* Growing up I was told the wasps in the NY financial world wouldn’t hire Jews. A Jew couldn’t get a job a JP Morgan etc. So the Jews just got up and started their own companies and that’s how Goldman Sachs came about. Not sure how true this is, but definitely seems plausible. I always ask, if the Jews did that, why don’t minorities and women, that complain they are excluded, get up and start their own damn corporations? Of course the answer to that is to ugly to contemplate, but it should be used as a shaming tool.
* When the grocery chain store leaves the ghetto after a riot, blacks complain about having to shop far from home, but what’s to prevent some enterprising black person from starting their own to fill the vacuum?
* Extraordinarily high levels of theft and vandalism; high insurance rates because of these issues and others like high risks for arson and break-ins; costs associated with extra security, high overhead costs related to food stamps, welfare vouchers and the like; high rates of employee absenteeism and dropout, impossibly difficult and demanding customers, etc., etc.
I’ve lived in Negro neighborhoods and neighborhoods that have tipped to majority Negro. Only very small bodega-type establishments and large chains can deal with these kinds of issues. I suspect that the chains do it as write-off for good publicity. My experience has been that as soon as a neighborhood tips Negro most established businesses just give up. They cannot cope with the constant drain on resources that serving a predominantly Negro clientele imposes.
* There has never been a bar to black people starting their own business in any arena, whether Law or car wash. When the grocery chain store leaves the ghetto after a riot, blacks complain about having to shop far from home, but what’s to prevent some enterprising black person from starting their own to fill the vacuum?
In other words, this should be a non-story to begin with. Blacks starting their own businesses should be the norm. We wish them luck. And please stop complaining about why someone else isn’t doing it–whatever it is–for you. Freedom is hard, but you’re going to have to get used to it. Hopefully. Someday.
* White shoe law firms (or what has replaced them today) are where you see Smart Fraction Theory at the small scale. This is true to some degree at all large organizations, but law firms live off billable hours. Therefore it’s hard to hide incompetents, but they do.
That pleasant POC/POV has to be managed and that means hours diverted from a billing sheet to overheads. The hours being diverted are coming from the better talent. A little math makes clear that the firm can tolerate only so many weak attorneys. Of course, the staff meetings need to look like America so that means “mentoring” programs to make sure the staff meetings don’t reflect biological reality.
As to the firm in the story, it exists to solve this problem for other firms. In fact, this is a phenomenon all over the government economy, of which the law is a part. Dig into government contracts and you’ll often see a provision to allow the contractor to count minority vendors as part of the head count for diversity purposes. All around the Imperial Capital you will find firms that exist pretty much as subs to complete the color wheel.
* Regardless of race, if you don’t pass the bar exam the first time, your odds of ever passing are not good. Whatever was preventing you from passing (e.g. lack of brains) is still going to be there the next time. (My wife works with kids and a cruel colleague of hers, when parents would ask what their kids would be like intellectually a year from now after intense therapy, would say, “a year older”.)
At a firm that I worked at, that had overhired in a downturn, they hit upon the idea of immediately firing any 1st year associate who had flunked their bar exam on the first try. Although this was cruel and unheard of, it actually made sense.
The AA law school admissions system combined with the LACK of an AA system for the bar exam creates a very cruel situation for black law students. Overall nationally, something like half of blacks who start law school never get admitted so all the time and $ they spend on law school, sometimes 3 years, is wasted.
The main function of AA (this is explicitly enshrined in the S. Ct. decisions) is not to actually help blacks – it is to enrich the experience of white students by exposing them to “diversity”. In other words to make white people feel good about themselves. Even though I live in a whitopia and avoid 90% of American blacks at all costs, some talented tenth blacks like that cool guy Barrack sit next to me in torts class and when the class discussion turns to race he can give us the authentic “black” POV – this shows how non-racist I am.
* Jews have always been hired by white non-Jews to certain professions other than in certain countries in certain times. The major historical Jewish banks in United States were created by relatively modest people who began selling. Marcus Goldman who founded Goldman Sachs b began as an independent broker. I think one of the major reasons why Jews (and other ethnic groups in United States) have been so successful is dedication to their work under an extensive time period in combination with ethnic networking. When it comes to this law-firm I think it is pretty simple. They felt that their career didn’t go in the way they wanted to and so they started their own firm. This is not an “ethnic thing”. I think the reason why they “hate” on their former employers is that they want liberal media to write about them. It is a small firm with just them and one other attorney based in Los Angeles. There is a huge oversupply of lawyers and law firms so they need to make a name in the business.
* If the Mossad truly wanted to discredit anti-Semites, then they would pay trolls to impersonate them* and make them look like weenies.
From a Stormfront “Introduce yourself” thread:
“I didn’t start hating Jews until I realized that they were hogging all of the hot blonde shiksas. Every night, after I take my 40-minute bus ride from my job (I’m an assistant manager at McDonald’s), and find myself sitting on a bare mattress in my cold, dark, unfurnished one-room apartment, and think about all those crafty Jews driving their Ferraris from their high-paying investment-banking jobs to their mansions, and coming home to their blonde shiksa wives, and showering those shiksas with diamonds and rubies and emeralds, and whisking those shiksas into their tastefully-decorated bedrooms … I fap bitterly.”
* Successful all-female firms tend to be small organizations in certain female-heavy fields like real estate sales or casting agencies or women’s magazines or the like.
Posted inBlacks|Comments Off on 100% Black = Diverse
Comment: My thanks to Profs. Mankiw, Mansfield and Mutz for pointing out that anyone who questions free trade is a bigot, xenophobe and isolationist. I had thought that this heresy might spring from the life experience of Americans, unhappily not tenured at Ivy League schools, who have lost their jobs to trade or out-sourcing, or who have see their towns and cities devastated by these economic tsunamis, or who suspect that the benefits of unrestricted markets have bypassed them on the way to the 1%. Clearly, I was wrong. With so much else to worry about these days, I’m relieved that I no longer have to fret about these unwashed, unenlightened and uneducated losers who, in their ignorance and narrow-mindedness, deserve what they get. Unfortunately, as Mankiw points out, they have been left with nothing but their votes, and may get the last word.
Posted inEconomics|Comments Off on Is Anyone Who Opposes Free Trade A Bigot?
Over the weekend, I watched a couple of movies (My All-American and The Story of Darrell Royal) about University of Texas football coach Darrell Royal and was struck that all of his national championship teams were all-white.
By winning the 1963 national championship, Royal gained an enormous amount of prestige that he could have translated into bargaining power against anyone putting pressure on him to delay integration. He gained even more leverage in 1964 when the University of Oklahoma, his alma mater, recruited him to come home and become head coach. UT solidified Royal’s position in 1964 when it granted him tenureship, so he would not have risked his family’s financial security by going too fast on integration. Royal could also have used his position to pry open the doors of opportunity at UT by saying, “Either let me recruit the best qualified players regardless of race, or I’m going to OU.” An African-American finally played at UT only after Royal won another national championship in 1969 with an all-white team.
Remember, receiving a scholarship to play football at UT also meant winning an opportunity for an excellent education without paying tuition. Starting in 1964, Royal had the go-ahead to offer scholarships to blacks. How many did he give over the next nine seasons? Zero in 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967. (He almost signed Mike Williams in 1967 but the deal fell through.) One in 1968, Leon O’Neal, who left after one year, and never played in a single game. One in 1969. One in 1970. Three in 1971. And in 1972 Royal did not sign a single black to a scholarship. E.A. Curry had walked on in 1967 but left after the 1968 season without ever getting a scholarship or playing in a varsity game. Nine years after the regents had approved integration, Royal had given just six football scholarships to blacks.
UT’s Little defends Royal’s foot-dragging as an act of compassion on behalf of prospective black players who might be set up for failure at lily-white UT. “Darrell’s concern was that he wanted someone who wouldn’t fail academically and who would fit into an environment that, let’s face it, was very vanilla,” he says.
But clearly, getting blacks on the teams was not a priority for Royal, or at least that’s what he told a reporter for Harper’s magazine in November of 1970. The Harper’s reporter asked Royal: “Is it important to you that you have Negro players on the team?” Royal replied, “No.” He told the story, “A bunch of Negro boys came to me a while ago and said I could solve all possible difficulties by hiring a black coach. Now that would be fine for them but I’ve got to look at the other side. I’d have a lot of white boys on the team coming to me saying they couldn’t play for a black coach. The family atmosphere of the team would be destroyed… Once the club harmony and spirit begin to deteriorate, I don’t care what kind of talent you have, you won’t win.” (Royal finally hired a black coach in 1971. UT still has not had a black head coach in any sport.)
Royal’s supporters claim there were two reasons he could not find any blacks to play on his team between 1963 and 1970: 1) High academic standards at UT and 2) blacks did not want to play for UT. As for the first excuse, Rice has higher admission standards than UT and it managed to find academically fit black athletes to play football before UT. LeVias excelled academically at SMU; he made the Dean’s List and won academic all-American honors each of his last three years. When he graduated in 1969, he received the prestigious “M” award given to 10 top seniors every year. Besides, UT had academically qualified black members on its track team as early as 1964.
As for the second excuse, a lot of blacks did not want to play at UT because Royal and UT had a reputation in the black community for being racist. While blacks at UT could not even get on the field in the 1960s, in other parts of the nation black athletes excelled on the gridiron. Three blacks won the Heisman Trophy at other schools before a single black ever played a down for UT: Ernie Davis of Syracuse in 1961, Mike Garrett of USC in 1965, and O.J. Simpson of USC in 1968.
Posted inBlacks, Football, Texas|Comments Off on Three Time National Champion Football Coach Darrell Royal Was No Leader On Racial Integration
Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. In 2011, open-borders advocate Antonio Villaraigosa became the first mayor in Los Angeles history to build a wall around the official mayoral residence. His un-walled neighbors objected, first, that there was no need for such a barricade and, second, that it violated a city ordinance prohibiting residential walls higher than four feet. But Villaraigosa apparently wished to emphasize the difference between his home and the street, or was worried about security, or saw a new wall as iconic of his exalted office.
While elites can build walls to insulate themselves, the consequences of their policies fall heavily on the nonelites who lack the money and influence to navigate around them. The contrast between the two groups — Peggy Noonan described them as the “protected” and the “unprotected” — was dramatized in the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush. When the former Florida governor called illegal immigration from Mexico “an act of love,” his candidacy was doomed. It seemed that Bush had the capital to pick and choose how the consequences of his ideas fell upon himself and his family — in a way impossible for most of those living in the southwestern United States.
Posted inNationalism|Comments Off on LAT: Why borders matter — and a borderless world is a fantasy
Steve Sailer writes: “Sometimes Krugman’s lack of sophistication has kind of a Trump-like little boy in Emperor’s New Clothes quality to it. I remember one of his columns about a decade ago about how he liked growing up in a middle class suburb on Long Island and why can’t we go back to that kind of America? Somebody must have gotten it through to him that because of Diversity and Immigration, he can’t go there, he just c-a-n-’-t.”
Comments at Steve Sailer:
* What is a nation? According to google it’s “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” I didn’t definition-shop, but I would argue the part about “particular country or territory” is weaker than the first part. A distributed people is often referred to as a nation e.g. Elijah Muhammad’s “Nation of Islam”. Or since I’d suppose Krugman is Jewish, that diaspora.
So yeah it’s OK to be loyal to your tribe. What’s the better patriotism — protecting your people, or protecting a specific area of dirt? They are both important, but to me the idealistic view of patriotism has more to do with the people than the land.
It’s hard for me to believe Krugman is missing this out of ignorance. He’s got an agenda and can’t think of good arguments for it, so he uses bad ones.
* He was right that Bush would be a disaster of a president and that the Iraq War would also be a disaster. He noted, before the war started, that it was exactly what Al Qaeda wanted us to do, and that Bush’s estimates for the war’s cost were absurdly low.
And “his brainy technical specialties” is a pretty broad area. He was right, in advance, that the Euro would be a disaster, and he was right for the right reasons: monetary union without fiscal union and labor mobility (like we have in the USA) does not work.
He was also correct that the monetary policy of 2008-2011 of greatly increasing the monetary supply and fiscal deficit would not lead to high interest rates or inflation, which was very widely predicted and is the normal result of such policies.
He has studied Japan’s economy closely and is notable for being someone who writes on the topic without advocating Japan engage in mass immigration, very much contrary to the global elite and how The Economics, Foreign Affairs, etc. cover it. He also defends Japan’s economic performance by noting that it is not too bad if you adjust for the fact its working age population is declining.
* Steve cannot really comment on this because he honors his old confidentiality agreement, but I think he said a long time ago that Krugman was on his old HBD listserv.
I wonder if Krugman, who lacks social graces, got into some heated disagreements with Steve who still has a mild grudge over it. I also think after reading him for years that Krugman is not an IQ egalitarian but feels conflicted but its implications.
* Looks like K-thug is just flat out engaging in psychological projection of his own belief system. Amazing how he could be so blind to it as to publish it in a major news outlet, but such is the state of modern day American MSM. And to wag his finger at white Christians who are probably the group in the US showing the least tendency to act “for their tribe” while his own shows the most. Loved how he tried to put the ‘us’ in there, to try and fool anyone who might be reading into thinking he was a ‘white Christian’. Lotta work, this guy.
* According to the new narrative to be a patriot one must be an adherent of globalism, which is essentially supporting global government. I don’t think it will be too long before these tough guy acts will be using the words “global security” instead of “national security” to argue for conflict somewhere.
* From my perspective, I don’t care if Muslims feel alienated. I want them to assimilate or leave.
* The left has been going on like this for decades: “The only true patriot is the one who wants to dismantle his country and turn it into something completely different.”
* The thing is, the entire profession of elite academic economics, the Federal Reserve, and the financing of the Democratic Party are virtual Tribal monopolies at this point. None of this bothers Paul Krugman. I wonder why?
* Devotion and support for one’s country would make one desire less, not more foreigners to come on board, particularly those who massively change the fabric of the country itself, and want to turn it into New Mecca, or New Aztlán. Not to mention the crime, disease, violence, loss of social capital they bring or cause, or how adding more people who are ‘on the public dole’ brings us down.
What is the ‘celebration of diversity’, but just a round about way of saying less whites? Whites built this country. “Treasonous white nationals”? It would be like saying the Japanese are committing treason by not importing millions upon millions of African guest workers to become Japanese citizens, and take over Japan. As usual, you completely flip reality on its head.
“We progressives love America enough to point out the ways in which she is failing People of Color and to try for positive change, while the Republicans stand that premise on it’s head and claim that it “those people” who are failing America.”
– Why should the goal be how it ‘fails people of color”? Are people of color the majority of Americans? If we’re talking ‘love and devotion to one’s country’ (i.e. patriotism), then why do we give two sh*ts about doing more for a million illegal Guatemalans here? “People of Color” are the ones who are failing America. They commit more crime, they take more public assistance in net than they contribute, they are more likely to engage in politics that rip the country apart. Not to mention how an increasing percentage of them are in groups that literally want to make America into New Mecca, or New Aztlán. How is it ‘positive change’ to take away from the descendants of those who built the country, those who contribute the most still, and give it to those who take away from the country and who literally seek to make it into an extension of their homeland?
* I actually think Krugman gets it, in some flawed way (and with an unwillingness to do the electoral math), in a way that Mrs. Clinton and most of the Democratic mainstream does not.
This election is about identity and interests, not ideology and principles. Krugman may be unhappy that White America has returned to seeing itself as a nation worthy of inhabiting and preserving it’s own nation-state, but I’ll give him credit for figuring it out.
Of course, Trump also gets it, and has done the electoral math, and has no moral qualms with the idea of an American nation-state, which is why he stands a good chance of being the next President, and all Krugman gets is a column in the NYTimes op-ed page.
* Was it just his [part black, part white, part Indian] wife?
Pretty much.
The change tracks closely to the time of marriage, and she’s a radical feminist who “helps” him write his Times articles.
We’re the dog that Krugman kicks after his wife kicks him.
* If nothing else, the Trump candidacy has been a stalking horse outing the pseudo-conservatives in the Republican party as well as the anti-white elements on the left. He is yelling Little Marco, and everyone else has to yell Polo. The people are not realigning so much as the parties are. But there are a number of impostors who would have preferred to remain where they were, well hidden and well employed behind enemy lines.
* Steve — There is a Krugman blog post from 2013 where he reminisces about the way that public expression of racism became “utterly taboo” in his old neighborhood. I find really interesting; maybe you could do something with it? Here is the key paragraph:
“And while it didn’t literally happen overnight, it did happen fast. My personal memory: I grew up on Long Island in the 60s, and at the time many of the fancier houses (split-level ranches!) had little statues of coachmen in front. In my memory, at least, there was one summer — maybe 1965? — when, suddenly, everyone had the faces on their coachmen repainted; all of a sudden they were white. The message had gotten through: pretending that you were living in antebellum Tara was not OK.”
I find it kind of hard to reconcile assertions that America is a racist society with the fact that it’s been 50 years since it’s been possible for respectable members of society to risk the appearance of racism.
* Did anyone notice how Tim Kaine repeated a phrase at the convention: “Faith, Family and Work” — a translation of the Vichy France slogan “Travail, Famille, Patrie”?
Someone call the ADL.
* Krugman telling white Americans they should get over being dispossessed from the patrimony their forefathers built is like Mark Zuckerberg telling kids who lost their house in a fire they shouldn’t be so materialistic, it’s only stuff. Before slamming shut the door to his 50k square foot mansion. He shouldn’t be surprised to find one of them in his garage, playing with matches.
It’s easy for Jews to lecture whites – they’ve already got their homeland.
* It’s pretty clear that Israel is the only nation that David Brooks feels patriotic about:
Having acknowledged that, I nevertheless understand the complaints of those readers who are bothered by something they have recently learned about David Brooks: his son is a member of the Israel Defense Forces. In a recent Hebrew-language interview in Haaretz magazine, Mr. Brooks was asked about his worries as a father. The article noted that the columnist’s “connection to Israel was always strong.” It continued:
“He has visited Israel almost every year since 1991, and over the past months the connection has grown even stronger, after his oldest son, aged 23, decided to join the Israel Defense Forces as a ‘lone soldier.’ ” (The reference is to a soldier whose family is not living in Israel.)
Mr. Brooks described the situation as “worrying.” He added: “But every Israeli parent understands this is what the circumstances require. Beyond that, I think children need to take risks after they leave university, and that they need to do something difficult that involves going beyond their personal limits. Serving in the I.D.F. embodies all of these elements. I couldn’t advise others to do it without acknowledging it’s true for my own family.’”
As far as I’m concerned, serving in a foreign military is an act of treason, and David Brooks’ son should be stripped of his American citizenship.
* Interesting to note how touchy John Podhoretz is about people noticing that David Brooks’ son serves in the IDF:
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 8 Oct 2014
Everybody who thinks David Brooks has to “reveal” his son, who’s 23, has joined the Israeli army can go f[***]himself.
Will Stokes @William_Stokes 8 Oct 2014
@jpodhoretz not trying to be antagonist. Don’t you think having your son in a military would at least unconsciously effect your beliefs?
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 8 Oct 2014
@William_Stokes his son is an adult and it’s nobody’s fu[***** business. And he’s a writer, not a politician. It’s naked anti-Semitism.
Will Stokes @William_Stokes 8 Oct 2014
@jpodhoretz for me, if someone was a writing a piece on Afghanistan and Iraq and had a son serving there, I’d want to know.
John PodhoretzVerified account
@jpodhoretz
@William_Stokes it’s none of your business. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
* Krugman the loony lefty likes just about the only openly Republican hair band while Trump favors globalist gay boy piano man. Opposites can admire each other I suppose.
I think Krugman’s piece about Republicans serving the tribe is just another example of Steve’s conjecture that Jewish intellectuals tend to project Jewish intramural conflicts onto the gentile world. I can’t imagine any of Krugman’s relations being happy that he married a schvartze, lopping off a branch of his own family tree and in effect refusing to serve his own tribe.
* I have taught my children that whenever you read something by someone who’s promoting something decidedly disastrous for our people, something counter-intuitive turning nature inside-out and upside down, just google their name and add “Jew”. 9 times out of 10 it’s a Jew. I call it Jew bingo.
My eldest came home one day and said “You know how you said to google someone’s name and add Jew whenever you read something nasty and anti-White? Well, I did it all day and guess what? You were right!” It was a great moment in family bonding.
That night we went through the history of feminism and the bingos were going off like you wouldn’t believe. If I can turn this into a board game I reckon I could retire on it.
* I do think it is odd that any American citizen would serve in another nation’s army. I would consider that grounds for forfeiting citizenship. (I think some of those early 20th Century idealists were willing to do so, and/or otherwise break the law.) However, the SCOTUS determined in 1967 that service in a foreign army is not incompatible with citizenship, and that definitely creates a gray area in the War on Terror where we do not have any clearcut national entity that we have declared war on. (Supposedly you forfeit citizenship if you serve in the army of a nation we are at war with.)
The problem with making these kinds of exceptions, even when your heart is in the right place, is that you open the door to dual citizenship of all kinds. I object to this. Right now, apparently, there are millions of American citizens in the Southwest who also have Mexican citizenship (because Mexicans who become American citizenship do not lose their Mexican citizenship). I think that is insane.
I think holding David Brooks’ son to account for serving in the IDF rather than the armed services of the United States is valid, and not anti-semitic, because the US is de facto at war (something not applicable in your contrary examples) and thus failure to serve, but to serve a foreign country, suggests that the loyalties of Brooks’ son lie more with Israel with the United States. I wouldn’t call it treason but I wouldn’t mind having Brooks, Jr. called to account.
For all that, the sins of the son should not be visited on the father, either.
* The thing that gets me most about how Democrats are all in a dither over Russia is just how petty and immature their attitude toward Russia is, given that it is still by far the most fearsome nuclear power in the world, ourselves excepted.
We’re supposed to worry about Trump bringing us to nuclear war when Obama and Hillary did just about everything they could to gin up tensions with Russia? And over what, for God’s sake? Because Russia made Obama look weak and rather stupid in his idiot program to oppose Assad (which program, rather embarrassingly, enabled the rise of ISIS)? Because Russia and the Ukraine (a former republic in the Soviet Union)– were trying to smack each other around over territory? Because Russia gave the gay rights movement, for Christ’s sake, some disrespect?
I’m sure Obama’s feelings, the feelings of a black man, were hurt, and Hillary’s feelings, the feelings of a woman, were hurt as well, and those are some very important feelings. But are those feelings of such awesome significance that we should be antagonizing the one power in the world that could actually blow us to kingdom come if it had a desire to?
Again, is there anything more petty, more childish, or more foolhardy than the Democrats’ attitude toward Russia?
Posted inAmerica, Jews|Comments Off on Paul Krugman: The GOP’s National Security Stance “Serves the Tribe”
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
