Is The Holocaust Sacred?

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

American Jewish historian Peter Novick writes in his book The Holocaust in American Life:

“Holocaust envy” contends with “Holocaust possessiveness.” Claims by others that they have experienced genocide or a holocaust — claims that are indeed sometimes hyperbolic — are treated as felonious assault…

Even many observant Jews are often willing to discuss the founding myths of Judaism naturalistically — subject them to rational, scholarly analysis. But they’re unwilling to adopt this mode of thought when it comes to the “inexplicable mystery” of the Holocaust, where rational analysis is seen as inappropriate or sacrilegious. Consider “awe,” which my dictionary defines as “a mixed emotion of reverence, dread and wonder.” For how many Jews does the word describe their emotions when contemplating God? For how many their emotions when contemplating the Holocaust? It has become standard practice to use the term “sacred” to describe the Holocaust and everything connected with it. “Sacred Image, Sacred Text” was the title of an exhibition of art dealing with the Holocaust at the B’nai B’rith’s Klutznick Museum in Washington. Survivors’ accounts are routinely described as sacred, as are the survivors themselves: “the American Jewish equivalent of saints and relics,” says Leon Wieseltier, himself the son of a survivor. An important influence in all of this, of course, has been Elie Wiesel, the most influential American interpreter of the Holocaust. Like Greenberg, Wiesel sees the Holocaust as “equal to the revelation at Sinai” in its religious significance; attempts to “desanctify” or “demystify” the Holocaust are, he says, a subtle form of anti-Semitism. And Wiesel, with his insistence that “any survivor has more to say than all the historians combined about what happened,” appears to have persuaded many Jews to treat the Holocaust as something of a “mystery religion,” with survivors having privileged (priestly) authority to interpret the mystery. “The survivor has become a priest,” the education director of Yad Vashem said, with some irritation: “because of his story, he is holy.”

…The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is the principal symbol and “address” of American Jewry, our “epistle to the gentiles” about what it means to be Jewish. The museum on the Mall is matched by dozens of smaller Holocaust museums in cities across the country. …[T]hese monuments to suffering and death are described by their builders as “the natural site for interfaith services”; they function to “explain our Jewish heritage and our Jewish needs to the Gentile as well as to the Jew.”

…Since the 1970s, the Holocaust has come to be presented — come to be thought of — as not just a Jewish memory but an American memory. In a growing number of states the teaching of the Holocaust in public schools is legislatively mandated. Instructions for conducting “Days of Remembrance” are distributed throughout the American military establishment, and commemorative ceremonies are held annually in the Capitol Rotunda. Over the past twenty years every president has urged Americans to preserve the memory of the Holocaust. …How did this European event come to loom so large in American consciousness?

A good part of the answer is the fact — not less of a fact because anti-Semites turn it into a grievance — that Jews play an important and influential role in Hollywood, the television industry, and the newspaper, magazine, and book publishing worlds. Anyone who would explain the massive attention the Holocaust has received in these media in recent years without reference to that fact is being naive or disingenuous. This is not, of course, a matter of any “Jewish conspiracy” — Jews in the media do not dance to the tune of the “elders of Zion.” It’s not even a matter of Jews in the media per se, which is an old story, but of what sort of Jews. Beginning in the 1970s, a cohort of Jews who either didn’t have much in the way of Jewish concerns or were diffident about voicing the concerns they did have came to be replaced by a cohort that included many for whom those concerns were more deeply felt and who were more up-front about them. In large part the movement of the Holocaust from the Jewish to the general American arena resulted from private and spontaneous decisions of Jews who happened to occupy strategic positions in the mass media.

But that movement was not completely private and spontaneous. If, as many in Jewish organizations believed, Americans could be made more sympathetic to Israel, or to American Jews, through awareness of the Holocaust, efforts had to be made to spread that awareness throughout American society. Blu Greenberg, the wife of Rabbi Irving Greenberg, wrote that she had originally favored exclusively Jewish commemoration of the Holocaust; such occasions were “a moment to withdraw into the embrace of one’s group.” After attending an interfaith Yom HaShoah ceremony, however, she found it “moving and comforting to see Christians share tears with us, acknowledge Christian guilt, and commit themselves to the security of Israel.” Indeed, even the aim of promoting awareness of the Holocaust among Jews — for “survivalist” or other purposes — could be accomplished only by making that awareness general. “For Jews to solidify the place of the Holocaust within Jewish consciousness,” wrote Michael Berenbaum of the Washington Holocaust Museum, “they must establish its importance for the American people as a whole.”

Posted in Holocaust | Comments Off on Is The Holocaust Sacred?

Boston Globe: Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

We’re talking about the Deep State.

Democracy, to a large extent, is a sham.

Link:

The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon

THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops. Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.

Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.

How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.

IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?

GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.

IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?

GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.

IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision….Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

Posted in America, Democracy, Politics | Comments Off on Boston Globe: Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

Was The Holocaust Unique?

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

American Jewish historian Peter Novick writes in his book The Holocaust in American Life:

The most common Jewish response to the charge that Jews were intent on permanent possession of the gold medal in the Victimization Olympics has been to protest that it was others, not they, who were engaged in competition. Jews were the aggrieved party — “they are stealing the Holocaust from us,” said Elie Wiesel; others were illegitimately appropriating language and imagery to which they were not entitled… The use of the word “ghetto” for black slums were frequently cited as an example of “stealing the Holocaust”: “there is no barbed wire across 125th Street and there are no guard towers”; “no place in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago was even remotely like Buchenwald in 1938 or Warsaw in 1942 or Auschwitz in 1944. The most commonly expressed Jewish grievance was the use of the words “Holocaust” and “genocide” to describe other catastrophes. This sense of grievance was rooted in the conviction, axiomatic in at least “official” Jewish discourse, that the Holocaust was unique. Since Jews recognized the Holocaust’s uniqueness — that it was “incomparable,” beyond any analogy — they had no occasion to compete with others; there could be no contest over the incontestable…

Over the years, various grounds for the Holocaust’s uniqueness have been offered, but many, for one or another reason, were found wanting: Stalin killed more innocents than Hitler; over the centuries many other targeted populations suffered greater proportional losses than did European Jews during World War II. Other criteria presented other difficulties. The most comprehensive argument for the uniqueness of the Holocaust was also the most radical. Whereas many other writers were willing to acknowledge that there had been other genocides but only one Holocaust, Steve Katz, in a book of more than seven hundred pages (the first of three projected volumes), argued that even the word “genocide,” if correctly understood, could be applied only to the travail of European Jewry in World War II. It was on the basis of this book that Katz was named head of the Washington Holocaust Museum — which suggests the appeal of its argument.

…the very idea of uniqueness is fatuous, since any event — a war, a revolution, a genocide — will have significant features that it shares with events to which it might be compared as well as features that differentiate it from others. The claim that an event — as opposed to some features of an event — is unique can be sustained only by gerrymandering: deliberately singling out one or more distinctive features of the event and trivializing or sweeping under the rug whose features that it shares with other events to which it might be compared… [Katz] writes that while the Final Solution had many other features, “only the element of intentionality can serve as the individuating criterion by which to distinguish the Sho’ah from other instances of mass death.” Translation: I was determined to find that feature of the Holocaust which set it apart — made it unique — and this is the one I settled on…

The question transcends Katz’s book, which is of interest to us only insofar as it is the most systematic exposition of the doctrine of uniqueness, which sits astride all of contemporary Jewish discourse on the Holocaust. Katz, like virtually everyone who makes this argument, asserts again and again that “unique” doesn’t mean “worse,” that the claim is not for greater but only for different Jewish victimization, that no one is saying the Holocaust is more evil than other atrocities, just that it’s…unique. Such disavowals are either naive or, more often, disingenuous. They are naive or disingenuous because all the talk of uniqueness takes place in a context in which, for various purposes, atrocities are constantly compared. And the talk of uniqueness coexists with, overlaps with, and is inextricably intertwined with repeated insistence that comes from secularists like Raul Hilberg, for whom the Holocaust is “the benchmark, the defining moment in the drama of good and evil”; from rabbi like Michael Berenbaum, for whom it is “the paradigmatic manifestation of evil.” The claim that the assertion of the Holocaust’s uniqueness is not a form of invidious comparison produces systematic doubletalk. A rabbi, in an op-ed piece for the New York Times, writes that “it is degrading, even ghoulish, to seek to provide preeminence in suffering.” But, he continues, “the holocaust was unique,” and proceeds to offer a statistical demonstration. Does anyone (except, just conceivably, those making the argument) believe that the claim of uniqueness is anything other than a claim for preeminence?

“Holocaust envy” contends with “Holocaust possessiveness.” Claims by others that they have experienced genocide or a holocaust — claims that are indeed sometimes hyperbolic — are treated as felonious assault.

Posted in Holocaust | Comments Off on Was The Holocaust Unique?

My Friend’s Dad Was A Black Shirt

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

I just learned that the father of someone near me was in Oswald Mosely’s black shirts because during the 1930s, many Jews fled to Britain and they entered his profession and rampantly cheated, so he turned violently against Jewish immigration and remained a fascist for life.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Fascism, Jews | Comments Off on My Friend’s Dad Was A Black Shirt

“British pop has sure changed since the 1980s.” (Friend)

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

From YNET:

‘Allahu Akbar’ is No. 1 song on UK charts

Dance track featuring Islamic call skyrockets to top of Spotify’s UK music charts, continuing to spread onto other European charts.

The atmosphere in Europe can easily be described as tense at the moment, with authorities battling terror on a scale that was previously unheard of. Thus it is surprising that a song titled “Allahu Akbar” has held the number one spot on the UK Spotify chart, and 5th place on the international charts.

The hit was created by an anonymous artist named “DJ Inappropriate.” The song is a upbeat dance track, leading some to believe that it is not meant to incite, but rather serves as a protest against “modest” Islamist terrorists. With that said, no one truly knows the purpose of the song.

Posted in England, Islam | Comments Off on “British pop has sure changed since the 1980s.” (Friend)

Affirmative action is working!

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

Any excuse to jump up and down, scream, and wave your arms.

From Breitbart:

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Black Students In Canada Barricade Vice President, Accuse College Of ‘Anti-Black Racism’

A mob of black students at one of Canada’s liberal arts colleges has been caught on camera intimidating white administrators, including an Associate Vice-President, yelling, “You will give us the respect that we ask of you,” and presenting a list of segregationist demands.

Screen Shot 2015-11-29 at 00.35.43Brenda Whiteside, Associate Vice-President of Student Affairs at the University of Guelph, was trapped in her office by a gang of protesters who whooped and clicked their fingers as two of their number accused the college of being “rooted in anti-black racism.”

The footage, which appeared briefly on LiveLeak.com before being taken down, has not previously been published. It shows a large group of black students surrounding two white college administrators while their leaders jab their fingers and shout at Whiteside, demanding more black support and academic staff.

The University of Guelph’s Assistant Vice President for Human Rights and Equity, Jane Ngobia, is a black woman.

The Guelph video shows how odd the language of campus protest has become. “How many racialised [sic] students do we have?” asks one protester. “White students can go in and talk to a white counsellor. What about us?” The first adds: “Are you even around racialised people?”

Also disturbing are the plainly segregationist demands the students make. They appear to tell administrators they cannot be represented or “validated” by white staff and that only black staff can cater to their needs. “We’re not being acknowledged. And that’s fundamentally problematic,” says a boy who identifies himself as a campus athlete.

The athlete says he has, “Never left my campus and not thought [racial abuse] is gonna happen. And for me to just implicitly feel that’s comfortable is problematic.” The word “problematic” is echoed around the protesting students as a sort of mantra.

Another student agrees that she is “scared to go out.” The University of Guelph is one of Canada’s most liberal educational institutions.

Screen Shot 2015-11-29 at 00.33.48One of the leaders of the protest is seen objecting to the presence of police officers on campus, alluding to the number of black deaths she says have occurred at the hands of the police. She says to Whiteside: “As I walked in here, and I saw that police officer, Brenda I was disappointed… Why does he feel like he needs to come here? Why does he feel like he is invited here?”

Posted in Affirmative Action, Blacks | Comments Off on Affirmative action is working!

WP: Television is getting more diverse. Here’s why it’s good for the business.

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

Most people prefer to watch their own kind.

Washington Post:

By Lavanya Ramanathan November 29

lavanya

This year, it became impossible to turn on your television without noticing a major sea change: People of color are the stars of shows on almost every network and streaming service. It’s the year Hollywood (er, for the most part) stopped making excuses for its all-white shows and dabbled in diversity.

Who knows if it will last? But here’s a reason it should: Television isn’t just getting more diverse. It’s finally beginning to feel authentic.

There’s no better example than “Master of None,” Aziz Ansari and Alan Yang’s 10-episode miniseries that premiered on Netflix early this month. In it, Ansari plays Dev Shah, an actor navigating his 30s — a basic enough concept, set in that typical camera-ready city, New York. So why does it feel like the most revolutionary thing on television, ever?

I say this not because, in “Master of None,” I saw a character who looked like me. Or that I can relate to “Parents,” the episode in which Dev tries to better understand the worldview of his immigrant parents (with Ansari’s real mother and father in the roles); I also relate to the charming “Nashville,” about an epic date in that blissful cocoon phase of a relationship.

COMMENTS AT WP:

* Diversity ARE GOOD! Except, if you read the trades, TV is having an awful season, with barely a hit to record. Not that one has anything to do with the other!

* Empire audience dropped Yuge when they introduced and focused on a gay black story line.

Yes, eventually all characters will be black brown gay Trans just like the U.S. Enjoy.

* Lavanya? No wonder she is in favor of “diversity” – that is affirmative action, reverse discrimination, quota hiring.

Steve Sailer writes May 25, 2015:

I’ve noticed that it takes a fair amount of Googling to find entertainment data, such as Nielsen ratings, for Hispanics. One reason for this is because Nielsen has a monopoly and thus traditionally does a lackadaisical job. Another reason is that Hispanic media choices are not very distinctive. They tend to like whatever everybody else likes.

This is in sharp contrast to black tastes, which are very black. Here are recent Nielsen ratings:

AFRICAN AMERICAN AUDIENCE ESTIMATES
Ranked on Households
Week Ending May 10

#PROGRAMSNetRtgP2+(000)
1SCANDALABC14.52656
2NBA PLAYOFFS ON ABC-SA2ABC8.51693
3AMERICAN CRIMEABC7.61351
4NCIS: NEW ORLEANSCBS6.81233
5GREY’S ANATOMYABC6.71204
6BLACK-ISHABC6.41267
7NCISCBS6.21085
8CHICAGO PDNBC6.01128
9CRIMINAL MINDSCBS5.81129
10PERSON OF INTERESTCBS5.81034
* Ratings based on 13.65 million African American TV homes.
Source: Nielsen

Blacks love Shonda Rhimes’ Scandal (starring Kerry Washington as a Washington PR fixer) and the NBA. Blacks ratings are much more concentrated than for Hispanics because blacks like shows with blacks in them and don’t really care about shows such as Big Bang Theory and Modern Family without major black characters.

And here are Nielsen ratings for shows in English among Hispanics, which look a lot like the overall ratings.

HISPANIC ENGLISH-LANGUAGE VIEWING
Ranked on Households
Week Ending May 10

#PROGRAMSNetRtgP2+(000)
1DANCING WITH THE STARSABC3.7760
2BIG BANG THEORY, THECBS3.2692
3SCANDALABC3.0592
4MODERN FAMILYABC2.9690
4NCISCBS2.9565
6DWS: THE RESULTS SHOW-5/5(S)-05/05/2015ABC2.8567
6NCIS: NEW ORLEANSCBS2.8528
6VOICENBC2.8568
9BLACK-ISHABC2.7585
9GREY’S ANATOMYABC2.7564
Source: Nielsen

Latinos like dancing, but in general this looks a lot like the overall ratings. Here are the ratings for everybody of all ethnicities, although for the following week (does it take Nielsen an extra week to massage their black and Hispanic ratings?)

TOP 25 PROGRAMS – BROADCAST
Ranked on Households
Week Ending May 17

#PROGRAMSNetHOUSEHOLDSPERSONS 2+
Rtg%Shr(000)#Rtg%(000)
1NCISCBS9.3161085215.014939
2DANCING WITH THE STARSABC8.6141004824.613479
3NCIS: NEW ORLEANSCBS8.514987824.613610
4DWS:THE RESULTS SHOW-5/12(S)ABC6.711782053.410159
5BILLBOARD MUSIC AWARDS(S)ABC6.511757343.811181
6VOICENBC6.210719253.410051
7BIG BANG THEORY, THECBS6.111708273.29567
8VOICE-TUENBC5.810669893.19138
960 MINUTESCBS5.7116692103.08989
9GREY’S ANATOMYABC5.7106636132.88332
9SCANDALABC5.7106591162.78079

It doesn’t hurt the Hispanic ratings of Modern Family, a fairly sophisticated sitcom that the cast includes the highly entertaining Sofia Vergara, who is the ultimate evolution of the blonde bimba going back at least to Charo, but mostly English-speaking Hispanics seem to watch what everybody else is watching, only more so.

Posted in Blacks, Race, TV | Comments Off on WP: Television is getting more diverse. Here’s why it’s good for the business.

WATCH: Migrants Attack Police As Macedonia Puts Up Fence Along Greek Border

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

How can the Right claim it’s an invasion?

Breitbart: IDOMENI, Greece (AP) — Migrants on the Greek-Macedonian border attacked police with stones Saturday, enraged by the sight of Macedonian authorities erecting a fence along the border and an accident that injured a young Moroccan man.

Authorities said 18 Macedonian officers were injured in the brief but intense clashes. Most of them received minor injuries but two were hospitalized in the nearby town of Gevgelija, Macedonia’s Interior Ministry said.

There was no official tally of injured migrants, although Macedonian police targeted them with stun grenades and plastic bullets. Doctors from the Red Cross and other non-governmental organizations said they treated 20 people for head injuries and breathing problems.

Posted in Immigration, Islam | Comments Off on WATCH: Migrants Attack Police As Macedonia Puts Up Fence Along Greek Border

NYT: A Wealthy Governor and His Friends Are Remaking Illinois

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

This article was one in a series on “Buying Power: Articles in this series examine America’s growing concentration of wealth and its consequences for government and politics.”

But so far it never talks about Jews. That’s like discussing who dominates the NBA but never mentioning blacks.

New York Times:

Unprecedented political spending helped elect a fresh-faced financier. But his ideological vision has unsettled many in the state.

The richest man in Illinois does not often give speeches. But on a warm spring day two years ago, Kenneth C. Griffin, the billionaire founder of one of the world’s largest hedge funds, rose before a black-tie dinner of the Economic Club of Chicago to deliver an urgent plea to the city’s elite.

They had stood silently, Mr. Griffin told them, as politicians taxed too much, spent too much and drove businesses and jobs from the state. They had refused to help those who would take on the reigning powers in the Illinois Capitol. “It is time for us to do something,” he implored.

Their response came quickly. In the months since, Mr. Griffin and a small group of rich supporters — not just from Chicago, but also from New York City and Los Angeles, southern Florida and Texas — have poured tens of millions of dollars into the state, a concentration of political money without precedent in Illinois history.

Their wealth has forcefully shifted the state’s balance of power. Last year, the families helped elect as governor Bruce Rauner, a Griffin friend and former private equity executive from the Chicago suburbs, who estimates his own fortune at more than $500 million. Now they are rallying behind Mr. Rauner’s agenda: to cut spending and overhaul the state’s pension system, impose term limits and weaken public employee unions.

“It was clear that they wanted to change the power structure, change the way business was conducted and change the status quo,” said Andy Shaw, an acquaintance of Mr. Rauner’s and the president of the Better Government Association, a nonpartisan state watchdog group.

The families remaking Illinois are among a small group around the country who have channeled their extraordinary wealth into political power, taking advantage of regulatory, legal and cultural shifts that have carved new paths for infusing money into campaigns. Economic winners in an age of rising inequality, operating largely out of public view, they are reshaping government with fortunes so large as to defy the ordinary financial scale of politics. In the 2016 presidential race, a New York Times analysis found last month, just 158 families had provided nearly half of the early campaign money.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on NYT: A Wealthy Governor and His Friends Are Remaking Illinois

Who will you blame once Obama’s gone?

Posted on November 29, 2015 by Luke Ford

By John Blake, CNN
Updated 9:33 AM ET, Fri November 27, 2015

… Consider the question of whether racial strife is now the norm.

“I don’t see that stopping when Obama is no longer president,” says Steve Sailer, who writes for Unz Review and Taki’s Magazine, both started by alumni of The American Conservative. “I can imagine a white president like Hillary [Clinton] upping the ante because she doesn’t have the benefit of being black.”

Sailer says Clinton will need to talk more about racial grievances to attract minority voters because she can’t count on the strong black support that Obama enjoyed.

Democrats, he says, have decided to build a coalition of “fringe” groups by demonizing people who “have rightful reasons for representing the core of Middle America.”

That decision, however, is sparking a white backlash, Sailer warns. More whites are starting to see the need to unite like other ethnic groups.

“It’s become more acceptable for people to insult whites, especially white men,” he says. “You’re seeing more and more whites starting to develop a certain amount of white identity.”

COMMENTS:

* What? CNN mentioned he who must not be named. What’s going on here Steve?

Of all of the concepts you’ve birthed, I really like that the writer picked up on the Democrats being the coalition of fringes. I think that this will have some legs and it will burn.

* Mr. Sailer, they didn’t even call you a racist. Are you entering the mainstream?

* It’s happening. The cracks are forming. What a glorious day!

* She’ll need to incite racial grievances not just because she isn’t black, but because in not being black the black voters will be more inclined to notice that Democrats aren’t actually doing anything for them.

There’s also maybe an element of “once you go black you can never go back.” After the eight year orgasm of Obama, Hillary is going to be a serious letdown – the lover with electile dysfunction.

The Democrats are stuck with the coalition of the fringes whether they want to be or not. The trouble is not only in all the non-fringes who get turned off by all the hate, but those who have divided loyalties. The most obvious members are white women, of course, but even white gays, Jews, and a few other groups will increasingly find themselves targeted by their supposed allies.

* From the article:

How much responsibility for increased racial tension rests with Obama? Could he have done anything at the beginning of his first term to reduce them? The answers are also varied.

There are two components to racial tension, structural and situational. Obama couldn’t do anything about the structural issues, no one can, for they exist due to the fact that racial groups are sharing the same society. The situational issues move in only one direction – they add trouble onto the structural issues but can never be handled in such a way as to diminish the structural issues, so what we’re left with is Obama only making things worse with his actions and philosophy and also adding to the structural issue by increasing immigration.

Coming at this question from a different perspective, no one can resolve the situational issues because they are the face of the who, whom issue. Make one group happy and you piss off other groups. The situational game is rigged by the structural issue. Here’s an example of a structural issue – you can’t have race hate crimes in a completely racially homogeneous society. There will be no racial tension there.

In a multiracial society, there will always be tension because all groups are not equal. This manifests as inequality of outcomes and these unequal outcomes gnaw at the pride of the losers and efforts to create a perfectly equal opportunity society will never resolve the unequal outcomes which result from perfect equality of opportunity. Race becomes the visible mechanism by which to see the inequality. A homogeneous society has winners and losers but the losers can’t find easy ways to self-group. whereas in a heterogeneous society, when some racial groups are disproportionately on the low part of the totem pole, this becomes very visible to everyone and race becomes the factor by which they group together.

Whites are most supportive of an Equal Opportunity Society and NAMS are most supportive of an Equal Outcome Society and there is no way to square this circle and make everyone happy.

Mark Naison, a professor of history and African-American studies at Fordham University, says some whites are angry because their portion of the country’s population is shrinking. As the country gets browner, they get angrier.

“They think this is their country, and they’re really special,” Naison says. “These tensions are going to get worse. We’re stumbling toward being a more multiracial society with everyone’s culture respected and everyone having a shot at leadership.”

But it IS their country. Their ancestors created a patrimony that was passed onto them, just like parents leave an estate that is to be passed onto their children and we find it ludicrous to expect that a stranger can show up at the reading of someone’s will and expect to be cut in for an equal share of the estate alongside the children. Same with new immigrants – they’re expecting to share equally the benefits of the accumulated infrastructure and laws and mores of the society alongside those whose ancestors built and added value and shaped the society which attracted the immigrants to come to America.

Ignoring this dynamic is the key to the argument that Naison makes.

Secondly, he mentions everyone having a shot at leadership. This ties back to the battle between Equal Opportunity and Equal Outcome. HOW do NAMS get a shot at leadership, by earning their way there or by getting the skids greased to insure that equal outcomes result to favor them?

“I’m never surprised at the depth of racism in America,” he says. “The depths of it are limitless. There is a well you can dig into if you are white that justifies almost any level of abuse that you can direct at a black person that challenges your comfort zone.”

This is why separate countries were invented. Naison won’t have to deal with the effects of “racism” if he lived in a 100% black society.

“That was his one chance to win over the low- and moderate-income whites that are deeply suspicious of him,” Naison says. “He could have won over whites with a New Deal jobs program rather than a health care act.”

ObamaCare is a racial wealth redistribution system in effect, a wealth redistribution system in general and is part of the equal outcomes worldview.

A jobs program, even if effective (just pretend) still leaves us with the structural issues and the opportunity:outcome battles, in other words, it doesn’t solve anything for Obama or race relations in general.

“A lot of what drives bad race relations is scarcity in the working-class populations,” he says. “We have all of these looming questions with globalization and downsizing. These are underlying structural problems.”

Then why are we importing poverty and competitors in the job market through immigration? The Center for Immigration Studies noted that since 2000, ALL new net jobs created have gone to immigrants at a time when native population growth was sufficient to fill the new jobs. So yeah, this guy is correct about part of the problem but I doubt he’s willing to suggest an immigration moratorium as a solution.

* The reason people don’t vote for the GOP has less to do with it positioning itself as a “white party” (interestingly, when the GOP unabashedly DID fashion itself in public discourse as such it actually won elections – one of Buchanan’s most recent books provides a rather fascinating treatment of this phenomenon) then it does with the fact that the GOP has no actual platform other than unconditional support for Israel and Jewish interests by way of waging aggressive wars, sustaining a parasitic/cronyist Defense Industry caste that has been obsolete since the capitulation of the Soviet Union, and incoherent objections to welfare state initiatives – i.e. railing against the implementation of a bloated, state-capitalist insurance company bailout (Obamacare) that was originally conceived by their own party hacks in the 1990s (Bob Dole first among them) on grounds that it is “socialistic”.

Nobody actually gives a fuck about the victimology propaganda narrative of “gays, women, and minorities” other than reconstructed Jewish communists, a disengaged, culturally senile minority of hyper-privileged whites (yes – ‘white privilege’ does exist – overeducated, overpaid parasitic white liberals are its beneficiaries) add ignorant and easily misled blacks and browns who can be grievance-motivated into showing up at the polls every election cycle in a manner similar to how simpletons in a pro-wrestling or carnival geek show audience can be moved to emotional delight or fury by smoke, mirrors, flash pyrotechnics, and the absurd monologues of a travelling barker.

* For years I’ve wondered why otherwise sensible whites thought an Obama presidency would “heal” racial tension but one needs to read between the lines to see what these people mean. Obama was never liked much by right-of-center whites, but there was still some hope among a number of Republican-types that he would use his power and influence to calm the typical black overreaction to dubious examples of racism whenever it sparked up. Nice, white, Bush-voters were frustrated that W got called a racist and blamed for Katrina, so maybe one benefit of having an Ivy-educated half-black president would be the reduction of instances of petty racial grievances. At least with Obama as president blacks wouldn’t have an excuse to let self-serving retarded nut-jobs like Al Sharpton stir them up so easily.

Of course not only has Obama not sought to assuage the irrational fears of his dim-witted key constituency, he has flamed them for his political benefit. Nice whites, even those who didn’t vote for Obama, feel betrayed because they know an articulate, semi-intelligent half-black like Obama knows full well what he’s doing. The same man who appealed to moderate whites as the one to get us past racial issues has ratcheted up the divide even further.

* The shunning of Steve Sailer has been an anachronism for the past few years. Remember the sudden anti-white gloating in the media after the 2012 election? That’s when they let the cat out of the bag. Prior to that, they denied that there was a racial struggle going on and shunned everybody as a racist lunatic and paranoid who even raised such issues. Then they declared permanent victory in the war against whites. The tea party, the cuckservatives and Romney were dumbfounded. They thought the election was really about disagreements concerning healthcare policy.

We have also seen the shift from “racism”, a state of mind, to the original sin of “white privilege”. To the extent that Steve Sailer is still unmentionable, it is no longer because of his baseless phantasies and obsessions about race that no one in polite society should even think about. He is now a pariah because he is on the wrong side of the central issue of race and whiteness that should be on everybody’s minds.

* FoxNews From 2012: So with rates on the downswing, does that mean Mitt Romney’s a shoo-in?

Not so fast, said author Steve Sailer.

Sailer examined the white fertility rate in the 2000 and 2004 elections — a demographic that generally is more supportive of Republicans.

“What the Republicans benefit from are white people getting married and having kids — this is the core of Republican voters,” he said. “We’ve seen a drop-off in fertility and drop-off in marriage. Basically, you’ve got a lot of younger white people living in their parent’s garage. None of that bodes well for Republicans in 2012.”

* Whites and particularly Straight White Men ARE THE FRINGE. We are. White women will generally side with non-Whites in the diversity spoils train, and even when White women marry they don’t stay married for long; divorced White women are extra helpings of anti-White, as they consider themselves honorary non-Whites and want to “get” their ex husbands who they loathe generally for being beta males. [Women initiate something like 70% of divorces, and its generally for the men just not being sexy enough.]

Functionally, White men are in the minority. Add in White non-married women, non-Whites, and that is the majority of the population. More so when illegal aliens who lets be honest do vote, early and often, are added into the mix.

Therefore as a fringe, and one freely insulted without consequence, it is time for White men to be feared. Abandon love, that is for losers. The Anonymous Collective has been reasonably effective in publicizing dirty deeds. The dirty little secret about Diversity is that most non-White men are as corrupt and as dirty as Al Sharpton if not moreso.

White male identity politics is a must, and the only way forward. The weapon should be digging up dirt on every enemy (basically everyone who is not a Straight White Male and those Straight White males allied with those outside the group).

My disagreement with Steve is that White men and women have vastly different interests. White women’s main interests are with non-Whites, its why White women love love love Oprah and White men even ones like Jimmy Kimmel, ultra-liberal, hate her [Kimmel and Carolla created the Man Show as the Anti-Oprah]. White women can well in non-White majority countries and they flock there to Eat-Pray-Love. You don’t see White men flocking to Africa the way White women do. A multi-racial society is always more attractive to women particularly those of even marginal attractiveness as they do better, far better, then White men.

White women are part of the diversity gravy train even if they are last; White men are excluded. White men find non-White women unattractive save Asian females; White women find non-White men attractive save Asian men; for the most part. White men are viewed as a threat to be eliminated by non-White men; White women are viewed as a prize to be taken by non-White men.

* Trump is polling 25% among blacks and has a big event scheduled Monday in which he will meet with around a 100 black pastors.

And this is still Republican primary season. Once we get to the general Trump can make more explicit appeals to black voters–they will hugely benefit from immigration restriction and a re-industrialization of the US through trade restrictions. Also many blacks are not happy being ethnically cleansed by Hispanics (and in some cases, liberal whites) from such places as Compton, Oakland, and Harlem.

* John Blake is at least partially black. Probably has something to do with his readiness to look for interesting commenters, rather than politically safe ones. Amidst the absurdities of The Black Autumn, it’s useful to remember that blacks are substantial cultural contributors to America, besides the obvious music and sports. Perhaps black dissidents more than the mainstream. Jared Taylor once told me that in speaking at college campuses, black students were the most genuinely interested in what he had to say.

Posted in America, Barack Obama, Blacks, Politics, Race, Whites | Comments Off on Who will you blame once Obama’s gone?