Billions

Comment to Steve Sailer:

* Billions quickie review
1- you can watch the premier (free) at the Showtime website though it took me some poking around to find it BUT here it is.
2-Malin Ackerman….very good and precise with a precise hairstyle. Delivers some choice lines. She was born in Sweden.
3-Damien Lewis gives his role a menacing spergy tinge with a choirboys face. Well done!
4- Paul Giamatti the Federal prosecutor- v well done
5- This whole thing is so hi-def it is hyper real. Larger than life. Same as the script. This is hedgie porn.
6- Giamatti’s wife — not gonna spoil this for you. A guilty pleasure.
7- Ripping off Ray Dalio’s operation in Connecticut for Damien Lewis’s hedge fund headquarters. Go look up how much Dalio is worth. “He graduated from Hofstra!” (University) Actually Dalio went to LIU similarly humble.
8-All scenes take place in winter with snow outside the windows. Interesting accent.
9-Observe what the guys wear as far as hoodies and jackets….very slick!
10- A bit like a hedgie version of Mad Men.

Posted in Hollywood, New York | Comments Off on Billions

Idiocracy Needs No Sequel

Comment to Steve Sailer:

* Idiocracy needs no sequel. It’s perfect as it is. The movie was great, but “Idiocracy” is more the premise and the core idea of dysgenics than the movie itself.

The core idea of dysgenics isn’t new at all, dozens have written about it, but Idiocracy communicated it in an easily digestable mass consumption way that the mass market wouldn’t have otherwise been exposed to.

Three funny Idiocracy Stories:

I asked a Biology PhD researcher that I met if she felt that intelligence is inversely correlated with fertility. She took a minute to parse through my question, and exclaimed, “Oh, like Idiocracy!!”. Even for a bio researcher immersed in genetics, the movie Idiocracy is the best way to commnicate that idea.

I overheard another highly educated woman (math masters, doing industry data science work) say that the movie Idiocracy shocked her and she walked away determined to have more kids (she went on to have three). I imagine she wouldn’t have spent two seconds listening to anyone on this forum, but ideas wrapped in entertainment are much more widely communicated. I hear a common belief that birth rates trends are completely inevitable and unalterable. The proof is that some politicians in Europe have tried some obscure tax credit program and had poor results, so case closed. But a movie like Idiocracy broaches a big issue most regular people just don’t think about and actually changes behavior. Birth rate trends are absolutely controllable.

The movie mocks broken grammar. One of the characters in Idiocracy humorously says, “Why Come” instead of “How Come”. If I google “why come” I get Idiocracy as the second link. The daughter of the woman I was dating watched the movie with us, and later started unironically saying, “Why Come”.

Posted in Eugenics, Hollywood | Comments Off on Idiocracy Needs No Sequel

The Librarian Of Hate

His latest tweets backed up by academic studies:

* Non-citizen Hispanics are 29% of the federal prison population, despite only being 5% of the population.

* Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce violence between groups.

* Non-Western immigrants in Oslo committed every rape between 2006-2010.

* Black men in London are only 12% of the population, but commit 32% of rapes.

* Non-white transsexuals are four times as likely to be unemployed as the general population.

* Young Black men kill 14 times more often than young White men.

* The descendants of African immigrants to Norway are 60% more likely than their parents to commit crimes.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on The Librarian Of Hate

Is Poland Going Putin?

Anatoly Karlin writes:

From the Polish media we learn that German authorities ordered the destruction of CCTV evidence of the Cologne attacks.

We know that the Polish media cannot be trusted because Law and Justice (PiS) has been busy stacking the state media overseeing with its own cronies. To be sure the previous pro-EU leftist government had done the exact same, but that is okay because it was done in pursuit of the goals of social justice. As exemplified by, say, the German and Swedish media, which have been ordered at the highest levels to avoid reporting on minor political issues, such as the mass rape of their own women by refugees. What refugees? What rape? What Turkish sponsorship of ISIS? Hey, look over there – isn’t Julian Assange a chauvinist pig for not wearing a condom during consensual sex?

This has nothing to do with corruption adn authoritarianism because Germany is 12th and Sweden is 5th on the world’s press freedom index according to Reporters Without Borders. The RSF is a very respectable Western NGO, almost as respectable as Freedom House even, and their rankings are completely true and objective. If you disagree you are uninformed at best or more likely some kind of conspiracy theorist or pro-Russian troll…

In reality, things are rather more prosaic.

(1) Russians by and large don’t care for Polish nationalists, but considering that most of their energies are going to be expended bickering with the EU, there is no reason not to passively support them.

(2) Even nationalist Poles realize that the biggest imminent threat to Poland is not Russian tanks advancing on Warsaw or even a return to dictatorship (i.e. a right-wing government dismantling the “adminstrative resource” that the previous left-wing government had built up) but the waves of Third World immigrants the likes of Merkel and Schulz are determined to enrich Europe with.

Posted in Poland, Russia | Comments Off on Is Poland Going Putin?

Putin to European Jews: Come to Mother Russia!

Jews are a formidable people, but Putin might be up to managing them in a way that’s most congruent with Russia’s interests.

If Hitler had used Jews to further his ends, instead of exterminating them, he may well have gotten nuclear weapons first and thereby won WWII.

There are no permanent allies for Jews or for any nation. There are only shifting alliances.

From Tabletmag:

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin invited Jews facing anti-Semitism in Europe to return to Russia.

The comments, reported by the RBC, a Russian media outlet, took place during a meeting in Moscow with a delegation from the European Jewish Congress, which expressed concerns over the culture of anti-Semitism in Europe, “the worst since World War II,” said its president Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor. In reponse, Putin said: “During Soviet times they left, so let them return.”

Putin then made a “come here” gesture with his forefinger and, in an uncharacteristically gentle manner, instructed the Jewish delegation and the Jews of Europe, saying: “Here, to us. They should come to us.”

‘That is a fundamentally new idea,” said a surprised Kantor, who reportedly showed signs of experiencing visible difficulties in containing his laughter. All six fellow Jewish delegates sitting around Kantor likewise giggled.

“I have seen those reports of the situation in European countries and of people even attempting to hide their nationality,” said Putin. “People are even afraid of wearing their Kippah in public.”

The Russian President added that the situation of Russian Jews was currently the best of any place in Europe.

This would be far from the first time that Putin has made such comments at a Jewish gathering. In July of 2014 he thanked a gathering of prominent Israeli and European rabbis for what he categorized as their “help in Russia’s fight against the revival of Nazism.” In fact, Putin’s magnanimous offer was the latest gambit in the contentious leveraging of the issue of anti-Semitism in the continuing Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

Previous: In Lviv, a Dubious Anti-Semitic Demonstration
A Chief Rabbi of Russia Supports Those Who Hang Gays
Putin Defends Ukraine’s Jews, Slams Ukraine’s Jewish Oligarchs
Related: Andrey Sheptytsky Welcomes Nazis to Ukraine. That’s Not the Whole Story.

Posted in Jews, Russia | Comments Off on Putin to European Jews: Come to Mother Russia!

Steve Sailer: Hispanic Electoral Tsunami Postponed Once Again Due to Lack of Interest

Steve Sailer writes:

For years we’ve been reading about the Righteous Racial Rage of Hispanics and how the only hope of the Republican Party to survive is to facilitate an auto-coup by its South Florida wing of Jeb Bush and/or Marco Rubio to boost immigration. Sure, the GOP would lose on average on each immigrant, but it would make up for it on volume!

But when I look at the Hispanic turnout numbers in detail, the reality is less electrifying.

From the New York Times:

Yes, Latinos Are Rising, but So Are Latino Nonvoters
Damien Cave @damiencave JAN. 19, 2016

Here’s the reality of Latino political power today: It’s not what it could be.

Even though 27 million Latinos will be eligible to cast a ballot in November — an increase of 17 percent since 2012 — the Latino population is becoming more distant from the American political process, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.

Most Latinos who could vote in the last three national elections chose not to. Turnout was just under 50 percent in 2008, and fell to 48 percent in 2012. It dropped to 27 percent in the 2014 midterms, the lowest rate ever recorded for Latinos.

Another low yield may define 2016 as well.

“We’re seeing the number of people who could vote growing at a faster pace than those who do vote,” said Mark Hugo Lopez, director of Hispanic research at Pew Research Center. “There were more nonvoters than voters in the last election, and those nonvoter numbers are rising.”

The lack of engagement is not new; Latino voter turnout has lagged behind that of whites and blacks for decades. Asian-American voter turnout has also been below black and white turnout since at least 1992; it was even with Latino voter turnout in 2012.

But among Latino leaders and social scientists, there is a growing recognition, and increasing concern, that Latinos are punching beneath their weight, and may be stuck in a cycle of disconnection.

Maybe, deep down, they think that Anglos on average tend to be better than Latinos at running a country, which is why they are here rather than back home in Latin America.

COMMENTS:

* Sure, the GOP would lose on average on each immigrant, but it would make up for it on volume!

This is no joke. You cannot believe how many Republican supporters I have spoken to in the past who echo this line. When the sheer innumerate idiocy of the strategy is explained to them they just go blank.

Posted in America, Latino | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Hispanic Electoral Tsunami Postponed Once Again Due to Lack of Interest

Why The Jews?

I converted to Judaism because I believed that Jews carried the burden of God in history and I wanted to join that project.

I converted in 1993 after several years of study. One of the books that most influenced me was Why The Jews: The Reason For Antisemitism by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.

From the bestselling authors of The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, a compelling discussion of the dangerous rise in antisemitism during the twenty-first century.

The very word Jew continues to arouse passions as does no other religious, national, or political name. Why have Jews been the object of the most enduring and universal hatred in history? Why did Hitler consider murdering Jews more important than winning World War II? Why has the United Nations devoted more time to tiny Israel than to any other nation on earth?

In this seminal study, Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin attempt to uncover and understand the roots of antisemitism—from the ancient world to the Holocaust to the current crisis in the Middle East. Why the Jews? offers new insights and unparalleled perspectives on some of the most recent, pressing developments in the contemporary world, including:

-The replicating of Nazi antisemitism in the Arab world
-The pervasive anti-Zionism/antisemitism on university campuses
-The rise of antisemitism in Europe
-Why the United States and Israel are linked in the minds of antisemites

Hatred of the Jew has been humanity’s greatest hatred. While hatred of other groups has always existed, no hatred has been as universal, as deep, or as permanent as antisemitism.

The Jews have been objects of hatred in pagan, religious, and secular societies. Fascists have accused them of being Communists, and Communists have branded them capitalists. Jews who live in non-Jewish societies have been accused of having dual loyalties, while Jews who live in the Jewish state have been condemned as “racists.” Poor Jews are bullied, and rich Jews are resented. Jews have been branded as both rootless cosmopolitans and ethnic chauvinists. Jews who assimilate have been called a “fifth column,” while those who stay together spark hatred for remaining separate. Hundreds of millions of people have believed (and in the Arab world many still do) that Jews drink the blood of non-Jews, that they cause plagues and poison wells, that they secretly plot to conquer the world, and that they murdered God.

The universality of antisemitism is attested to by innumerable facts, the most dramatic being that Jews have been expelled from so many of the European and Arab societies in which they have resided. Jews were expelled from England in 1290, France in 1306 and 1394, Hungary between 1349 and 1360, Austria in 1421, numerous localities in Germany between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, Lithuania in 1445 and 1495, Spain in 1492, Portugal in 1497, and Bohemia and Moravia in 1744-45. Between the fifteenth century and 1772, Jews were not allowed into Russia; when finally admitted there, they were restricted to one area, the Pale of Settlement. Between 1948 and 1967, nearly all the Jews of Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen fled these countries, fearing for their lives.

The depth of antisemitism is evidenced by the frequency with which hostility against Jews has gone far beyond discrimination and erupted into sustained violence. In most societies in which Jews have lived, they have at some time been subjected to beatings, torture, and murder solely because they were Jews. In the Russian Empire during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, mass beatings and murders of Jews were so common that a word, pogrom, was coined to describe such incidents. And these pogroms were viewed by their antisemitic perpetrators as being of such significance that they were equated with the saving of Russia.

On a number of occasions even beating and murdering Jewish communities was not deemed sufficient. Antisemitic passions have run so deep that only the actual annihilation of the Jewish people could solve what came to be called by antisemites the “Jewish Problem.” The basic source of ancient Jewish history, the Bible, depicts two attempts to destroy the Jewish people, that by Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Exodus 1:15-22) and that of Haman and the Persians (book of Esther). While it is true that the historicity of these biblical accounts has not been proven or disproven by nonbiblical sources, few would dispute the supposition that in ancient times attempts were made to destroy the Jews. Indeed, the first recorded reference to Jews in non-Jewish sources, the Mernephta stele, written by an Egyptian king about 1220 B.C.E., states, “Israel is no more.”

Jewish writings from the earliest times until the present are replete with references to attempts by non-Jews to destroy the Jewish people. Psalm 83:5 describes the enemies of the Jews as proponents of genocide: “Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the Name of Israel may no more be remembered.” Just how precarious Jews have viewed their survival is reflected in a statement from the ancient, and annually recited, Passover Haggadah; “In every generation they rise against us in order to annihilate us.”

On three occasions during the last 350 years, annihilation campaigns have been waged against the Jews: the Chmelnitzky massacres in eastern Europe in 1648-49, the Nazi German destruction of Jews throughout Europe between 1939 and 1945, and the attempt to eradicate the Jewish state by its enemies.

For various reasons, the Chmelnitzky massacres are today not well known among Jews and are virtually unknown among non-Jews; perhaps the Holocaust tends to overshadow all previous Jewish suffering. Yet without denying the unique aspects of the Nazi Holocaust, there are a number of significant similarities between it and the Chmelnitzky massacres. In both instances, all Jews, including infants, were targeted for murder; the general populaces nearly always joined in the attacks; and the torture and degradation of Jews were an integral part of the murderers’ procedures. These characteristics are evidenced by the following contemporaneous description of a typical Chmelnitzky massacre:

Some of [the Jews] had their skins flayed off them and their flesh was flung to the dogs. The hands and feet of others were cut off and they were flung onto the roadway where carts ran over them and they were trodden underfoot by horse….And many were buried alive. Children were slaughtered in their mothers’ bosoms and many children were torn apart like fish. They ripped up the bellies of pregnant women, took out the unborn children, and flung them in their faces. They tore open the bellies of some of them and placed a living cat within the belly and left them alive thus, first cutting off their hands so that they should not be able to take the living cat out of the belly…and there was never an unnatural death in the world that they did not inflict upon them.

The permanence (as well as depth) of antisemitism is attested to by the obsessive attention given to the “Jewish Problem” by antisemites throughout history. At one time or another nearly every major country that has had a large Jewish population has regarded this group, which never constituted more than a small percentage of its population, as an enemy. To the Roman Empire in the first century, the European Christian world for over fifteen centuries, the Nazi Reich, the Soviet Union, and to the Arabs and much of the Muslim world, the Jews have been or are regarded as an insufferable threat.

Jews have been perceived as so dangerous that even after their expulsion or destruction, hatred and fear of them remain. The depiction of Jews as ritual murderers of young Christian children in Chaucer’s “Prioress’s Tale” in The Canterbury Tales one hundred years after all Jews had been expelled from England attests to the durability of antisemitism. So does the characterization of Jews as usurers who wish to collect their interest in flesh in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, three hundred years after the Jews’ expulsion. A more recent example was Poland in 1968, when for months the greatest issue for Polish radio, television, and newspapers was the “Unmasking of Zionists in Poland.” Of the thirty-three million citizens of Poland in 1968, the Jews numbered about twenty thousand or less than one-fifteenth of 1 percent.

How are the universality, depth, and permanence of antisemitism to be explained? Why such hatred and fear of a people who never constituted more than a small minority among those who most hated and feared them? Why, nearly always and nearly everywhere, the Jews?

Many answers have been offered by scholars. These include, most commonly, economic factors, the need for scapegoats, ethnic hatred, xenophobia, resentment of Jewish affluence and professional success, and religious bigotry. But ultimately these answers do not explain antisemitism; they only explain what factors have exacerbated it and caused it to erupt in a given circumstance. None accounts for the universality, depth, and persistence of antisemitism. In fact, we have encountered virtually no study of this phenomenon that even attempts to offer a universal explanation of Jew-hatred. Nearly every study of antisemitism consists almost solely of historical narrative, thus seeming to indicate that no universal reason for antisemitism exists.

We reject this approach. To ignore or deny that there is an ultimate cause for antisemitism contradicts both common sense and history. Antisemitism has existed too long, and in too many disparate cultures, to ignore the problem of ultimate cause and/or to claim that new or indigenous factors are responsible every time it erupts. Factors specific to a given society help account for the manner or time in which antisemitism erupts. But they do not explain its genesis — why antisemitism at all? To cite but one example: the depressed economy in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s helps to explain why and when the Nazis came to power, but it does not explain why Nazis hated Jews, let alone why they wanted to murder every Jew. Economic depressions do not explain gas chambers.

The very consistency of the passions Jews have aroused demands a consistent explanation. Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, medieval and many modern Christians and Muslims, and Nazis and Communists have perhaps only one thing in common: they have all, at some point, counted the Jews as their enemy, often their greatest enemy. Why?

Among Jews, this question has been posed only in the modern era. Until the modern age, Jews never asked, “Why the Jews?” They knew why. Throughout their history, Jews have regarded Jew-hatred as an inevitable consequence of their Jewishness. Contrary to modern understandings of antisemitism, the age-old Jewish understanding of antisemitism does posit a universal explanation for Jew-hatred: Judaism, meaning the Jews’ God, laws, peoplehood, and claim to being chosen. The historical record, as we shall show, confirms the traditional Jewish view that the Jews were hated because of Jewish factors. Modern attempts to dejudaize Jew-hatred, to attribute it to economic, social, and political factors, and universalize it into merely another instance of bigotry, are as opposed to the facts of Jewish history as they are to the historical Jewish understanding of antisemitism.

Antisemites have not hated Jews because Jews are affluent — poor Jews have always been as hated; or strong — weak Jews have simply invited antisemitic bullies; or because Jews may have unpleasant personalities — genocide is not personality-generated; or because ruling classes focus worker discontent onto Jews — precapitalist and noncapitalist societies such as the former Soviet Union, other Communist states, and various Third World countries, have been considerably more antisemitic than capitalist societies. Antisemites have hated Jews because Jews are Jewish. Christian antisemites ceased hating rich Jews when they became Christians. Muslim antisemites embrace Jews who convert to Islam. The same has held true for virtually all other antisemites except the Nazis, whom we shall discuss later.

What about Judaism has provoked anti-Jewish hostility? There are four answers.

1. For thousands of years Judaism has consisted of four components: God, Torah, Israel, and Chosenness; that is, the God introduced by the Jews, Jewish laws, Jewish peoplehood, and the belief that the Jews are God’s chosen people. Jews’ allegiance to any of these components has been a major source of antisemitism because it not only rendered the Jew an outsider, but more important, it has often been regarded by non-Jews as challenging the validity of their god(s), law(s), national allegiance, and/or national worth.

By affirming what they considered to be the one and only God of all humankind, thereby implying illegitimacy to everyone else’s gods, the Jews entered history — and have often been since — at war with other people’s most cherished beliefs. The antisemites also hated the Jews because the Jews lived by their own all-encompassing set of laws. And because the Jews also asserted their own national identity, Jews intensified antisemitic passions among those who viewed this identity as threatening their own nationalism.

2. As if the above were not enough, Judaism has also held from the earliest times that the Jews were chosen by God to achieve this mission of bringing the world to God and His moral law (i.e., ethical monotheism). This doctrine of the Jews’ divine election has been a major cause of antisemitism.

3. From its earliest days, the raison d’être of Judaism has been to change the world for the better (in the words of an ancient Jewish prayer recited daily, “to repair the world under the rule of God”). This attempt to change the world, to challenge the gods, religious or secular, of the societies around them, and to make moral demands upon others (even when not done expressly in the name of Judaism) has constantly been a source of tension.

4. As a result of the Jews’ commitment to Judaism, they have led higher-quality lives than their non-Jewish neighbors in almost every society where they have lived. For example, Jews have nearly always been better educated; Jewish family life has usually been more stable; Jews aided one another more than their non-Jewish neighbors aided each other; and Jewish men have been less likely to become drunk, beat their wives, or abandon their children. As a result of these factors, the quality of life of the average Jew, no matter how poor, was higher than that of a comparable non-Jew in the same society (see Chapter 4).

This higher quality of life among Jews, which, as we shall show, directly results from Judaism, has, as one would expect, provoked profound envy and hostility among many non-Jews.

Since Judaism is the root cause of antisemitism, Jews, unlike victims of racial or ethnic prejudice, could in almost every instance of antisemitism, except Nazism, escape persecution. For thousands of years and until today, Jews who abandoned their Jewish identity and assumed the majority’s religious and national identity were no longer persecuted.

For these reasons, Jews have always regarded antisemitism as a response, however immoral, to Judaism. Thus, most Jews until the modern era, and most religious Jews to this day, would describe Jews murdered by antisemites not as victims of ethnic prejudice but as having died al kiddush hashem, that is, as martyrs sanctifying the name of God before the world.

Once one understands why Judaism has precipitated antisemitism, the unique universality, depth, and permanence of Jew-hatred also become understandable. It takes infinitely more than economic tensions or racial prejudice to create the animosity that often has involved the torturing of children and the murdering of entire communities. Only a people representing a threat to the core values, allegiances, and beliefs of others could arouse such universal, deep, and lasting hatred.

That is why totalitarian regimes, secular and religious, inevitably are antisemitic. Totalitarian regimes by definition aim to control the totality of their citizens’ lives and can therefore tolerate no uncontrolled religious or national expressions, both of which are part of Judaism. Once the Jewish roots of antisemitism are recognized, the only solutions to the “Jewish Problem,” as far as antisemites are concerned, are obvious. The Jews must either convert, be expelled, or murdered. In the 1880s, the Russian czar’s procurator of the Holy Synod and architect of Russian government policy at the time, Constantine Pobedonostev, is said to have offered precisely this advice: One-third of the Jews living in the Russian Empire should be converted to Christianity, one-third should be expelled, and one-third should be put to death.

In fact, for the last two thousand years, this has repeatedly been the chronological order of antisemitic acts. First, attempts would be made to convert the Jews. When the Jews refused, they were often expelled. And when even expulsion failed to solve the “Jewish Problem,” there remained one “Final Solution,” which is precisely the name the Nazis gave to their plan to annihilate the Jews.

It is also clear that antisemitism is not ethnic or racial prejudice, though it obviously shares certain features with them. Haters of Jews persecuted them for the same reasons Romans persecuted Christians, Nazis tortured members of the Resistance, and Communist regimes imprison dissidents. In each instance, the group is persecuted because its different beliefs represent a threat to the persecuting group. This hatred must be understood as being very different from a racial or ethnic prejudice. Blacks in America, for example, have been discriminated against because of the physical fact of their blackness, not because of specific black ideas or beliefs. Hatred of blacks is racial prejudice. Blacks cannot stop being black. But in dictatorships, dissidents can stop being dissenters, and a Jew has always been able to, and in general still can, stop being a Jew.

Even the major exception to this rule, Nazi antisemitism, confirms the Jewish basis of antisemitism. The Nazis simply maintained that Jews could never really become non-Jews. They believed that no matter how much Jews may consciously attempt to appear and behave like non-Jews, they nevertheless retain the values of Judaism. Nazi anti-Jewish “racism” emanated from a hatred of Judaism and what Jews represent. Nazi racism is ex post facto; first came the antisemitism, then came the racist doctrine to explain it.

Antisemitism is, therefore, as Jews have always regarded it: a response to Jews. The charges often made by antisemites — that Jews poison wells, drink human blood, plot to take over the world’s governments, or control world finance — are hallucinatory. But the roots of antisemitism are not. The real reasons antisemites hate Jews and the accusations they make against them are rarely the same. This is hardly uncommon. When people harbor hatreds, individually or communally, they rarely articulate rationally the reasons for their hatred.

We should not be so naive as to regard all antisemitic accusations as the reasons for the antisemitism. For example, the modern belief that economic factors cause antisemitism, besides confusing exacerbating factors with causes, grants the accusations of antisemites far too much credence. It is analogous to the efforts of some fine historians to determine the historical accuracy of the Christian claim that the Jews killed Jesus, because Christian antisemites called Jews “Christ killers,” as if proving one way or another would have ended Christian antisemitism. It is also analogous to the tireless efforts of other fine historians to decipher the exact number and circumstances of Arabs displaced during the founding of Israel, as if those who single out Israel from all other countries to support efforts to destroy it do so because six hundred thousand Arab refugees were created in 1948.

The questions for those wishing to understand the roots of antisemitism are not whether some Jews helped execute a fellow Jew two thousand years ago, or how great a role Jews played in the German economy, or how many Arabs fled Israel in 1948. The questions are why, to begin with, people hate Jews, and then invent reasons to do so.

This was an intoxicating vision — Jews are persecuted for being God’s representatives on earth.

Then I gradually saw other reasons why Jews were hated. For example, some of the world views the word “Jew” as synonymous with dishonesty in business (though it seems to me that Jews are not more dishonest than other people of Middle Eastern origin, and they are considerably more law-abiding and honest than the Chinese and Africans).

So I kept reading and eventually I was able to understand why white nationalists view themselves as an oppressed minority, oppressed by powerful Jews.

I guess every nationalism contains a victimology, every victimology contains a nationalism and every nationalism contains the capacity for genocide. Different groups have different interests and they compete for scarce resources.

A Jewish friend says:

I read Why the Jews and I thought it was such a poorly written piece of selective facts to argue a specific point of view I couldn’t believe anyone took it seriously, except Jews who want to reinforce their persecution complex.

What Prager and Teluskhin absolutely failed to deal with how such a despised minority acquired so much power and wealth.

I remember reading some Rabbi’s sermon in which he explained that all countries which exhibited hostility toward Jews suffered as a result. I don’t know about that. After the Spanish expelled the Jews in 1492, Spain became the wealthiest and most powerful empire in the world for the next three hundred years and retained significant power and clout until the Spanish American War at the end of the 19th Century.

I think for someone who knows little of Jewish history and less of Jewish Gentile relations and history, the book if the facts are taken as true, paints Jews in a heroic light, holding onto their one true religion, wanting nothing more than to be left in peace to recite their prayers and study Torah and Talmud, except for those irrational haters surrounding them.

One of the other great myths about Jewish immigration around the turn of the century is that Jews came to America to avoid persecution. In fact whether the societies they came from were anti semitic in one degree or another, the Jews came for economic reasons. No Jewish institute of learning, and there were many especially in Lithuania, relocated to the United States.

Polish Jews who we often see in the shtetl photographs of Roman Vishniak were actually up to the start of WWII mostly urban with Jews forming huge neighborhoods (not ghettos) in Polish cities, especially Lodz and Warsaw, many of them despite living in an officially anti semitic regime with strict quotas for Jews at universities quite wealthy.

It is so easy to conflate the efficient and lethal official anti Semitism of Nazi Germany, with the folk anti Semitism in Roman Catholic and most Eastern Orthodox countries, and the official anti Semitism practiced in pre-communist Russia and in interwar Poland, and the Baltic States. Jews could and did thrive in these countries despite the folk and institutional anti Semitism.

Posted in America, Anti-Semitism, Jews, Whites | Comments Off on Why The Jews?

How an Obscure Adviser to Pat Buchanan Predicted the Wild Trump Campaign in 1996

Michael Brendan Dougherty, The Week, January 16, 2016:

[S]ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interests and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better . . . [Samuel Francis in Chronicles]

Imagine giving this advice to a Republican presidential candidate: What if you stopped calling yourself a conservative and instead just promised to make America great again?

What if you dropped all this leftover 19th-century piety about the free market and promised to fight the elites who were selling out American jobs? What if you just stopped talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security and instead said that the elites were failing to deliver better health care at a reasonable price? What if, instead of vainly talking about restoring the place of religion in society–something that appeals only to a narrow slice of Middle America–you simply promised to restore the Middle American core–the economic and cultural losers of globalization–to their rightful place in America? What if you said you would restore them as the chief clients of the American state under your watch, being mindful of their interests when regulating the economy or negotiating trade deals?

That’s pretty much the advice that columnist Samuel Francis gave to Pat Buchanan in a 1996 essay, “From Household to Nation,” in Chronicles magazine. Samuel Francis was a paleo-conservative intellectual who died in 2005. Earlier in his career he helped Senator East of North Carolina oppose the Martin Luther King holiday. He wrote a white paper recommending the Reagan White House use its law enforcement powers to break up and harass left-wing groups. He was an intellectual disciple of James Burnham’s political realism, and Francis’ political analysis always had a residue of Burnham’s Marxist sociology about it. He argued that the political right needed to stop playing defense–the globalist left won the political and cultural war a long time ago–and should instead adopt the insurgent strategy of communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. Francis eventually turned into a something resembling an all-out white nationalist, penning his most racist material under a pen name. Buchanan didn’t take Francis’ advice in 1996, not entirely. But 20 years later, “From Household to Nation,” reads like a political manifesto from which the Trump campaign springs.

To simplify Francis’ theory: There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite. These Middle Americans see jobs disappearing to Asia and increased competition from immigrants. Most of them feel threatened by cultural liberalism, at least the type that sees Middle Americans as loathsome white bigots. But they are also threatened by conservatives who would take away their Medicare, hand their Social Security earnings to fund-managers in Connecticut, and cut off their unemployment too.

Middle American forces, emerging from the ruins of the old independent middle and working classes, found conservative, libertarian, and pro-business Republican ideology and rhetoric irrelevant, distasteful, and even threatening to their own socio-economic interests. The post World War II middle class was in reality an affluent proletariat, economically dependent on the federal government through labor codes, housing loans, educational programs, defense contracts, and health and unemployment benefits. All variations of conservative doctrine rejected these . . .

Yet, at the same time, the Ruling Class proved unable to uproot the social cultural, and national identities and loyalties of the Middle American proletariat, and Middle Americans found themselves increasingly alienated from the political left and its embrace of anti-national policies, and counter-cultural manners and morals. [Chronicles]

{snip}

But the response of the predominantly-white class that Francis was writing about has mostly been one of personal despair. And thus we see them dying in middle age of drug overdose, alcoholism, or obesity at rates that now outpace those of even poorer blacks and Hispanics. Their rate of suicide is sky high too. Living in Washington D.C., however, with an endless two decade real-estate boom, and a free-lunch economy paid for by special interests, most of the people in the conservative movement hardly know that some Americans think America needs to be made great again.

{snip}

Plenty of others have noticed the parallels between Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump. Some have seen that Trump is attracting the “radical middle” social base and taking on the Caesarist, almost Latin American-style populism that Francis recommended. Buchanan was recently asked about why Trump was having all the success that he did not enjoy, when he is running on so many of the issues Buchanan did 20 years ago. Buchanan said that it was because the returns are in on the policies he criticized 20 years ago. All of this is true.

The Trump phenomenon does seem to be sui generis. There are not squadrons of Trumpistas in the Republican Congress. And his celebrity persona, his extremely unusual and independent financial power, his felicity for not just recognizing but channeling the grievances of his supporters is unmatched. It’s hard to imagine anyone else rebuilding his coalition of Middle American radicals and fringier, race-obsessed “alt-right” nationalists.

{snip}

What is so crucial to Trump’s success, even within the Republican Party, is his almost total ditching of conservatism as a governing philosophy. He is doing the very thing Pat Buchanan could not, and would not do. And in this, he is following the advice of Sam Francis to a degree almost unthinkable. Here’s the concluding flourish of Francis’ 1996 essay:

I told [Buchanan] privately that he would be better off without all the hangers-on, direct-mail artists, fund-raising whiz kids, marketing and PR czars, and the rest of the crew that today constitutes the backbone of all that remains of the famous “Conservative Movement” and who never fail to show up on the campaign doorstep to guzzle someone else’s liquor and pocket other people’s money. “These people are defunct,” I told him. “You don’t need them, and you’re better off without them. Go to New Hampshire and call yourself a patriot, a nationalist, an America Firster, but don’t even use the word ‘conservative.’ It doesn’t mean anything any more.”

Pat listened, but I can’t say he took my advice. By making his bed with the Republicans, then and today, he opens himself to charges that he’s not a “true” party man or a “true” conservative, constrains his chances for victory by the need to massage trunk-waving Republicans whose highest goal is to win elections, and only dilutes and deflects the radicalism of the message he and his Middle American Revolution have to offer. The sooner we hear that message loudly and clearly, without distractions from Conservatism, Inc., the Stupid Party, and their managerial elite, the sooner Middle America will be able to speak with an authentic and united voice, and the sooner we can get on with conserving the nation from the powers that are destroying it. [Chronicles]

Trump embodies this in nearly every letter. He doesn’t have people from the traditional Republican power structure advising him. He doesn’t say he’ll direct the existing members of the managerial class to make a little tweak here or there; he says he’ll send his friend Carl Icahn and threaten China with a tariff wall that could repel a tsunami of cheap goods.

What so frightens the conservative movement about Trump’s success is that he reveals just how thin the support for their ideas really is. His campaign is a rebuke to their institutions. It says the Republican Party doesn’t need all these think tanks, all this supposed policy expertise. It says look at these people calling themselves libertarians and conservatives, the ones in tassel-loafers and bow ties. Have they made you more free? Have their endless policy papers and studies and books conserved anything for you? These people are worthless. They are defunct. You don’t need them, and you’re better off without them.

And the most frightening thing of all–as Francis’ advice shows–is that the underlying trend has been around for at least 20 years, just waiting for the right man to come along and take advantage.

Posted in America | Comments Off on How an Obscure Adviser to Pat Buchanan Predicted the Wild Trump Campaign in 1996

The Alienation Blues

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* But some people can’t get ’nuff of those Alienation Blues.

Take the snooty Bengali-American writer Jhumpa Lahiri.

She was born in the UK but left for the States at the age of two where her alleged acute sense of alienation provides a river of material for her books and reasons to whine about life in the west. She has, naturally, been showered with prizes for her “honesty” and “subtlety”.

“In a sense I’m used to a kind of linguistic exile. My mother tongue, Bengali, is foreign in America. When you live in a country where your own language is considered foreign, you can feel a continuous sense of estrangement. You speak a secret, unknown language, lacking any correspondence to the environment. An absence that creates a distance within you.”

Note: she admits to not being able to speak Bengali properly nor read and write it.

Now, in middle age, she has switched to Rome and Italian:

“I think it’s not so much English in itself as everything the language has symbolized for me. For practically my whole life, English has represented a consuming struggle, a wrenching conflict, a continuous sense of failure that is the source of almost all my anxiety. It has represented a culture that had to be mastered, interpreted. I was afraid that it meant a break between me and my parents. English denotes a heavy, burdensome aspect of my past. I’m tired of it.”

Her mother, a doctor, was of course regularly racially insulted by the staff at the hospital when she started work in the States.

But “In the United States, she continued, as far as possible, to dress, behave, eat, think, live as if she had never left India, Calcutta. The refusal to modify her aspect, her habits, her attitudes was her strategy for resisting American culture, for fighting it, for maintaining her identity. Becoming or even resembling an American would have meant total defeat. When my mother returns to Calcutta, she is proud of the fact that, in spite of almost fifty years away from India, she seems like a woman who never left.”

In a peculiar way Lahiri, like many of her fellow writers in ‘exile’, come across as displaced blood and soil nationalists; she says, for example, that every language is ultimately rooted in a particular locality.

As far as I know Lahiri has never demanded that her Indian ‘homeland’ be swamped with non-Indians – perhaps to spare the newcomers the alienation? It never seems to occur to her that mass immigration might produce in white and black Americans a feeling of loss that is worse than the putative alienation suffered by overachieving migrants who bask in the steady state existence of their home culture.

Lahiri has now of course discovered that Italians are racist and chauvinist: still mass immigration will surely cure than in time eh Lahiri?

* What are basic human rights?

You might be able to sell me on the idea that we (meaning the developed nations) should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick of the underdeveloped world. (But only if birth control is part of the deal.) There have been programs in place to do these things for a long time.

But since when is being given a free ticket to an advanced country and unlimited access to all the welfare goodies a *basic* human right?

A reasonable person can argue that no one should have to sleep on the street – that there should be shelters for the homeless. Most folks would probably agree with that idea, although many would insist on certain conditions – they might want the able-bodied to do some kind of productive work in return for the free bed.

But what you’re saying is that the lousiest, drunkest, nastiest bum has the basic human right to spend his days lounging in a mansion on the taxpayers’ dime, simply because he’s alive and breathing.

Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

* When we have things you want to take, our ancestors are blamed and we are supposed to give our good stuff to you.

It is so very convenient that the historically evil people presented by the Narrative are the same people that have nice things they are supposed to gladly give away.

Posted in Immigration, Nationalism | Comments Off on The Alienation Blues

LAT: The Latino vote is bigger and better educated than ever before, a new report finds

la-latino-vote-la0029742150-20150701

Rosalia Garcia de Flores, center, listens with others at a news conference in Pacoima launching a campaign to register Latino voters in mixed-status families. The number of Latinos eligible to vote in this year’s presidential election is 40% higher than it was just eight years ago, according to a new report by Pew Research Center. (Katie Falkenberg / Los Angeles Times)

Posted in Latino | Comments Off on LAT: The Latino vote is bigger and better educated than ever before, a new report finds