I think a major reason that the pundits were so wrong about Trump is that half of them are Jewish and Jews tend to feel a visceral revolt against gentile nationalisms, racial consciousness, nativism, populism. Jews, by and large, feel great disgust for Donald Trump types. He’s vulgar! He’s so goyish.
Regular Jews often like Trump, while Jewish elites usually hate Trump.
Esther K tweets: “.@JewishJournal staff ideated but didn’t produce #TrumpAgainstHumanity in March. And now.”
Surely this type of call to violence is not who we are.
If you are saying Trump is against humanity, then you are calling for him to be assassinated.
Steve Sailer writes: Loose immigration policies tribalize domestic politics. When elites team up to import tribalist foreigners to lower their own citizens’ wages and to vote against the natives’ interests (and, now and then, murder them), why is it surprising when the poor dumb natives eventually get the message that they need a tribe of their own, too?
A methodological shortcoming of the various Nates’ models of American politics is that they ignored evidence from abroad. It has been pretty obvious from recent elections in Denmark, Australia, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Germany, France, and so forth that immigration policy is a hot issue in the world today — even in Canada, where Justin Trudeau rode a spasm of sentimentality and smugness into office.
But these models ignore what voters are seeing on TV about the Camp of the Saints, terrorism, and sexual assault abroad. Instead, crimethink kicks in among pundits: protective stupidity about immigration policy as a subject that only bad people ever think about except in terms of ethnocentric schmaltz.
* Among our best and brightest (though obviously not perfect), it’s very important that Trump’s attractiveness not spring from his immigration policies. If we start thinking open-borders immigration ISN’T inevitable, it won’t be. They know that. Any given political ‘inevitability’ can disappear like a candle flame in Katrina. I think our Thinkies call that a ‘black swan’. The rest of us know it simply as limits of wishful thinking.
COMMENTS:
* It wasn’t just that he (along with many other pundits) got it wrong, it was in how derisive he was (they were) toward Trump’s prospects and how confident he was in his predictive analytics.
Simply put, his method is mostly garbage because it’s tough to quantify political outcomes far in advance with so many moving parts. Models using data from elections or primaries in the past cannot account for the numerous shifts in public opinion that polls don’t fully capture. Voters are people, and people are complicated. The rules of politics are free-flowing and ever changing. He says something to the effect that there aren’t enough data points (since presidential elections are every four years), but doesn’t realize this undercuts his argument that quantitative-based analytics best predicts political races.
* Among our best and brightest (though obviously not perfect), it’s very important that Trump’s attractiveness not spring from his immigration policies. If we start thinking open-borders immigration ISN’T inevitable, it won’t be. They know that. Any given political ‘inevitability’ can disappear like a candle flame in Katrina. I think our Thinkies call that a ‘black swan’. The rest of us know it simply as limits of wishful thinking.
* I’m amazed at Nate’s hubris in constantly criticizing “punditry,” then engaging in it himself rather than taking a strict “I’m just a dispassionate stats nerd” line that is more consistent with his brand anyway. Now he looks like a fool when the pure numbers for Trump should have made him more favorable to Trump than the average “pundit.”
* Nate Silver is all about stats or stat-factor. He seems blind to stars or star-factor.
Trump had a winning personality, at least compared to the others.
Obama also won on the power of his personality. (Most other blacks couldn’t have done it. He has an easy and smooth way with voters. So did Clinton.)
If we were living in a non-visual age, Trump might have lost.
But people watch politics as a visual sport, and Trump was entertaining.
Others looked dorky, gomer-pyle-ish, or ridiculous.
Cruz looks like a cartoon character.
Rubio looks like a boy in a bubble bath.
Walker looks like a 5 yr old carrying lunch to school.
Jeb looks like a turtle without a shell.
Kasich looks like a third rate high school coach.
Fiorina looks ungood as a ho.
Christie is a fatbody.
Trump just looked like a drill sergeant compared to the others. He ‘won’ most debates not by what he said but how he said it.
True, positions did matter in this race, but it had a lot to do with personality.
There was something about ‘chief’ about Trump.
He looked aggressive on the attack, annoyed on the defense.
In contrast, Conservative Inc has usually been defensive in aggression, and aggressive in defense. It’s as if Cons are afraid to go on the attack. I mean what if the attack is taken as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, etc.?
They are only aggressive in defense, like when NR kicked out Derbyshire. They sure spilled a lot of venom over that.
Now, Trump knows how PC works. He knows it is powerful, and there are certain things he can’t really touch: Jews, homos, and blacks.
But there are semi-PC areas that are sort-of-touchable, like immigration, Mexers, Muslims, and Chinese. Where there was some leeway for being politically incorrect, Trump pushed hard.
And Trump’s pro-Russian stance was a kind of masterful indirect anti-PC. Russia is hated most by Jews and homos. So, Trump’s call for peace was Russia was a roundabout kind of anti-PC.
* In fact, he kept coming up with completely ad hoc reasons to fudge the percentage chances of Trump winning primaries down with no justification beyond that he personally didn’t think the polls were believable. What the hell kind of data science is that?
* Data science is the fancy new term. Back in the day, it was stats, market research, OR, econometrics or their cousins.
One truism from any era of data analysis is that if you torture the numbers enough, they’re bound to confess what you want to hear. The further from STEM subjects, the more likely the standard deviants manipulate things.
* Remember Jeane Dixon? She was the noted psychic who supposedly predicted JFK’s assassination. She rode that to a 20+ year career in the psychic business.
Nate Silver got some things right about the 2012 election, but he may be the Jean Dixon of our time.
* It’s obvious that “conservatism” has evolved from an ideology into a theology. No longer a response to the excesses of 20th century statism, it is now a dogmatic religion that values blind faith over rationality.
The weirdest part is the fervent devotion on the altar of St. Ronnie by young conservatives who weren’t even born when he was president. Hell, I loved the guy at the time, but the problems we face today are not the problems we faced in 1976.
* We are in uncharted waters with just 6% of the populace having any trust in news media. 94% of Americans distrust the talking heads and the scribes who have for generations told the public what to think. And trust for government is hardly any better. The potential for severe social upheavals is very real. Anti-Trump riots this summer? What happens when the current stock market bubble deflates or even bursts? We have the Occupy Wall Street cum Bernie radicals, Black Lies Matter anti-white violent racists, Colin Flaherty documented Knockout Game aficionados, and finally the law & order middle-class and lower whites finally awakening thanks to Trump.
Posted inAmerica, Donald Trump, Jews|Comments Off on How Were The Pundits So Wrong About Trump?
Angela Merkel on Thursday warned that Europe risks a “return to nationalism” if it does not secure its external borders, as polls showed support for the far-Right is rising in Germany amid growing fears of Islam.
“The future of Europe is at stake,” the German chancellor said in a passionate plea to preserve freedom of movement and the Schengen Agreement on border-free travel within the continent.
Even as she spoke, a new poll released on Thursday showed support for the far-Right Alternative for Germany(AfD) party is at its highest ever.
“Europe stretches from the North Pole to the Mediterranean. We must defend the Schengen Treaty and the external borders, or we risk a return to nationalism,” Mrs Merkel said.
She was speaking at a joint press conference in Rome with Matteo Renzi, the Italian prime minister.
Both leaders spoke out against plans by Austria to close its border with Italy at the Brenner Pass, to prevent migrants entering.
The AfD is riding high in the German polls on a wave of public discontent over the migrant crisis, and recorded its highest ever support less than a week after it adopted an anti-Muslim manifesto.
It is now in third place on 15 per cent, just five points behind Mrs Merkel’s main coalition partner, the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), who have slipped to 20 per cent.
Mrs Merkel’s centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU) remain in first place in the monthly ARD survey, with 33 per cent.
But, perhaps more worryingly for the German chancellor, a second poll found the AfD may be in step with voters with its overtly anti-Muslim stance.
Only 22 per cent of Germans believe Islam belongs in their country, according to the poll for Bild newspaper by the Insa institute.
An overwhelming 61 per cent agreed that Islam does not belong in Germany–a central plank of the AfD’s new manifesto.
The poll found attitudes had hardened considerably over the past year, which has seen more than 1.1m asylum-seekers enter Germany, the majority of them Muslim.
A similar survey in Jaunary 2015 found 37 per cent believed Islam belonged in Germany, while 47 per cent did not.
The latest poll found opinion split over the supposed “Islamisation” of Germany, a key claim of the Pegida street movement: 46 per cent said they were concerned by it, while 39 per cent said they were not.
There was, however, more acceptance when it came to individual Muslims, as opposed to Islam as a religion.
Almost half of respondents agreed that Muslims who live in Germany belong to the country, while only 30 per cent did not.
“The majority of Germans considered the issue of Islam separately,” Hermann Binkert, the managing director of Insa, said.
“While they rejects the idea Islam is part of Germany, they firmly believe Muslims who live here belong to Germany.”
An estimated 4 million Muslims live in Germany as citizens or permanent residents.
However, he poll’s findings were not all positive for the AfD.
It found 49 per cent of Germans do not believe it can establish itself as a long-term political force with its current anti-Muslim agenda.
Only 22 per cent of respondents said they believed the party would last the course.
Posted inGermany|Comments Off on Germany’s Far-Right AfD Party ‘Has More Public Support Than Ever’
If you really want to know, mock it publicly under you real name and see what happens to you.
Benjamin Wallace writes: You could ask some of the same questions about the alt-right, the loosely assembled far-right movement that exists largely online, and that overlaps with both the Trump campaign and with the politics of Zero Hedge. Richard Spencer, the white nationalist who came up with the term “alt-right,” described the movement in December as “an ideology around identity, European identity.” But the alt-right has often seemed more diffuse than that, more of a catch-all for the least presentable elements of the online right: white nationalists, neo-reactionaries, the male-victimhood clique of GamerGate. Late last year, BuzzFeed proclaimed that the movement, with a boost from the Trump campaign, “has hit it big,” and ever since anxious alarms have been issuing from the conservative mainstream. The Times columnist Ross Douthat worked to distinguish the reactionary tradition from the open racism of the alt-right. National Review denounced the “racism and moral rot” that characterized the movement. Commentary described the alt-right as a gathering force, and warned of a “coming conservative dark age.”
And yet, as an ideology, it can be hard to take the alt-right seriously. When Spencer named the movement, he was the managing editor of Taki’s Magazine, whose founder and namesake, Taki Theodoracopulos, is a monarchist man-about-Gstaad and the society columnist for the London Spectator. Its own propagandists often say they are joking. The right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, of Breitbart, himself a leading fellow-traveller, claimed that some “young rebels” are drawn to the alt-right not for deeply political reasons but “because it promises fun, transgression, and a challenge to social norms.” The alt-right exists mostly online, and so it is shrouded in pseudonyms.
The strains that run through the alt-right—that wrap together the vicious misogyny and plaintive victimhood of GamerGate with Prussia-venerating neo-reactionaries—are in their essence not matters of substance but of style. They share with the Trump movement a haughty success theatre that complicates their populism: the alt-right’s defense of the white working class, Yiannopoulos insisted, is not an instance of self-preservation but of “noblesse oblige.” The two also share the instinct for provocation. “If you spend 75 years building a pseudo-religion around anything—an ethnic group, a plaster saint, sexual chastity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster—don’t be surprised when clever 19-year-olds discover that insulting it is now the funniest fucking thing in the world,” the blogger Mencius Moldbug wrote to Yiannopoulos.
The alt-right often seems to be testing the strength of the speech taboos that revolve around conventional politics—of what can be said, and how directly. Can you insist that science supports racial differences in intelligence? Can you threaten rape? Can you Photoshop an image of a Jewish reporter who has written critically about the Trumps so that she appears to be in a concentration camp? How far can you go? It is easy to notice the flood of Nazi imagery that has been tweeted from anonymous accounts at reporters, and harder to determine how many people are sending these images. Even the most careful reporting into the less crude edges of the movement usually has to resort to calling the alt-right’s influential voices by their message-board monikers (CisWhiteMaelstrom, JCM267) rather than by their real names.
One way to understand the alt-right is not as a movement but as a collective experiment in identity, in the same way that many people use anonymity on the Internet to test more extreme versions of themselves. Moldbug, when he stepped out from behind his pseudonym, turned out to be a Silicon Valley computer programmer who had started as a commenter in the factional circles of libertarian message boards. CisWhiteMaelstrom, who convened the pro-Trump hordes that swallowed the politics sections of Reddit, turned out to be a law student in his early twenties who was looking forward to a job in which he could make the most money possible.
Posted inAlt Right|Comments Off on Is The Alt-Right For Real?
Tabletmag: “Examining the identity politics that drive Trump backers to harrass Jewish writers online.”
I am a public Orthodox Jew who’s in touch with all parts of the Alt-Right. I wear a yarmulke and my tzitzit out when I meet with members of the Dissident Right. Everybody treats me very nicely. I don’t get any harassment from Trump backers. Maybe it is Jewish writers who demean Trump and his supporters and the whole idea of white identity who get a backlash?
Other Jewish supporters of Donald Trump, to the best of my knowledge, don’t get harassed either by the alt-Right.
Maybe Jewish writers should stop demeaning white nationalism and then perhaps white nationalists won’t put them in their crosshairs.
White nationalism is just another nationalism akin to black nationalism and Japanese nationalism and Tibetan nationalism and Jewish nationalism.
The net effect of Jews in America in political terms is to drive the spectrum to the left. Neo-cons took over the conservative movement.
In cultural terms, Jews pushed WASPs from the top of the heap and more than any other group, Jews set the Overton Window in the West.
Why is Zionism wonderful but the desire for a white Christian country is horrible? How come the Japanese get to have their own country but whites can’t?
Like the candidate himself, Donald Trump’s alt-right supporters have a long record of dabbling in racially and politically divisive rhetoric. Do they have a specific anti-Semitism problem, to go along with their anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, and old-school isolationist views? If so, does their anti-Semitism spring from, yet operate independently of, their larger morass of prejudices?
One way of answering that question is by looking at the alt-right’s attitude toward Jews who the movement’s adherents are most likely to have read or interacted with online, specifically on Twitter: anti-Trump Jewish conservatives, writers who fall vaguely within the political and ideological camp that the alt-right is trying to transform.
The Trump supporters’ attitudes towards right-leaning Jewish commentators who oppose their candidate is a vivid illustration of why the real estate mogul has galvanized right-wingers who, until a few months ago, appeared to be well outside the conservative mainstream. For Trump’s alt-right fans, Jewish conservatives who oppose Trump epitomize much of what the movement around their candidate is supposed to be cleansing from the right wing and the American political scene more generally. From their perspective, writers like the former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, Commentary‘s John Podhoretz, or The New York Post’s Seth Mandel are bought-and-sold traitors to their ideology, their country, and perhaps even their own people.
Would have been nice for journos to take notice of what we Jewish conservative anti-Trumpers have been fending off.
The alt-right is not the first fringe political movement, nor probably the last, to see some collection of Jews as the avatar of broader social and political ailments, or as a prominent obstacle to fixing them. As Shapiro, a frequent target of Trumpist attention explains, “Trump trolls are intent on harassing anti-Trump Jews because they think that Trump represents a white supremacism heretofore missing from the Republican Party, and they think that the evil ‘neocons’ are trying to thwart them.” Shapiro believes “[t]hese aren’t Republicans who suddenly turned anti-Semitic,” but people who see Trump as a champion of white identity emerging out of the multicultural trauma of the Obama years.
The actual extent of that anti-Semitism is hard to measure among Trump’s supporters on Twitter, never mind among the 10.6 million people who voted for him during the Republican primaries and caucuses. But some fairly prominent pro-Trump accounts have shown a predilection for anti-Semitic imagery and rhetoric. Take, for example, @Ricky_Vaughn99 (an alias inspired by the movie Major League), one of the worst offenders, according to several Jewish writers contacted for this post. @Ricky_Vaughn99 has 27,000 followers, sees this election as “the most tremendous opportunity to name the jew and fight the money power,” and once referred to me as a “cloistered media-American” who “doesn’t get out much, beyond the synagogue.” When reached over Twitter direct message, Vaughn speculated that “The Trump presidency will probably be bad for neocon jews, bad for liberal jews, but good for jews who are believers in the nation-state and American nationalism.”
Or consider @Genophilia, an account followed by 26,000 Twitter users that rage against “anti-white Jewish activists” in the media and retweets things like this:
The jew is a sadist. He takes pleasure in the thought of defiling our women and torturing our children. This is not exaggeration.
Other, non-anonymous accounts are less outwardly hostile. California lawyer Mike Cernovich has repeatedly tweets nasty things at Ben Shapiro, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and has accused anti-Trump Commentary writer Noah Rothman of being a “puppet” of super-PAC donors. There are more obscure accounts that are dedicated harassers of anti-Trump Jews, too, such as @Jewish_Marksman, whose feed reflects something of an obsession with them.
Many accounts rapidly appear and disappear. “Part of the problem is that they sign up new accounts with anti-Semitic names and just pop up and start harassing people,” said Mandel. “Like roaches.”
Predictably, Trump supporters quickly disavow any accusations of anti-Semitism. “There is no anti-Semitism problem among Trump supporters,” Cernovich claimed during our direct message (DM) conversation over Twitter. Then again, Cernovich believes that at least some of what’s normally construed as “anti-Semitism” falls within the realm of rational analysis. “My take on a lot of the “anti-Semitism” stuff is this: Jews criticize whites, and no one has a problem. When Whites criticize Jews, it’s immediately labelled anti-Semitic. Are Jews off limits from criticism? Are whites the only group of people open to criticism? That never made much sense to me.”
Online attacks on anti-Trump Jewish conservatives might stem from a sense that they’re sold out their own community’s actual interests. Both Cernovich and Loren Feldman, a pro-Trump Twitter user and film producer, raised the issue of Commentary editor John Podhoretz’s comfortable non-profit salary, as if Commentary writers are tools of an unseen cabal of donors. Both Cernovich and Feldman believe that a Trump presidency would be good for Jews in the U.S., largely for reasons having to do with the supposed benefit of improved race relations under a future president Trump. “By adopting the same immigration strategy as Europe, the U.S. would become less hospitable to Jews in general, and only Trump opposes the open flow of migrants from Syria into the U.S,” Cernovich said.
Feldman, who identifies as both a “nationalist” and a Zionist, believes that Jews and Trump supporters have a common interest in fighting the left. “We are united in our fight against black lives matter the far left and radical Islam which are far bigger problems for both Jews and white nationalists,” Feldman said during a DM conversation. On May 3rd, the day of the Indiana primary, he tweeted:
To my fellow 17 Jews in Indiana. Its a mitzva to get out and vote for Trump. We'll see Ivanka light candles in the Whitehouse. #JewsForTrump
For some supporters of Trump, anti-Trump Jewish conservatives are guilty of a bevy of other, even weightier betrayals. “I can’t speak for others,” Kevin MacDonald, editor of the white nationalist Occidental Observer wrote via email when asked about Trump supporters’ antipathy towards Jewish conservatives. “But historically Jewish neocons have not been true conservatives, and their main interest has been to support Israel.” MacDonald, who accuses “Jewish neocons” of working towards “the demographic transformation of the US (sic) via immigration,” detects among some right-wingers “a general attitude that these people are faux conservatives at best—hostility motivated by the feeling that these Jewish conservatives are hypocrites and Jewish ethnonationalists parading as principled, limited government conservatives for an American audience.”
Trump’s online supporters assume the worst about the loyalty and the motives of the conservative Jews who oppose his candidacy, and their focus has implications beyond that relatively small cohort. The identity politics of the “alt-right” understand the American polity and the broader world through narrow criteria of racial and national allegiance. Opponents from groups that stand to benefit from a Trump presidency—Jews, whites, men, etc—represent a special case because they are pushing against what they surely must know to be in their particular group’s best interest. Opposition to Trump is construed as a reflection of the opponents’ corrupted character, rather than the result of honest disagreement. For instance, the now-familiar slur “cuckservative” is specifically a dig at the deficient masculinity of American conservative men who oppose the alt-right. It’s not that these critics disagree with, say, mass deportations or punitive import taxes on China: They all know Trump’s right; they’re just not man enough to actually back him.
As their treatment of anti-Trump Jews demonstrates, Trump’s alt-right supporters see the American political scene as a wasteland of venality and calculated self-betrayal–and that’s just among the demographic groups the alt-right believes to be its natural allies. Now that Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, we’ll get to spend the next several months finding out what their vitriol will look like when it’s focused on their natural enemies as well.
Armin Rosen writes: “Like the candidate himself, Donald Trump’s alt-right supporters have a long record of dabbling in racially and politically divisive rhetoric. ”
But Barack Obama doesn’t? Democrats don’t? Judaism doesn’t believe in dividing people? To live as a traditional Jew is to continually separate yourself from non-Jews. Has Armin Rosen ever studied Torah? It more than “dabbles” in divisive rhetoric. The whole paradigm of Torah is that the Jews are a people who should dwell alone. In the Havdalah ceremony at the end of the Sabbath, the Jew blesses God for, among other things, separating Jews from non-Jews. Is that divisive?
“Do they have a specific anti-Semitism problem, to go along with their anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, and old-school isolationist views? If so, does their anti-Semitism spring from, yet operate independently of, their larger morass of prejudices?”
What the ruling class calls “prejudices” are simple facts of life — that different groups have different interests. Because I am a Dallas Cowboy fan, I don’t like the other teams in the NFC East. Am I prejudiced?
As Maj. Jong put it: “Anti-Semitism is as natural to Western civilization as anti-Christianity is to Jewish civilization, Islamic civilization and Japanese civilization.”
If you found your bedroom was filled with poisonous snakes, would you hate the snakes or the people who put them there?
“The alt-right is not the first fringe political movement, nor probably the last, to see some collection of Jews as the avatar of broader social and political ailments, or as a prominent obstacle to fixing them.”
Gee, how crazy. Why would they think that?
Steve 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."
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.
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."
Ben Shapiro: “Trump trolls are intent on harassing anti-Trump Jews because they think that Trump represents a white supremacism heretofore missing from the Republican Party, and they think that the evil ‘neocons’ are trying to thwart them.”
Is Judaism Jewish supremacism? Judaism holds that Jews are the Chosen People of God. That sounds supremacist to me.
Is the Tibetan desire to keep Tibet Tibetan a form of Tibetan supremacy? What exactly do “white supremacists” believe that whites are supreme at? Everything?
In a 2006 lecture, Tom Wolfe said: “Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world – so ordained by some almighty force – would make not that individual but his group…the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles.”
Armin Rosen writes: “The actual extent of that anti-Semitism is hard to measure among Trump’s supporters on Twitter…”
Yeah, and the actual extent of anti-Gentile attitudes among Jews is hard to measure. All groups are in competition. The more you identify with your group, the more likely you are to have negative views of out-groups. In nature, you don’t find two subspecies in the same place. It’s not natural. The different races are different subspecies. It’s not natural for them to live together in peace and harmony.
“But some fairly prominent pro-Trump accounts have shown a predilection for anti-Semitic imagery and rhetoric.”
What’s the proper term for anti-Gentile rhetoric?
“Part of the problem is that they sign up new accounts with anti-Semitic names and just pop up and start harassing people,” said [Seth] Mandel. “Like roaches.”
Wow. That’s not very nice. Didn’t the Nazis refer to Jews as “roaches.” Is Seth Mandel a Nazi? Surely this dehumanizing rhetoric has no place in our discourse.
Tablet must have run 100 negative articles about Trump. I don’t recall one positive article.
Shapiro believes “[t]hese aren’t Republicans who suddenly turned anti-Semitic,” but people who see Trump as a champion of white identity emerging out of the multicultural trauma of the Obama years.
Anti-Semitism and anti-gentilism are not mysterious afflictions. These sentiments arise out of a genuine conflict of interest. For instance, from a left-wing perspective, race, ethnicity and religion are not important dividers of people and they are not legitimate bases for countries. So a Jew who’s more of a leftist than a Jew, will not like Israel because it is an ethnostate. Such a Jew is liable to a genuine conflict of interest between his ethnicity and religion and his leftist beliefs. A left-wing Jew who is fine with Israel as an ethno-state is more Jewish than leftist.
Jewish attorney Mike Cernovich makes smart points to Tablet: “My take on a lot of the “anti-Semitism” stuff is this: Jews criticize whites, and no one has a problem. When Whites criticize Jews, it’s immediately labelled anti-Semitic. Are Jews off limits from criticism? Are whites the only group of people open to criticism? That never made much sense to me.”
“By adopting the same immigration strategy as Europe, the U.S. would become less hospitable to Jews in general, and only Trump opposes the open flow of migrants from Syria into the U.S.”
Loren Feldman told Tablet: “We are united in our fight against black lives matter the far left and radical Islam which are far bigger problems for both Jews and white nationalists.”
For some supporters of Trump, anti-Trump Jewish conservatives are guilty of a bevy of other, even weightier betrayals. “I can’t speak for others,” Kevin MacDonald, editor of the white nationalist Occidental Observer wrote via email when asked about Trump supporters’ antipathy towards Jewish conservatives. “But historically Jewish neocons have not been true conservatives, and their main interest has been to support Israel.” MacDonald, who accuses “Jewish neocons” of working towards “the demographic transformation of the US (sic) via immigration,” detects among some right-wingers “a general attitude that these people are faux conservatives at best—hostility motivated by the feeling that these Jewish conservatives are hypocrites and Jewish ethnonationalists parading as principled, limited government conservatives for an American audience.”
Tablet: “The identity politics of the “alt-right” understand the American polity and the broader world through narrow criteria of racial and national allegiance.”
Unlike Judaism, of course, where allegiances of peoplehood hold no sway.
It’s a bit rich when an identifying Jew such as this author dismisses the Alt-Right as seeing the world “through narrow criteria of racial and national allegiance.” Has he ever heard of the expressions, “But is it good for the Jews?”, or, “What have they done for Israel?”
For instance, the now-familiar slur “cuckservative” is specifically a dig at the deficient masculinity of American conservative men who oppose the alt-right. It’s not that these critics disagree with, say, mass deportations or punitive import taxes on China: They all know Trump’s right; they’re just not man enough to actually back him.
A cuckservative is a non-Jewish white who is not racially aware. Jews cannot be cucks because identifying Jews are racially aware of their distinctiveness as Jews, a people who dwell apart.
Why does Armin Rosen throw in an unnecessary “sic” into Kevin MacDonald’s quote? To status signal that he is superior. Sad!
Now, reader Passerby forwards a study (with commentary) which provides evidence of a deeply rooted, evolved sex-based psychological underpinning for women’s generally higher rate of enthusiasm for welcoming the mud world onto historically White shores.
Circle of Friends (women) or Members of a Group (men)? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups
In two studies, findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group’s importance to her. In contrast, men’s ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e.attached to the group identity).
Men perceive the bigger picture. Women primarily perceive their feelz. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing… until the scope of women’s influence extends beyond their immediate childcare-recruiting social group to the scale of a nation, with all that entails (e.g., border control).
One interesting consequence of women’s lack of interest in a group’s collective identity is that it may lead to important sex differences in group-related outcomes. For example, if women value a group based only on their attachment to individual members of that group, then their group membership may be less stable than men’s. Prentice et al. (1994) suggest that groups with strong common identity attachments may last longer because their existence is less contingent on good relations between current group members. It is possible that this extends to individual group membership as well. The importance that men place on a group’s identity may result in greater longevity and stability in the face of changing group membership. If common bonds dissolve, men may remain in a group for its sense of common identity, whereas the group would lose all value for women.
What is the practical meaning of this? Women care mostly about close people, their “circle” , and not about larger groups based on common identity. If her lover is from another group, then she will (most likely) no longer care about her original group (her ethnicity).
Women are more trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity. In contrast, men are less trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity.
Among children and adolescents, female play-groups tend to emphasize interpersonal interactions (relatives, friends), while male play-groups emphasize teams and large groups (tribes).
Basically, women are loyal only to close people who directly benefit them. Men, in comparison, are also loyal to people with common identity (their own tribe).
Loyalty is a mostly alien concept to women. They JUST DON’T GET IT.
Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country.
Mutter Merkel is a childless spinster. That alone should have disqualified her from running a country.
This could also be observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, took more refugees per capita than anyone else. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.
Like I’ve written before, feminization of culture and politics can be beneficial to the stability of a nation when it’s exploited during high T times to mitigate the worst excesses of rugged, expansionist, lassez faire, free-for-all masculinity. But those times are rare and brief. When societal feminization hits an inflection point of weepy vaginatude, and establishes itself deep into every institution’s nook and cranny, the result is Death of the Nation… invasion by migrant foreigners, gibsmedats are far as the eye can see, and glorification of the feminine vices at the expense of the masculine virtues.
The results of this study are interesting in that they somewhat contradict tangential studies of the online dating market which have found that women, especially White women, prefer to date same-race men. In fact, White women, if those OKCupid data analyses are to be believed, are the most racist group of prospective daters.
Maybe these conflicting findings can be reconciled by understanding that online dating market environments like OKCupid are evolutionarily atypical, aridly calculating simulacra of the real world contexts in which women sift through potential mates. Online, women have to fill in profile information explicitly asking for mate preferences, but in the hustle and bustle of the meat market women are buffeted by an extraordinary array of male mate value signals (Game) that affect their choices.
Online, a White woman, given time to mull it over in her head, will state a preference for White men, but offline (aka 99.99999999999999% of the time in which human interaction evolved) her choices will be susceptible to the frothy currents of social spindrift, and in that environment she’ll choose whichever intimate relations — native or migrant — best satisfy her immediate needs.
PS Women’s differently evolved group cohesion strategy partly explains why White wives vote more like their Republican husbands than like their Democrat single lady friends. Once married, a woman’s husband is her MOST INTIMATE relation, which means she will adopt her husband’s views as her own as her prime feminine directive subconsciously instructs her to do.
Posted inDiversity|Comments Off on Male Vs Female Forms of Group Cohesion
"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)
