxy and remain loyal to the faith of their ancestors. Israelis heroically risk their lives out of a romantic obligation to the Holy Land. It is self selecting. Jewish dentists are rarely secret agents of the Poz. Jews who choose “literature” or arts are almost always obsessed with promoting the Poz (except John Milius, who was notably a failed soldier).
The dark hard truth: Countries need to be ruled by “in group” hereditary landed elites (oddly, like Trump). That’s how the West ran itself for 2500 years. When you hand power to a Narcissist through Democracy who is “Outgroup” (woman, Jew, Kenyan, Irish, polio victim), they will use their power to vent their sadism to absolve prior narcissistic injuries unless Stone Cold Reactionary (Disraeli, Thatcher).
* I had an interesting exchange with a young Jewish man at a hipster-geek bar in South America who seemed to be rather depressed. An analysis of his mind gives a case study for the “anti-gentilism” side and suggests it may be universal.
He was born in Argentina, but spent some years in the USA and moved back. I went the opposite direction, and he spoke good English, so we had a chat. He said his country is a shit-hole and the women suck.
I asked him why, and he said it was because everybody here is Christian Italian and they all like futbol (soccer). Nerds like him get marginalized, and he resents that because apparently, things that bring people together (like sports and heritage) are just another form of nationalism – which of course he immediately declared the same as Nazi Germany and Hitler.
Normally, a person like this is just a bitter nerd, but the Nazi thing was quite a stretch so I had to throw in some Jew-bait. He seemed like a real philosophical type so I figured he may just surprise me.
* “Israel is moving in the opposite direction to most Western countries”
Liberalism and feminism are preached for western consumption mostly.
Many times i said that Israel, in some ways, looks like the US from the 50s
I will post this again.
In Israel, the only institutionalized form of Jewish marriage is the religious one, a marriage conducted under the auspices of the mostly male rabbinate.
There is very low divorce rate in Israel – 28 % compared to more than 50% in the US and Europe. Probably because in Israel, a jewish woman can not divorse without her husband’s permission.
There is very high birth rate – 3 kids per jewish woman. In Europe, the birth rate for white women is 1,5, in the US – 1,7
The population replacement rate is 2.1
Religion is flourishing in Israel. There are many gender segregated places, and even jewish women who wear burkas like muslims.
There is very high marriage rate in Israel, and very low levels of cohabitation without marriage. Only 3 percent of kids are born to mothers who are not married, compared to 40-50 percent in the West. Only 13 percent of families are led by single parent, compared to 31 percent in the US.
Why is marriage important? Umarried women tend to vote to the left, married women – to the right. In the US, 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Obama, while the majority of married women voted against Obama. Therefore a society with high marriage rate will tend to be more right wing.
A woman without a man in Israel is seen as something to be remedied; a woman without children – an aberration to be pitied.
Parents are highly involved in mate selection for their daughters, which sometimes results in arranged marriages.
A wife must receive permission (called Get) from her husband in order to divorce him, even if he is at fault. A husband can secure a divorce whether or not his wife consents.
The rabbinical court than manages marriage and divorce is all male.
A child born to a married woman from another man is labeled as a bastard (mamzer, which could mean a “bastard”, or a “son of a prostitute”) , and is not eligible to marry another Jew.
A married woman who had a sexual relationship with another man is not allowed to marry the latter once her marriage is dissolved; a Cohen (a man belonging to the priestly caste) may not marry a divorced woman; a woman who has been separated from her husband for reasons beyond her control, such as war or disappearance – may not remarry at all. Moreover, women whose husbands refuse to divorce them are also banned from remarriage.
Same-sex couples are also excluded from marriage. Interfaith marriages are not recognized either, since Judaism, Islam, and other religions impose restrictions on marriage between people of different religions, and in many cases even regard this kind of marriage as void.
The gender income gap in Israel is large – women earn 65 percent of what men earn. The gender income gap in Israel is way bigger than the one in the US and EU.
Abortion is illegal for married women in Israel.
Jews in Israel are not allowed to marry non-jews.
There are vigilante groups looking to prevent jewish women from dating arabs.
According to Avigail Moor, a psychologist who treats victims of sexual violence and a researcher at the Tel Hai college in northern Israel, more than 60 percent of Israeli men and 40 percent of women do not believe that forcing sex on an acquaintance constitutes rape. As for sex without consent in a relationship, 18.5 percent of israeli women and only 17.3 percent of men thought that was rape.
As Peter Beinart wrote in his New York Review of Books essay: “For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door.”
* Jewish leftism is anti-God-ism. Jewish atheists hate God for the Holocaust and other hardships they’ve seen, and they take it out on their fellow man.
Orthodox and Messianic Jews are conservative. Jews who respect YHWH are conservative.
* WASP’s are the biggest enablers of Jew power in the modern world. UK and US are filled with idiotic self-hating people that kiss Jew ass every time they can, and continuously parrot the absurd pseudo-intellectual nonsense peddled by Jews on economics, education, feminism, race, religious belief, etc, etc. Latins and Slavs are much less prone to eat up their nonsense, and hence why you don’t see Jews having power to the same extend in the nations where these people are the majority, like one sees them having in the UK and US. Unfortunately, for the western world, because of the influence that the UK and US have on it, Jewish rubbish is amplified and extends to other nations as well, and therefore the degeneracy continuously spreads, like a virus.
* Leftist Jews are secular/reform Jews. When they came to the West, they had two options: to remain in a secluded community or to integrate. Since they were secular, they wanted to integrate. They could integrate by adopting Christianity, but this was the enemy of their forefathers, a kind of ancient taboo.
Or they could integrate by adopting the religion of the Left, which filled the religious void they had in their minds, integrated them to the West and wasn’t a taboo or a historical enemy. In addition, it was the religion of brainy people, such as them. They did that although retaining their ethnicity. Since the religion of the Left, it is anti-Christian and anti-White, they are anti-Christian and anti-White. They have a plus because they are Jews so they remember grievances against Christians.
In short, the Jews that are producing these mayhem are not Orthodox Jews but converts. Converts to the religion of the Left. Their Judaism is vestigial and disappearing, when they intermarry (think Woody Allen’s kids) or have a low birthrate. This is why Orthodox Jews will be the majority of the American Jews in some few decades.
I’ve come to their tax-haven sex mansion to hear their improbable story—how two sons of an ultrareligious Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn witnessed the birth of a new kind of lending, made a fortune, and then saw it all come to an end. Not in the form of an FBI raid, but with Wall Street bankers paying millions to take over the action…
Zeines and Hurwitz made their money in a field that’s now called merchant cash advance. It’s a legal way to lend money to small businesses at interest rates higher than Mafia loan sharks once charged. Completely unregulated, last year it surpassed the U.S. Small Business Administration as a source of loans for less than $150,000, according to the industry newsletter DeBanked, one of the few places with reliable information. The business was developed a decade ago in a boiler room full of ex-Lubavitcher Jewish teenagers in downtown Manhattan. They figured out how to hook people such as florists and pizzeria owners with promises of fast cash and discovered just how ridiculous the profits could be—even if it meant driving their borrowers into bankruptcy.
Zeines was one of these guys. As I reported on the industry over the past year, he became my tour guide. A curly-haired 33-year-old with a cockeyed grin, he dresses like a tourist, in flip-flops and T-shirts, and speaks with a Brooklyn Yiddish accent that turns -ing into -ink. Zeines knows all the players and all the tricks to separate people from their money, but he styles himself an outsider, someone who appreciates the absurdities of Ivy League-educated financiers getting in on a seedy business.
Zeines kept telling me he was going to sell his company to a hedge fund for tens of millions of dollars. I didn’t believe him, but I told him if it ever happened it would make a good story. Then, one day this spring, I was shown a copy of a letter from Goldman Sachs. It was addressed to Zeines’s company. The bank was offering him $100 million.
In the Midwood neighborhood of Brooklyn, men in boxy black suits and black wide-brimmed fedoras speak in Yiddish under the elevated train. Young women block the sidewalk with double-wide strollers, wearing wigs to comply with a religious prescription for modesty. Zeines grew up here, the fifth of 10 children. His father worked as a wedding photographer. The family had so little money to spare that riding the subway was a treat.
All aspects of life were governed by religious rules. Never eat meat and dairy together. No electricity on Saturdays. Tie the left shoe before the right. High school meant Mir Yeshiva, an all-boys institution in the neighborhood. Zeines and other potential future rabbis pored over religious texts in Hebrew and Aramaic for hours each day in an unadorned auditorium full of wood desks evoking 19th century poverty. There was little instruction in math or English. Zeines was a good student, but as he got older, he started to feel as if adults cared more about the technicalities of religious laws than morals. He says he saw swindlers honored for their donations and fathers who could barely afford food buying pricey ceremonial artifacts to flaunt their piety. Zeines started breaking the rules. “The first cheeseburger,” he says, “was f—ing awesome.”
Zeines stopped his religious education and enrolled at Kingsborough Community College. There he met Hurwitz. Even though they’d grown up only minutes apart, they’d never crossed paths, because Hurwitz’s family followed a different rabbi. Zeines looked up to his new friend, who was two years older, 4 inches taller, and had seen the world—or at least more of it than he had. On a Birthright trip to Israel, Zeines got the nickname Bugsy, because he and Hurwitz were as tight as gangsters Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky.
In 2005 they were working together at a group home for developmentally disabled adults, earning about $10 an hour. They liked the job but wanted a ticket out of Midwood. That November they found it, in the form of a fat, bald, flashy man named Sam Chanin.
Like Hurwitz, Chanin was raised in the Lubavitch sect, a Brooklyn-headquartered branch of Hasidic Judaism that sends adolescent boys into the streets to recruit Jews to the movement. People who’ve worked for Chanin say that, by the time he was in his 20s, he was using the persuasiveness he’d developed proselytizing to sell credit-card machines to stores door-to-door. It was a good business—salesmen got a cut every time a customer swiped a card—but once a neighborhood was saturated, it was hard to sell more.
Hurwitz was one of the first Lubavitchers Chanin hired for his new cash-advance brokerage, which he named Second Source Funding. The business took off. At the group home, Hurwitz bragged to Zeines that he’d made more than $15,000 in his first month selling loans. That was all Zeines needed to hear. He bought a suit and a copy of the Wall Street Journal, and took the subway into Manhattan to join Second Source’s growing crew. It was January 2006, and he was 23 years old.
Zeines wasn’t an “always be closing” natural like Hurwitz, who was put in charge of all the other salesmen after a year. But at Second Source, anybody willing to pick up a phone and pitch could make thousands a week. The Orthodox gossip mill caught on. Word spread from the brownstones of Crown Heights to the leafy streets of Borough Park. So many kids were applying for jobs that Hurwitz started doing group interviews. “If you’re not making 20 grand a month, you just don’t belong here,” Hurwitz says he’d tell the applicants…
Brokers who had the knack made more money than they’d ever imagined. Some would shave their beards, put away their yarmulkes, and go out on the town after they got a few paychecks. Others discovered whiskey and cocaine. “Ridiculous amounts of money are coming your way,” says Dovid Sandomire, one of the salesmen. “It’s like, ‘Let’s go spend $1,000 at the strip club. It’s all on me.’ ” Chanin got a blue Bentley and a driver. Hurwitz bought a tall wooden throne for his office and a life-size statue of a lion…
During an interview at a bar a few months earlier, I’d asked Zeines about his conscience. He said he didn’t see a problem with what he was doing. Pearl’s cash advances were expensive, he said, but it wasn’t like its customers had a lot of alternatives. And laws about interest rates seemed as illogical as the religious rules that he’d long since abandoned. “Going back to Biblical times, there was something dirty about charging for money,” he said. He held up his glass. “But a business owner can buy this beer for a dollar, mark it up eight times, and sell it to idiots like us, and no one cares.”
More craziness from a Jewish feminist.
According to a piece in the feminist blog Bustle, the tradition of men proposing women is “problematic” because it “perpetuates rape culture.”
Yes — not “problematic” because it perpetuates recklessly emotional social media posts, but because it “perpetuates rape culture.” “The stereotype that men must get women to date them or marry them or sleep with them and that it’s up to women to respond can be problematic — not just because it discourages women from going after what they want, but also because it encourages men to pursue what they want at a woman’s expense,” Suzannah Weiss writes in a piece titled “6 Marriage Traditions That Reinforce Rape Culture.” “Putting what men pursue over what women want perpetuates rape culture,” she continues.
Uh. First of all, by saying “date them or marry them or sleep with them,” Weiss is putting propositions for sex in the same category as marriage proposals. FYI: A man asking you for sex is not the same thing as him asking you to spend the rest of your life with him, and if you can’t understand that, then you have some pretty disappointing mornings awaiting you in your future. Second of all, “pursue what they want at a woman’s expense”? “Putting what men pursue over what women want”?
How the hell does this even make sense? Is Weiss under the impression that dudes propose by saying, “Marry me, or else!” or “I want to marry you. Say yes, or you’ll never see the cat again!”? Because as far as I know, it’s usually something more like “Will you marry me?” and it costs the woman literally nothing to say no.
Sure, it might be a little awkward (I saw it happen once when a dude proposed to his girlfriend at the dry cleaners), but to suggest that any woman who wanted to say no would even consider doing anything else — and instead suffer through an entire life with someone she didn’t like that much because she was too scared and weak to stand up for herself — is the most insultingly anti-feminist thing I’ve ever heard.
Among the other rape-y marital traditions (according to Weiss): the bride’s wearing a white dress (because “it is supposed to symbolize purity”) and “putting more focus on the bride’s looks than the groom’s,” which means she might not like my plan to throw people out of my wedding if they dare to even think of looking at anyone else but me.
John Kluge writes: Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.
First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.
Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.” The word seems to have become a brand that some people attach to a set of partisan policy preferences, rather than the set of underlying principles about government and society it once was. Conservatism has become a dog’s breakfast of Wilsonian internationalism brought over from the Democratic Party after the New Left took it over, coupled with fanatical libertarian economics and religiously-driven positions on various culture war issues. No one seems to have any idea or concern for how these positions are consistent or reflect anything other than a general hatred for Democrats and the Left.
Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.
All of this seems to have been lost. Conservatives have become some sort of schizophrenic sect of libertarians who love freedom (but hate potheads and abortion) and feel the US should be the policeman of the world. The same people who daily fret over the effects of leaving our society to the mercy of Hollywood and the mass culture have somehow decided leaving it to the mercies of the international markets is required.
Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.
The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?
And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.
Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.
Fourth, I really do not care that Donald Trump is vulgar, combative, and uncivil and I would encourage you not to care as well. I would love to have our political discourse be what it was even thirty years ago and something better than what it is today. But the fact is the Democratic Party is never going to return to that and there isn’t anything anyone can do about it. Over the last 15 years, I have watched the then-chairman of the DNC say the idea that President Bush knew about 9-11 and let it happen was a “serious position held by many people,” watched the vice president tell a black audience that Republicans would return them to slavery if they could, watched Harry Reid say Mitt Romney was a tax cheat without any reason to believe it was true, and seen an endless amount of appalling behavior on the part of the Democrats which is too long to list here and which I am sure you are aware. And now you tell me that I should reject Trump because he is uncivil and mean to his opponents? Is that some kind of a joke? This is not the time for civility or to worry about it in our candidates.
Fifth, I do not care that Donald Trump is in favor of big government. That is certainly not a virtue but it is not a meaningful vice since the same can be said of every single Republican in the race. I am sorry but the “we are just one more Republican victory from small government” card is maxed out. We are not getting small government no matter who wins. So Trump being big government is a wash.
Sixth, Trump offers at least the chance that he might act in the American interest instead of the world’s interest or in the blind pursuit of some fantasy ideological goals. There is more to economic policy than cutting taxes, sham free trade agreements, and hollow appeals to “cutting government” and the free market. Trump may not be good, but he at least understands that. In contrast, the rest of the GOP and everyone in Washington or the media who calls themselves a conservative has no understanding of this.
Rubio would be — as Laura Ingram pointed out this week — nothing but a repeat of the Bush 43 administration with more blood and treasure spent on the fantasy that acting in other people’s interests indirectly helps ours. Cruz might be somewhat better, but it is unclear whether he could resist the temptations of nation building and wouldn’t get bullied into trying it again. And as much as I like Cruz on many areas he, like all of them except Trump, seems totally unwilling to admit that the government has a responsibility to act in the nation’s interests on trade policy and do something besides let every country in the world take advantage of us in the name of “free trade.”
Consider the following. Our country is going broke, half its working-age population isn’t even looking for work, faces the real threat of massive Islamic terrorist attack, and has a government incapable of doing even basic functions. Meanwhile, conservatives act like cutting Planned Parenthood off the government or stopping gays from getting marriage licenses are the great issues of the day and then have the gumption to call Donald Trump a clown. It would be downright funny if it wasn’t so sad and the situation so serious.
Speaker of the House Denny Hastert announced last Wednesday that, rather than send House negotiators into the proverbial smoke-filled room with Senators to come up with a “compromise” immigration bill, the House would hold hearings around the country to find out what the public actually thinks about the legislation that will decide the future of America.
Hastert`s declaration is perhaps the closest the American political system can come to the most stirring sentence in the lexicon of parliamentary politics: “We will go to the country”—which is what a party says when it calls a general election to decide a great issue of state.
But the immediate howls of pain showed once again that the last thing America`s elites want on immigration is citizen input and reasoned deliberation.
Instead, the national newspapers demanded a rush to judgment—because haste and heedlessness are the most likely ways they can get what they want.
A New York Times editorial scornfully denounced the House because “they want to take a closer look at the Senate bill”—which is 118,227 words long! The Newspaper of Record raged, “Like the baffled hominids of `2001: A Space Odyssey,` they are poking at the Senate`s big-picture approach with a leg bone.”
The Los Angeles Times editorial board sputtered, “These meetings are nonsense.”
The Wall Street Journal editorialistas hissed, “This is the equivalent of snake-handling.” (By the way, the most honest staffer at the WSJ editorial page is the anonymous person who selects the online reader responses to their editorials. All eleven comments he picked excoriate the WSJ`s open borders dogma. I hope my mentioning his fairness doesn`t cost him his job!)
In the Washington Post, Ruben Navarrette Jr. was in a snit that we weren`t going to see business as usual.
“Congress … is more broken than the U.S.-Mexican border… It`s unusual, to say the least, for one chamber to hold public hearings on the work of another. Besides, if you want to hold town hall-style meetings, why not hold them before bills are passed in the first place? Maybe because August is close enough to November so that hearings could affect the midterm elections.” [Congressional Immigration Stunts, June 25, 2006]
Imagine that—Members of the House trying to win votes by doing what the voters want!
The horror, the horror…!
Why has it become so rare for the majority party in the House to “go to the country” like this?
Over the decades, the technology behind partisan gerrymandering has improved so much that election to the House has become close to a lifetime sinecure—if the Congressman doesn`t blow it by taking the wrong stand on one of the rare issues that voters notice.
For example, that`s why Congress hasn`t carried out its Constitutional duty to declare war since 1942. It prefers to let the President take responsibility for deciding war or peace—because, otherwise, citizens might remember how their Representatives voted and throw them out.
Thus this year`s unusual show of backbone by House Republicans demonstrates just how exceptionally strong is public sentiment against the Senate immigration bill—despite those rigged polls constantly cited in the Establishment media.
The New York Times, in fact, just reported in Bush`s Immigration Plan Stalled as House G.O.P. Grew More Anxious that:
“Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, the head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, went to Mr. Boehner and Mr. Hastert and, using polling data and pointing to what he described as politically implausible sections of the bill, warned of the consequences of enactment of the Senate legislation… Mr. Reynolds had told House leaders that supporting the [Senate] bill would be `suicide for some of our members.`” [By Adam Nagourney, Carl Hulse and Jim Rutenberg, June 25, 2006]
Meanwhile, the Senate will try to strike back against the House. It plans to hold pro-illegal immigration hearings in some of the few states left, such as Pennsylvania, where there aren`t yet enough illegal immigrants to annoy the citizenry.
The San Francisco Chronicle says:
“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he came up with the idea for Senate hearings in the shower Thursday morning. `They have hearings on border security and employment verification,` Specter said. `OK, that`s fine … I`m going to have a hearing in Pennsylvania on July 5 … bring in farmers and landscapers and people in the Northeast region as to the necessity of a guest worker program.`“[ Dueling immigration hearings split GOP, Carolyn Lochhead, June 23, 2006]
(This may be another misjudgment—the town Hazleton, PA is one of the national leaders in the use of local ordinances to repel illegals and Senator Rick Santorum has begun to campaign on the issue.)
The reality is that, as the distinguished economics analyst Robert Samuelson has pointed out, the prestige press was criminally negligent in failing to report that the Senate bill would vastly increase legal immigration.
Samuelson wrote in What You Don`t Know About the Immigration Bill back on May 31:
“One job of journalism is to inform the public about what our political leaders are doing. In this case, we failed. The Senate bill`s sponsors didn`t publicize its full impact on legal immigration, and we didn`t fill the void. It`s safe to say that few Americans know what the bill would do because no one has told them. Indeed, I suspect that many senators who voted for the legislation don`t have a clue as to the potential overall increase in immigration.”
As last week`s editorial reactions indicate, that irresponsibility wasn`t an accident. It was a key component of the Main Stream Media`s strategy for covering immigration.
Yet, what you aren`t supposed to know can hurt you … badly.
Let`s step back to put the immigration controversy in a new and broader historical perspective.
At the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama announced that we had reached “The End of History.” Obviously, somebody forgot to send History the memo.
Yet, in the narrow Hegelian/Marxist sense in which Fukuyama used the term “History,” he was correct. The big controversy of the 20th Century—socialism vs. capitalism—was effectively over. Pure socialism was dead. Capitalism had survived, but not laissez-faire. From now on there would be markets, but with government interference.
Unfortunately, many commentators are still living in the past. They think basic ideology is still the big issue—the free market vs. socialism. Well, history hasn`t ended, but it has moved into a new stage. Regulated capitalism has won, so most of the political struggles in the future are not going to be about the old boldface big ideas like nationalizing the means of production, but about the fine print.
The politics of the present and future will revolve around various organized interests trying to put one over on the disorganized rest of us in the particulars of legislation.
Contra Fukuyama, there will never be a ceasefire in this struggle between the clever and the clueless. The Age of Ideology is over but the Age of the Fine Print is upon us.
For instance, back in 1996 when the California legislature unanimously deregulated the state`s electricity market, few in public life bothered to read the fine print because the ideological principle of deregulation seemed so historically inevitable at the time. Well, it turned out the devil was definitely in the details. The only people who mastered the minutiae were the traders at Enron and other such firms, who raped California out of billions.
A basic strategy for the crafty to make money is privatizing profits and socializing costs. To do this, they use tame politicians and journalists to help them hand their costs of doing business off to the public. (Economists, when they aren`t blinded by ideology, call these costs “externalities.”)
By importing “cheap labor,” employers shift major costs—such as medical care and policing—to you and me.
The Senate Sellout would further increase the burdens imposed on us.
And that`s why its supporters in the press don`t want us to worry our pretty little heads about what`s in those 118,227 words.
Hillary Clinton is more pro-Israel than Donald Trump. Trump is an American nationalist. He doesn’t care that much about the Middle East except to the extent it affects America. He won’t try to foist a peace treaty on Israel.
If Israel decides to kick out its Arabs, Donald J. Trump won’t have an objection. Any other American president will have a major problem.
Sometimes it is better if somebody doesn’t care about you too deeply. You have more freedom and less weirdness that way. America and Israel will both be stronger if they increasingly go their separate ways. American interests are not identical to Israeli interests.
If Israel can’t stand on its own two feet without American support, it doesn’t deserve to survive.
