Steve Sailer: Ross Douthat gets the Charles Murray book’s biggest oversight

Steve Sailer writes in 2012: To avoid inflaming his liberal critics, Charles Murray specifically states that he won’t talk about illegal immigration in discussing the state of changes in the white working class over the last 50 years. Fortunately, Ross Douthat in the NYT points out how unrealistic this is:

Third, if we expect less-educated Americans to compete with low-wage workers in Asia and Latin America, we shouldn’t be welcoming millions of immigrants who compete with them domestically as well. Immigration benefits the economy over all, but it can lower wages and disrupt communities, and there’s no reason to ask an already-burdened working class to bear these costs alone. Here the leading Republican candidates have the right idea: We should welcome more high-skilled immigrants, while making it as hard as possible for employers to hire low-skilled workers off the books.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The white American underclass has been created by many of the same trends that created the British underclass: deindustrialization and loss of high-wage work, increasing real estate prices and decreasing “affordable family formation” for everyone, anti-family welfare policies, pop culture, changing social mores, more competition in the labor market from immigrants.

Many are unaware just how much alcoholism, addiction, family breakdown, property crime, and poverty are in plenty of predominately white rural areas. No you won’t get shot by the Crips and the Bloods, but you’ll encounter a fair number of marginally employed substance abusers and are at risk of theft from meth heads.

There are even some white urban areas which have tipped from working class into the underclass. Mostly around the rustbelt (Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Jackson, Flint, upstate NY, Baltimore, Scioto County, etc). Charles Murray’s industrially decaying Fishtown, which is based on a white neighborhood in Philadelphia, has a crime rate almost 4x the national average.

* I can’t imagine that loss of decent jobs, whether through off-shoring or by importing cheap foreign labor to take the jobs that can’t be off-shored, isn’t a big contributing factor in pushing down the white working class. It doesn’t take too long either.

I live in SW Virginia. About 5 years ago when things started downhill, a Volvo plant nearby laid off a bunch of workers. These folks were making $20+ an hour with decent benefits. Down here that’s good money. You can live very well, especially if your spouse also has a reasonably decent job and you’ve been more or less prudent in your personal life.

Last year, Volvo started calling back some workers. Great news!! However, a surprising number couldn’t be hired back because they couldn’t pass the drug test. The likelihood of their finding anything that could touch those wages plus benefits are slim. Volvo, of course, had no problem filling those jobs with others.

The amazing thing is, these guys were clean when they worked for Volvo and it isn’t as if Volvo dropped by their house unexpectedly to give them a pre-hire-back drug test. They knew what was coming.

It’s just like the young women I see at social services and emergency assistance where I do some volunteer work. They can barely take care of themselves and they have two stair-step children and are pregnant with their third.

These people may not be dumber than their parents and grandparents, but, boy, do they lack judgement, and you don’t get that at college!

* Back in 1960, a large fraction of the working-class was employed in very well-paid auto industry and other industrial jobs, and these have been devastated. Meanwhile, the wages of other once-well paid jobs in construction have been greatly reduced due to immigrant competition. Finally, the private sector unions, which had kept those wages high, have been almost completely annihilated. I think about the only really well-paid working-class jobs left are the elite public sector ones such as police or fire departments.

Probably Murray is playing games with statistics, and comparing two-income blue collar households of today with one-income blue collar households of 1960. But that completely ignores the huge additional family costs incurred when wives enter the workforce. And I’m sure Murray’s also leaving out the enormous rise on the expense side of the family budget ledger, including health care and education. Elizabeth Warren has a great YouTube lecture covering most of these issues that can be found on the Internet.

* Germans went through hell in WWII but didn’t become trash after the war. 15 million Ost-Germans were uprooted, up to 2 million died, and they resettled in Western Germany with only clothes on their back.
Americans suffered far greater economic duress in the 30s. Yet they didn’t become trash.
Blacks suffered discrimination and poverty for a long time, but their family was intact until the 60s.
Chinese went through hell during Warlord period, WWII, Civil War, Great Leap, and Cultural Revolution but they’re working to build new China.

While it’s true that there has been economic hard times for poor whites in UK and US, what explains the total cultural and moral rot?

* Short answer: modern liberalism.

People of the middle and upper classes were no longer expected to hide their bad behavior and people of the lower classes were no longer expected to emulate the good behavior of their betters.

People were also encouraged to express themselves rather than repress themselves. The primacy, even the supremacy, of the individual was trumpeted unceasingly. When everybody is a somebody, then nobody has any reason to behave better than anybody.

Respectability, neatness, dress appropriate to the occasion, good work habits, intact families, the uncomplaining assumption of one’s personal and social responsibilities were all disparaged as risible and undesirable holdovers from the repressive and racist 1950’s (and earlier, of course, but the 50s really lent themselves to the left’s condemnation and ridicule).

The whole thing has been awful, which, I suspect, was the left’s intent all along.

* My wife works as a proofreader. Recently, there’s been a trend in the industry at farming out “low-level” copyediting and proofreading to workers overseas and paying them pennies on the dollar.

Most of these new outsourced employees don’t speak good English, and some don’t speak any at all. Instead, they go by a series of instructions and rules that they recognize by sight, without comprehending what the mistake in the text is or why they’re changing it. This process must take a great deal longer than native-speaker recognition and comprehension, but clearly the extra time is outweighed by the greatly reduced wages.

This kind of thing is getting more common (see sites like this one about outsourcing writing to India, and note the ‘diversity’ shout-out in the title.

People in the industry are uncomfortable about getting pushed out of the market, but don’t want to speak out because it makes them look racist. And of course, the bosses love it. It saves them money, and unlike other cost-cutting measures, it’s almost too easy to shame anyone who complains (“you don’t appreciate diversity!” “what have you got against helping non-Americans into the middle class?”) No one’s going to stop it until it’s too late, and they’re already being lectured by the shrinking minority of Americans with good jobs about being too uppity and demanding more than $4/hour. Everyone at this level of the industry is holding back a South Park-esque “THEY TOOK OUR JERBS” moment.

* Where is the Studs Terkel of the white working class? Maybe some of the elites might want to know what it is like for the whites working in fast food restaurants, as security guards, as delivery men or as cab drivers.

The bleakness of the white lower class is rarely portrayed without irony.

Statistics are bloodless. A story can imprint a image for a lifetime.

* I remember when i had a ‘gold’ server contract with dell – one day i picked up the phone during an emergency and got near incomprehensible Indinglish on the other end of the line. Worse still, the only thing that was clear is that the ‘tech’ on the other line had never even seen a real server.

I called sales -(always the way to actually get through to a company) and got routed to ’emergency’ customer complaints – when I complained i was berated by the woman on the other end “we’re committed to diversity”

I called her on her BS though, and got routed to the small “a-team” of american techs. After four plus hours (this while the server was down) I got to an american tech, problem solved in less than 20 minutes.

* True story: A friend of my college-age daughter’s, definitely from Fishtown, developed a heroin habit at age 20. He’s a smart kid, reads Emerson and William James on his, but in a moment of stupid desperation “:held up” a convenience store with a toy gun.

He was arrested but, without a lawyer, was sentenced to one year in county jail first offense. He got out owing the state $18,000. Plus he had lost his two front teeth in a fight while in jail.

With no transportation he was forced to walk miles to work washing dishes in local restaurants at minimum wage.

A few months later he was arrested for driving without a license. This was a parole violation, so he got five more months in the slammer.

Now he is 22, off drugs, but is virtually unemployable because of his record. He’s going to the local community college where he studies liberal arts and is, so far, $1800 in dept to the school. He has to bum rides or walk miles wherever he goes. He’s fit — was a championship boxer in high school — and reasonably good looking except for the teeth. No one will hire him.

He comes to me as a mentor. What can I do.? I’m an old man. All I can do is advise him: To learn a trade instead of studying English; join a Baptist church to find a girl friend (belief is not the issue), and go to the local newspaper in the hopes that his story will be told.

If he climbs out of the hole he is in it will be a gigantic achievement. My knees buckle at the thought. Otherwise he’ll be back in jail I imagine, at God know what cost to the state.

* Immigrants recruited to America tend to be in unskilled jobs or when they are bright, tend to be in STEM fields like computers/engineering. Immigrants are almost never recruited to flood the market in highly verbal fields that Jews do genetically best in like media,the social sciences etc. As a result verbal occupations see their relative prestige and pay rise because they are the only occupations where the market is not over saturated by immigrants. If this is intentional, it is a very clever strategy to gain more power by those with high verbal IQ Ashkenazi genes.

* There’s a substanial white underclass in America. It tends to be spread out and less visible, but it’s substanial enough in size. Go to any small town and you’ll encounter plenty of whites who drink too much, get involved with meth or oxycontin, and have problems with the law. It’s not comparable to the black underclass, but it’s depressing to look at these people.

The tendency of underclass whites to not form urban slums reduces the attention they receive, but there are more white slums then you might think. The rustbelt (Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit) has its share of high crime white hoods.

* In the US, Lower-income rural white areas have quite a bit of drugs, alcoholism, dysfunction, and property crime. Lower-income urban white slums have all those issues and also major problems with violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) and social breakdown (not working, broken families, etc). However, random lethal violence (shootings, stabbings, murders) is not too problematic. It does tend to occur at an unreasonably elevated rate in urban white slums, but it’s not so absurdly high that the neighborhood becomes a war zone.

White urban slums can match up to black slums in dysfunctionality and breakdown. They can surpass black areas in drug (meth, oxycontin) and alcohol abuse (trust me). For whatever reason, though, horrendous levels of lethal violence don’t seem to go through the roof, except in rare situations (South Boston and southwest Detroit come to mind). Some have attributed this to the widespread use of crack cocaine in the black areas, but maybe genetic factors are at work too.

The worst aspect of the white urban slums is that they’re falling apart. The people, the buildings, the community, the economy, etc. For the white rural areas, the situation is milder, but not good either. As our recession goes, and immigration continues unabated, maybe things will get worse. Take a trip through south Ohio (especially Portsmouth) to see what our future could look like. It might shock you.

Posted in Charles Murray, Whites | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Ross Douthat gets the Charles Murray book’s biggest oversight

Critiquing Charles Murray

Ron Unz? writes in 2012: Look, Murray has a long track-record, and that track-record shows him to be an incompetent and a shill. When you’re the most prominent public figure writing about extremely serious and controversial topics, this is a huge problem. Let me cite a few examples.

Back in late 1980s, I read Murray’s anti-Welfare “Losing Ground,” which I thought was quite good. Obviously, I noticed he’d left out any mention of the absolutely crucial HBD/IQ role and framed his entire critique in Ayn Randian terms, but I certainly didn’t blame him. After all, authors need to eat, don’t they?

But then after his big IQ book “The Bell Curve” came out, he was asked about that in an interview, and claimed that when Losing Ground came out, he’d been totally ignorant of IQ/HBD, and never dreamed it was a factor in anything until Herrnstein had contacted him, and unfortunately, I tend to believe him. Herrnstein/Jensen/etc. had published their stuff in the late 1960s and had gotten *massive* media attention, yet Murray had spent decades as a professional social scientist focusing on welfare/underclass type issues, and had never heard of any of that research. This is not a good sign.

Next, Murray’s Bell Curve book was extremely long and full but not very good and got lots of things confused. Anyway, it didn’t really say much that his co-author Herrnstein (a very serious scholar) hadn’t already indicated 25 years earlier back in 1969. In fact, I suspect Murray was really just writing up and popularizing Herrnstein’s research, which he didn’t fully understand in depth, and this turned out to be a *huge* problem since Herrnstein died just as the book came out. I remember seeing Murray on some TV show getting hostile questions from opposing scholars, and he didn’t really handle himself very well, since Herrnstein wasn’t around to pass him the answers.

Recall also that Murray claimed that for IQ-deterministic reasons there would be a *gigantic* growth in the national white underclass, just as disorderly and violent as the existing black urban underclass, and therefore by now all our cities would have become deadly no-go ghetto zones on the way to American “custodial democracy.” Instead, crime has since totally collapsed nationwide.

Afterwards, he mostly wrote silly libertarian books to impress his silly libertarian friends and paymasters, notably proposing to solve our social problems by having the government annually distribute $10,000 worth of free crack, er, I mean $10,000 in *cash* to everyone living in ghettos. He generally avoided IQ issues, except for a long article a few years ago in Commentary, in which he endlessly praised the unimaginable genius of the Jewish Race, and (as I recall) suggested that one major proof that the Jews possessed the most brilliant minds in history was that they had discovered the only true religion. Presumably, Murray wanted to have his stipend raised so he could buy a fancier house.

Posted in Charles Murray | Comments Off on Critiquing Charles Murray

First They Came For The Janitors

From VDARE: First they came for the janitors.

At one time janitors were unionized and made enough to support a family on one paycheck. But this cost the right people money. How dare a lowly janitor make so much money! You can get Mexicans to do the work for a fraction of the cost—the janitors must be lazy. So they broke the unions, imported foreign labor, and now janitors work multiple shifts to support their families in unheated garages. But I wasn`t a janitor, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the factory workers. We`re paying workers ten times what they make in China; we need to be globally competitive! How dare these fat unionized slobs make a good living when it would be so much more profitable to pay them a few dimes an hour! So they outsourced the factories to low-wage sweatshop countries, they tore up the contracts and benefits, gutted whole communities and our nation`s industrial strength. But I wasn`t a factory worker, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the scientists and engineers. We advertise for experienced software engineers at minimum wage and no benefits and we don`t get Einstein! Americans must be lazy and stupid. So they imported massive numbers of foreign scientists and engineers, and started outsourcing advanced design work, and now even the most talented scientists and engineers are being forced into low-wage temporary jobs. But I wasn`t a scientist or an engineer, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the public employees. Hey, everyone else is getting poorer, how dare people who clean the streets or check food quality or guide air traffic make a decent wage with benefits? So they trashed the public employee unions and tore up the contracts and slashed wages and gave the savings to Wall Street. But I wasn`t a public employee so I said nothing.

And then they came for me. I thought I was special, but in the long run nobody who works for a living is. I recalled that once upon a time America had the highest wages in the world, and we gloried in it as proof of our greatness. Now we celebrate a steady descent into poverty as somehow wonderful and necessary: how did that happen?

I realize now that driving down wages enriches only a few: the profits from destroying the wages of all my fellow citizens somehow never made it into my pocket.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on First They Came For The Janitors

Pure Nativism

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* “This discussion is veering into pure nativism.”

Yes. Because that’s where the higher grade ore is found. Maybe it will never be needed. But when a society appears to navigate by the stars of a cultural narrative formed only years before and transmitted through cinema and popular fiction, it is best to have a bit of leverage wedded to bedrock as a fallback.

* We need solidarity between nativists in different countries, because the pro mass immigrationists work as a trans-national team, we need do to the same.

* “Legal immigration is good if you are OK with the democratic process. “

But notice, we don’t seem to have a democratic process when it comes to immigration. That’s one of the issues that makes people mad. Democracy for me, but not for thee seems to be he word of the day. How are all those judges ruling from the bench doing with this concept of “democracy”?

* Some of Trump’s appeal is undoubtedly due to a segment of the right deciding, in effect, to embrace the idea of a “living Constitution” in order to push conservative policies. I doubt Trump understands this, but I suspect a great number of his supporters are thinking, “well, heck, if the Constitution just means whatever the Dear Leader says it means (as expressed through the government’s countless departments and ministries), why not have a Dear Leader who merely directs the state to read OUR favored policies into the text?”

* Excuse me but part of the democratic process is being able to make your case to the public without shaming words like “nativism” being thrown around. Opponents of mass immigration have every right to try to convince their fellow Americans that even legal immigration should be kept to a minimum. Most immigration, legal or illegal, is simply a tool of class warfare.

“Nativists” must make the case that politicians taking care of their citizen’s interests first is exactly analogous to parents looking after the interests of their own children before those of children in the Congo, for example.

* Accepting immigrants from Europe made sense for America at the time. It still might make sense for us to accept a few more, but only a few. It would have made no sense for us to have accepted immigrants from most other places then or now.

* America is a nation of immigrants – white immigrants. They shaped and defined the character of the nation. It’s European in terms of laws, civic structure, language, and religion. If any people can be said to have a collective right to anything, the founding stock of America have a right to keep their country as it is. The alternative that’s being foisted on them is not a nation of any kind, but a hotch-potch of different races (in perpetual flux due to continuing immigration) elbowing each other at the ethnic spoils trough.

* Steve,

Not long ago you gave of us a sample of market-tested immigration phrases, such as “smart immigration,” if I recall correctly.

I think this stuff does make a difference, if it can be absorbed into the culture. And I do detect on the comments section of Breitbart and other places the arguments being put forward on VDARE and here. Douglas Rushkoff, in Media Virus, makes a compelling case that AIDS activists were able get the early release of life-saving drugs by using phrases such as “smart drugs” to change peoples attitudes towards experimental drugs.

It seems that it would be helpful if there was a patriotic Jourolist (Buchanan, Brimelow, Derbyshire, Sailer, Coulter, etc), who coordinated with well-known but closeted journalists, academics, campaign consultants, and congressional staffers and sent out weekly phrases, arguments, and articles.

Some may say that blogs serve that purpose, but I think many of us are ghettoized into reading the same few blogs we agree with, and the arguments put forward are helpful but largely inchoate.

Watching Trump quickly come back into the fold regarding H1-B visas shows the power of arguments and pressure, and Breitbart’s interview with Trump yesterday showed lines of argument developed elsewhere.

Posted in Immigration, Nationalism | Comments Off on Pure Nativism

Pundits Who Changed Sides

I’m reading an interesting thread on Steve Sailer:

* It seems as if English pundits change their views more than American pundits. My vague impression is that it’s a pretty standard move in British press circles for a columnist to change sides: e.g., Paul Johnson, Christopher Hitchens, and a lot of people who aren’t as well known in America.

* Weren’t all the original neo-cons (Kristol and Podhoretz srs. etc.) American pundits who changed sides?

From one perspective, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz and the neo-cons changed from the left to the right, but on another perspective, they stayed loyal to their team — Jews. They just changed their choice in which American political party was best for Jews.

According to Steve Sailer: "The greatest trick the intelligent ever pulled was convincing the world intelligence doesn't exist."

Sailer wrote: "Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad — for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms."

Sailer wrote:

To quantify the statement that "Jews are a small group, but influential in their areas of concentration," in 2009, the Atlantic Monthly came up with a list of the top 50 opinion pundits: half are of Jewish background.

Over 1/3rd of the 2009 Forbes 400 are of Jewish background, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency's reporter who covers Jewish philanthropy.

Joel Stein of the LA Times found in 2007 that people of Jewish background hold a large majority of the most powerful positions in Hollywood.

This is not to say that influential Jews are at all united in what they favor. On the other hand, it is more or less true that Jews hold something of a veto over what topics are considered appropriate for discussion in the press, Jewish influence itself being the most obvious example of a topic that is off the table in polite society.

John Derbyshire wrote: "I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT—not ever again—be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently."

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Pundits Who Changed Sides

The Great Weakness Of Republican Politicians

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* One of the reasons I trust Trump on immigration is that he doesn’t mind hurting the feelings of Mexicans. Candidates like Rubio and Kasich who are so concerned with not offending minorities are going to fold like a cheap umbrella the first time their policies are criticized. Seeking universal approval is a great weakness of Republican politicians.

* It seems as if English pundits change their views more than American pundits. My vague impression is that it’s a pretty standard move in British press circles for a columnist to change sides: e.g., Paul Johnson, Christopher Hitchens, and a lot of people who aren’t as well known in America.

* The real danger is when a candidate doesn’t want to hurt the feelings of his major contributors. Many of these candidates are pro-immigration less due to PC than the influence of business interests. Fortunately, Trump is self-funding, which gives him a certain degree of autonomy. He’s also politically incorrect, unlike Sanders.

Trump has come out 5 times against the H1b – in his position paper, twice on Twitter, in this recent Breitbart interview, and during his rally in Nevada. He also says that only foreign H1bs he wants are the graduates of Ivy league schools (whose numbers are trivially small anyway).

* I’ve grown to really hate my country, America. So many self-interested traitors seeking immigrant votes, cheap labor, or social status. Anti-whites control and run everything. Nobody will dare espouse explicitly pro-white views in mainstream discourse, but many will preach with smug self-righteousness about how it is a moral imperative for whites to be replaced and for the world to become a non-white planet. California girls used to be regarded as some of the most beautiful women in the world, but today that state is overrun by endless waves of brown masses. There’s just no resistance to the rape and defilement of America. Even Jeff Sessions will only talk about immigration in economic terms. No mainstream figure will take a stand for white people.

Posted in Republicans | Comments Off on The Great Weakness Of Republican Politicians

Genes & Culture

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Since you are convinced this is genetic, you are missing the elephant in the room about Asians who have been in America for a long time which is that they tend to assimilate. I’ve yet to see a “Tiger Mom” among assimilated Chinese mothers because when the become American, they don’t push their kids as hard, just like other Americans. That the less high scoring Asians also have different cultural traits also suggests one should look at culture as a factor. One can also look at the performance of Carbbean blacks against African Americans, where there can be a significant cultural difference despite a very similar genetic heritage.

Finally, people need to remember that the whites that came in on the 19th and early 20th centuries were not necessarily the cream of Europe and were often not welcomed by the indigenous whites of different ethnicities. There is a reason why people used to tell “stupid Pollack” jokes (poor IQ scores by Poles around WW1) and why the Irish often weren’t welcome, not to mention the “Hillbilly” culture of earlier Scots-Irish immigrants being portrayed as less than intellectually stunning, yet they are all “white” now.

Yes, genes play a role but culture does matter. A lot.

* The best predictor of the salaries a college’s graduates will earn is previous academic achievement, as measured by results on the SAT aptitude test.

* Having a separate–racially or culturally or simply in identity–elite group is very, very bad for a nation as the American experience with the Jews has shown. (I think basically it’s turned out to be fatal. Though in fairness a good part of that is that the white package of traits–cooperation, altruism, high-trust–which makes *closed* white nations so pleasant, is also easily exploitable by hostiles.) I have about as much desire to be lectured to and bossed about by Ivy educated Chews like Amy Chua’s kids–or the insane “mattress girl”–as i do by the Jews themselves–i.e. zero. Asians *may* integrate and see themselves as just “Americans”, better than the Jews–not having a 2000+ year tradition of explicit religiously mandated majority hostility. But … who knows? Bringing more and more of them over here, to purge smart white guys from tech jobs is unnecessary, dangerous and wrong.

But Steve isn’t cheerleading this–far from it, he’s explicitly outed himself as a nasty “citizenist who believes a nation belongs to–and its policies should be in the interest of–its citizens. Steve’s reporting the data. It’s up to you to ponder it and make use of it. Your comment was both clueless (about Steve) and low class.

Posted in Asians, Genetics, Race | Comments Off on Genes & Culture

The Best Tweets You’ll Read All Day

From Professor Monica Osborne:

Sitting in my pitch black office because the power is out and I don’t have a window. #academia

Dance like no one’s watching. Tweet like you have tenure. Isn’t that what they say? #Academia

My husband says he’s worked hard to get us out of this BH hell hole. I say just you wait until my midrash book comes out. #dollardollarbills

Instead of writing a resignation letter I would submit a print-out of all my tweets. #academia

Proof of my tendency toward reckless behavior: I taught Robert Mapplethorpe and Angels in America in the same week at Pepperdine. #BDSM

Thinking of when I was told they didn’t want to hire me for a Jewish Studies position because I’m Jewish. Which totally makes sense. #TBT

Neighbor’s 9-pt turn to get out of his garage woke us. But it was worth it to see him crash into his wife’s flowerpots and run them over.

Listening to my 2-year-old playing, I realize he has named one of his cars “sholom aleichem.” #judaism #shabbat

My husband wants another baby. I want a Tesla. Let the negotiations begin. #family

Prospective students visiting my class say they’re looking for a place that will uphold Christian values. Then I teach Angels in America.

Posted in Monica Osborne | Comments Off on The Best Tweets You’ll Read All Day

Jonathan Marks: BDS Nonviolence Provides Cover for Violent Allies

By Jonathan Marks

October 30, 2015

Since 2005, the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement has been on American college campuses recruiting students to join a movement to isolate Israel.

Much has been written about BDS and I will not revisit here the debate over its merits. Instead, I will home in one aspect of its character: its espousal of nonviolence. That BDS supporters call for economic, academic, and cultural boycotts, rather than for violence, has been among its most important selling points. As Corey Robin of Brooklyn College put it in a post challenging BDS critics, Palestinians “have taken up BDS as a non-violent tactic, precisely the sort of thing that liberal-minded critics have been calling upon them to do for years.”

But the nonviolent tactics of BDS may be nothing more than a smokescreen for its organizers’ real intention—to takedown Israel by any means.

Although the BDS movement is not centralized, the response of movement leaders to the recent increase in violence in Israel and the West Bank can illuminate what the BDS commitment to nonviolence means in practice. Consider the October 10 statement by the Palestinian BDS National Committee, which bills itself as “the Palestinian coordinating body for the BDS campaign worldwide.” Bear in mind that by October 10, the violence was targeting Israeli civilians, not only in disputed territories but also in central Tel Aviv.

That October statement, entitled “Solidarity with the Palestinian popular resistance: Boycott Israel now!” begins: “whether the current phase of Israel’s intensified repression and Palestinian popular resistance will evolve into a full-fledged intifada or not…a new generation of Palestinians is…rising up en masse.”

The Palestinian BDS National Committee, speaking for a movement whose mainstream acceptance depends on its commitment to nonviolence, concedes that the new generation it is praising is engaged in violence, then calls for solidarity via boycott. That is, the statement calls for boycott not as an alternative to violence but as a means of expressing solidarity with Palestinians engaged in violence.

Other organizations promoting BDS piled on with equally misleading propaganda. The U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel promptly issued a statement that began:

“Palestine is in flames. At this moment, racist lynch mobs are marching through the streets of Jerusalem, chanting “death to Arabs,” and hurling threats and insults at terrorized and bleeding Palestinian children and youth, left to die surrounded by dozens of Israeli soldiers, when they are not summarily executed on their way to or from school.”

This overwrought and misleading beginning is followed by the observation that “Palestinians are rising up.” With breathtaking dishonesty, the Statement suggests that the uprising is a response to the unprovoked killing of young Palestinians, rather than the real reason young Palestinians, cheered on by their elders, are getting killed: not while walking to school, but while participating in deadly attacks on Israelis. Certainly, some Israeli actions have been deplorable, but if Palestine is indeed in flames, the U.S. Campaign is propagandizing for those who have set it on fire.

Indeed, the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, in full awareness that some Palestinians are trying to and sometimes succeeding in killing noncombatants, chose to justify these attacks as “the resistance” and call for solidarity with the resisters. Here, too, the purported nonviolence seems merely a strategy to complement, not a substitute for, violent resistance.

This should surprise no one. Some of the most violent groups in the Middle East are BDS backers. First among the endorsers of the 2005 Palestinian call for BDS is the Council of National and Islamic Forces (NIF) in Palestine, described as a “coordinating body for the major political parties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

The NIF coalition was formed during the Second Intifada (2000-2005), the period of violence to which the present violence is being compared. It includes under its umbrella such groups as the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas that are committed to violence, including violence against noncombatants.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Jonathan Marks: BDS Nonviolence Provides Cover for Violent Allies

Let The Goyim Go!

Not a single oligarch is on our side. Consequently, there is no resistance to be had. Neocons are firmly in the drown the whites camp. We are the West’s terrible pharaoh, demographically drowning the Euros in an ocean of multiculturalism. Trump has a daughter in pharaoh’s house. But if he doesn’t succeed in getting us to let his people go, we will suffer 10 plagues.

Despite the shrieks against Trump from organized Jewry, Trump will actually get Jewish votes, especially from the Orthodox and from Jewish men.

A Jewish friend says: “Why do goyim so care about what some fraction of 2% of the population thinks about things? These are not the seventies. Jewish clout is in decline.”

Posted in Diversity, Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on Let The Goyim Go!