Meanwhile In Africa…

CJmr6SIUEAA1DYb

Source.

Posted in Africa | Comments Off on Meanwhile In Africa…

Steve Sailer: Immigrationism As Spite

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* “For the time being, however, a traveler through the South can’t help but notice that its affluent, suburban whites remain myopic about the obvious signs, like the multiracial families to be seen among Walmart shoppers on any given day in any shopping mall.”

Remain myopic about the obvious signs? So on the one hand they’re not noticing, and on the other hand they’re overreacting?

The South is much more integrated than the rest of the country, and supposed “urban/suburban” divide is much less pronounced (or even existent) that in the Northeast. Southerners do not reflexively assume that urban planning and development patterns will somehow take care of everything — they live, work, and school together more than any region in the country. So one would do well to listen to their well-reasoned concerns on this issue.

One hears this exchange figuratively a lot these days:

Person who wants to talk about immigration policy and border: “We’ve got to get this under control. They’re overwhelming us.”

Response: “How foolish of you to bring that up. Don’t you know they’re overwhelming you?”

* Mr. Raines makes the equally bold assumption that Latinos and Asians will have the same deep affection and sympathy for Nice White Liberals, such as Howell Raines, that he does.

Or they might bring their own vibrantly diverse ideas to the table, very much not aligned with Howell’s naive notions of what is good and proper. As voters, they might politely ignore Nice Liberal Leaders’ pronouncements that We’re Different From The Bad Whites and You Can Trust Us!

* Mr. Raines needs to re-familiarize himself with that Minnesota district where those wonderful Somalis who are a part of that wonderful Democratic coalition which was so far beyond those old tired categories like race and ethnicity (unlike those horrible Republicans) decided after they got the numbers that, come to think of it, they actually would prefer Somalis to run things instead of the white Democratic managerial class.

Demographics is destiny and all.

* Howell Raines, the self proclaimed “anti-racist” former editor of the NYT who hired, promoted, groomed a black reporter because he was black in a plan to replace white reporters with black ones did not get him good reporting or job security is now cackling in the NYT about how wonderful it will be replacing white people in the south with minorities.

Once again showing that the answer anti-racists have when they fail is not to rethink their ideas but just go bigger.

* ‘Demography is destiny’ is recognized by this liberal as being a fact and yet there’s masses of people who pretend that it isn’t so or that it isn’t happening. He’s very clear-eyed in this respect and is celebrating the demise of his own extended but estranged family just out of sheer hatred.

* Africans themselves lack sympathy for Africans. There’s little “juice”, and much bad blood, between African immigrants and the native black population. Somalis in particular have become adept at steering their kids away from local black culture. They prefer to settle in white cities, and those who went to Atlanta quickly learned their mistake.

* I don’t understand this kind of short-sightness about one’s country so I have to assume that human populations do commonly let themselves become overrun by other cultures. Perhaps we are wrong to presume historical homelands are permanent entities. (see Palestinians for example).

It is painful to see this great American civilization slowing being degraded by unchecked immigration-both legal and illegal.

Also, the more one thinks about it, perhaps the vast illegal immigration across the border is more a symptom of America’s decline, rather than the cause of it. Fever does not cause Malaria. Perhaps the cause of America’s decline is the catastrophic demographic collapse of the White population caused by high industrialization and urbanization. Maybe the seeds of America’s decline were planted in earlier eras when people started getting married later and later, and having less and less children. Also, I continue to be horrified at how White American feminists add to America’s demographic death with their efforts to suppress marriage and child birth as much as possible.

The United Arab Emirates now has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, lower than Denmark and Finland. See what happens to even a conservative formerly primitive people once they urbanize and attain wealth? The mestizos from Mexico are peasants, or children of peasants , and yes they really are “vibrant”. They are incredibly hardy and skilled, not afraid to do back- breaking physical jobs, not afraid to get married early, not afraid to have children while still young. It is not a coincidence that the Amish population is growing fast, as are the Hasidic Jews. Both folks have it right.. participating in an industrial society with it’s extreme materialistic mores is harmful to human life. Even African Americans are managing to keep their portion of the American population steady. Non black immigrants have kept coming for generations but the black American population remains 12%, why. (Hint: they don’t participate much in the private corporate industrial economy either).

Raines is a cheerleader for America’s decline. Trump is fighting to keep the America he remembers growing up in. ( I do hate the way he calls Mexicans rapists and child molesters).

Surely there are some in the elite that have the foresight to implant policies that curtails immigration drastically. Surely.

In the end though, it is up to the American people to have an anti-materialistic, pro-family cultural revolution to mitigate the harmful effects of wealth and industry.

You good folks need a messiah of some kind.

* Was Jim Crow about controlling the black population (the Medicaid population largely) or encouraging it to leave, which it did in large numbers after WW1? Was Northern support for the civil rights act about improving the condition of blacks in the South so they would feel free to return or, at the very least, feel less pressure to move North? If you’ve got a deadbeat living in your house do you want to make it easier for him to stay?

* By analogy, the recent spate of episodes of unpunished misconduct–Lerner at the IRS, the Rolling Stone chick, Hillary, and others–all involve FEMALES who are being excused from accountability because they are “merely” exemplifying archetypical modes of feminine vice: i.e., the tendency to manipulate others, credulousness, fierce long-held grievances, a calculated show of “helplessness” (examples abound in Greek tragedy).

It occurs to me that this may be the architecture for a new ethic of unaccountability, useful to a new dominant group: “girls will be girls.” The fact that it’s a resentful inversion of the old “boys” excuse only makes it more in keeping with the left’s lust for payback.

* Off Topic, but the Seattle Times ran a column today about teenage employment. I tried Steve’s ctrl-F trick, and sure enough, not one mention of “immi”gration. Here’s the headline:

Now scarcer, jobs for teens still mean more than money. Fifteen years of economic turbulence has profoundly changed opportunities for young workers.

A lot of these employment mention automation. But never immigration, and never the trade balance. It’s almost like the media has agreed to keep quiet about some things.

Posted in Blacks, Immigration | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Immigrationism As Spite

Chapter Jackson – It’s Free Swipe Yo EBT (Explicit)

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Chapter Jackson – It’s Free Swipe Yo EBT (Explicit)

Atticus Finch (To Kill A Mockingbird) Turns Out To Be A Racist

Commments to Steve Sailer:

* Eh, call me unsurprised.

I consider myself a close reader of TKAM, re-reading it every few years from age 12 to 48. It’s one of my favorite novels, and reading it is like visiting old friends with their familiar stories.

Am I shocked that Atticus would attend a klan meeting? Only because it would be beneath him for reasons of class. Atticus is commonly portrayed as against the system, but Harper Lee is at pains me to present him as the embodiment of the system. In that era, that included the klan.

His supposed anti-racism that everyone remembers now is again, more of a class signifier. In the book, Atticus was completely respectful of the virulent racist Mrs. Dubose. This is not an insignificant detail – the whole Mrs. Dubose chapter was a break in the narrative of the story in TKAM. For Harper Lee to include it meant that she was important in her childhood, racism and all.

So, no, the Atticus that we think we all know may not be quite the same as the one in Haroer Lee’s imagination.

* There’s a well known story that on one of the FBI tapes of one of MLK’s frequent hotel orgies, he can be be heard shouting to fellow activist Ralph Abernathy “”Come on over here, you big black mother****er, and let me suck your d***.”

IIRC, one of his pals or biographers corroborated the story, but said King was “just joking around.” But there have long been rumors that King swung both ways. The infamous Ron Paul Report accused him of it, for one. (I think RPR even accused him of statutory rape of both girls and boys.)

If it’s true, I wonder if that’s one of the main reasons the files/tapes are sealed until 2027, and if so, will they allow them to be unsealed early, since in today’s environment, being bisexual would only add to King’s luster. Of course, if the underage stuff is true, there’s no way they’ll be released early, as that’s still a no-no.

* There is something cosmically fitting about the fact that the day the SJW bullies and their mainstream liberal media leash-holders finally got the Stars & Bars removed from the grounds of the South Carolina capital, it turns out that one of the most gilded, mythical Saints of Phony White Guilt literature – Atticus Finch – is unmasked as a man who would have been proud to Take His Stand underneath that very banner in the To Kill a Mockingbird sequel. And apparently (I, of course, haven’t read it yet; just going by the agonized Lefty reviews), does.

The SJW meltdown on Twitter is palpable as raw, scrolling rage and agonized bewilderment – “but, but, but…I named my child ‘Atticus’! WTF!?!”

As a longtime admirer – like, since 1978 or so, as a kid – of the story and prose found in To Kill a Mockingbird, I have never doubted the lyricism of the novel, and do not now. It’s a great book – I endorse reading it, one & all. It is also the most powerful Phony White Guilt fiction text of the 20th century: sort of like “Job” meets the tale of Potiphar’s Wife in early Twentieth Century America, with Atticus Finch playing the role of a judicious, wise Solomon, ultimately thwarted by indifferent (Roman; Pontius Pilate) powers beyond his control. The book’s Biblical themes are palpable.

Thus the current SJW befuddlement and rage: it is as if a devout Christian (such as myself) was told that the Psalms – a constant source of comfort and reassurance – had a recently uncovered sequel, and in it Saul’s Ghost – in SJW terms: Bob Ewell’s Shade – was given Divine Voice to repudiate the Sacred text that had come before.

Harper Lee never wanted this sequel published: we now know why. Harper Lee’s declining health and mental capacity has likely led to a situation where she has been, for all practical purposes, removed from the Decision Loop regarding a novel she never wanted to see the light of day in her younger, more cognizant years.

* Atticus Finch was a member of the Alabama state legislature (this is mentioned towards the beginning of the novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird” – I think the movie skipped over that detail), a Southern Democrat. The mere fact he didn’t believe an innocent [Black] man should go to prison for a crime he didn’t commit, doesn’t remotely contradict the fact that, had he been a real person in the 1930s as he was portrayed, that is is quite likely he would have remained a segregationist during the 1960s. I find this a refreshingly realistic portrayal. Hell, I might even read it.

* The trouble is that readers have turned Finch into a god, when Lee simply meant to portray him as a man. He was a professional lawyer who defended a client (who happened to be innocent). He also believed in separate but equal. The two are not incompatible.

* I was a student on a 20% Jewish American campus when the film [The Passion] came out, and that was the year I became really “identitarian” with respect to my race and religion. Before that I had never quite experienced what it was like for Christianity to be attacked qua Christianity and to be condescendingly told that my religion as I understood it was unfit for the civic sphere. Since that time and with a very few but notable exceptions I have sought out, almost exclusively, other white Christians/Catholics for friendship.

* To Kill a Mockingbird was very heavily fictionalized account of Harper Lee’s real lawyer and journalist father. It was written and rewritten to suit the left-wing New York literary tastes of the times.

In reality Harper Lee’s lawyer father was assigned the defense a black father and son who were tried, found guilty and executed(hanged) by the state of Alabama for the murder of a store owner. I could not find evidence of a lynching but there was the possibility of post execution mutilation of the bodies. This caused a great strain on the Lee family with Harper Lee’s mother having mental health problems for the rest of her life. She died when Harper Lee was 25.

Harper Lee’s father left the law and became a small time Journalist. In the later matter of a rape case, where the evidence was conflicted, and both the black rapist , an ex-con, and the white victim were believed to have serious mental health and cognitive issues, Mr Lee argued that capital punishment was too harsh a penalty for the crime. His argument carried the day. There was no serious threat of lynching.

Harper Lee had a interesting and at times courageous father. He was not a saint or a staunch champion of southern blacks. He seems to have been a realist and not a Hollywood left-wing icon by any means.

* Of course Atticus Finch would have held racist views in the 1950s and 60s. He was a white Southern man who was the product of his era. There is nothing inconsistent with such a man standing firmly for the rule of law and against deranged mob justice.

This is what is so infuriating about the SJW crusade: it reduces human beings to a one-dimensional series of political views. I was going to ignore this book, but I might actually read it now because it sounds like the reason Harper Lee kept it under wraps was not that she thought it was bad — it’s because she feared, correctly, that a lot of people wouldn’t be able to handle the cognitive dissonance of seeing Atticus as a realistic, three-dimensional human being with the normal human complement of great gifts and great flaws.

The liberal meltdown over a racist Atticus Finch sounds like a society-wide version of the internal crisis that every bright, sensitive young white Southerner goes through when they are finally introduced to a more complete history of their region, and they learn how many very good and honorable people were also guilty of saying and doing some very bad things — in fact, it sounds like this book is about Scout undergoing this very process. This new Atticus Finch actually sounds a lot like my grandfather, who had much the same mixture of great warmth, sage wisdom, earnest liberalism, and retrograde racial views. For years, I have found it impossible to communicate to non-Southerners how it was conceivable that all of these qualities might exist in the same person. Maybe now they’ll get it.

* This is pretty significant for a couple of reasons.

1) Atticus Finch is basically the Jesus of SJW. All those old Hollywood race movies were sermons with a SWP (shiny white person) as the hero vs the SFRs (sweaty fat racists).

(Watch the movies the bad people are always sweating and the SWP is always lit like they have a halo.)

It’s not the book that’s a big deal it’s the movie with Gregory Peck playing the archetypal shiny white person.

Half the SJWs in the world were converted to SJWism while watching that movie / sermon.

2) Allowing the Jesus/Buddha/Mohamed of SJWism to be torn down like this is an example of the argument over that google doodle. PC first mandated that non-white cannot be associated with anything negative but is now moving into the phase of mandating that nothing positive can be associated with whiteness.

No more shiny white people allowed.

Posted in Blacks, Race, Whites | Comments Off on Atticus Finch (To Kill A Mockingbird) Turns Out To Be A Racist

Ellen Pao Steps Down From Reddit

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* There is a big problem with Reddit, its far deeper than Pao, perhaps Steve can give us his two cents based on his marketing expertise.

Reddit made last year a laughable 8.3 million in ad revenues according to Tech Crunch. For an organization that is among the top ten most trafficked sites. Alexa rates at #10 in the US and #33 globally.

The FT and LAT have both reported on the miserable ad revenue; the problem reading through the lines is advertisers don’t like it because its too male (and pale and stale too I suppose) and therefore un-PC. That advertisers flee like vampires from sunlight from anything that might make any female consumers upset.

Steve, was it your experience that most advertisers believed (at any rate) that women made or influenced 87% of purchases? I’ve seen that figure thrown around.

The Gawker click-bait listicle is very carefully constructed, to not offend female consumers. Its always “Seven Reasons to Ban The American Flag for RACISM!” never “Ten Signs You are Stupid Drunken Slut!” Its “controversial” to drive traffic and thus views, don’t know how long that will generate actual advertiser payments.

Yeah Pao failed miserably, because she could not see the real value of Reddit — the comments as a meta-review system. For pretty much everything. That has value. Advertising? I would not call 8.3 million much revenue compared to traffic.

I do think there is real value in information about things. Like, which subway trains to avoid on account of extra, added vibrancy culturally enriching people. That’s worth any amount of money.

* At the Kleiner trial, it came out that Pao had been horrible to all the other women there – she never gave another woman a good performance review. Meanwhile she slept with a male partner to ingratiate herself – she was literally a whore. For her, it was not sufficient for her to succeed – all other women had to fail.

Why does the Left keep picking these dubious champions? She is the Chinese equivalent of Trayvon Martin except her behaviors are stereotypically Chinese bad instead of black bad.

* The whole Reddit-Pao kerfuffle is nothing more than a passionate online community being sold out to a bunch of suits who are fucking things up in their quest for monetization. It’s basically Slashdot all over again.

* Everyone in the NY Times article fails to notice the /u/chooter is a woman, yet the horrible cismale users of Reddit shut the site down in support of her.

* Pao wasn’t a fighter of sexism – that was just MSM agit-prop for the proles, she was simply the product of a stupid Chinese tiger mom, the sort of parent who focuses on getting good grades to the exclusion of all else. In the end she raised a very bright female who is by all accounts nothing but socially and emotionally stunted child in a woman’s body.

* [NYT reporters] Isaac and Streitenfeld. What’s with all the Jewish guys pushing the anti-male feminist agenda? I guess it’s inextricably linked to the larger Progressive agenda for a lot of people.

* Pao and Buddy illustrate why discrimination lawsuits are not that common: your suit is a matter of public record, and nobody will ever hire you again.

Buddy’s suit settled in arbitration in 1991, and then he started his own company. Pao is a really rare exception in that reddit hired her after her lawsuit. But she was a pretty high-profile hire for a site that has never been able to monetize its user base.

Discrimination suits are very, very hard to win absent some hard-core sexual harassment and sex-or-your-job type demands, which nervous employers with deep pockets have been taking great pains to stamp out for a long time.

Pao’s suit was in state court in San Francisco. Only SF city residents, 88% Obama voters, were on the jury pool. But every member of the jury still voted for the rich techie white guys, despite the resentment a lot of city residents feel for rich white techies.

* Importing new cognitive elites has its drawbacks : many if not most Chinese combine Asian IQ with black ethics. What could possibly go wrong?

* It’s probably a lot easier to monetize a clueless woman college graduate’s web traffic than some mildly OCD techie guy with adblock and noscript installed posting through a VPN.

* There oughtta be a Babelfish-style web tool for this– you put in a linked NY Times article and you get back a factual description of the news event, using words that accurately convey what happened. This story would be entitled, “Floundering Interim CEO of Geek Forum Site Fired After No Progress Toward Profitability”

* The feminist mob is by far the most demoralizing component of the rainbow coalition (under control of said Jewish guys). Destroying feminism forever should be our first priority. Once that’s complete we’ll mop up the rest of the lot in a matter of weeks.

* Modern secular Jewish culture is pretty well tied to the left, in all its forms from center-left to Communism back when it actually existed as a force. The few that went right turned into neocons, with all the problems you know about. (well, they thought they went right…they did decide they didn’t like Communism, and then when that died went looking for another enemy)

It’s often said Jewish culture values women, but they weren’t allowed to study Torah or Talmud in the old days. My personal opinion, and you can value it as much as you want, is that like most things, it’s complex.

1. Diaspora Jews [note the Israelis went the other way] valued the intellect over the body, and bred for verbal intelligence. Since women usually have higher verbal intelligence than men, this meant you had a large population of women who were able to convince themselves housework was oppression. It’s also quite possible being a housewife and mother, while lots of work and vitally important, is boring to someone with an IQ of 110 or so, and Jews naturally had quite a few of those. Smart guys without muscles tend not to be attractive to women, and also tend to get pushed around by them, or think feminism is a good way to ingratiate yourself to women.

2. You’re not going to like this, but all the bad blood against the Jews historically came from the right. (I am well aware of the GOP’s Israel worship, but this is a recent development.) So…Jews tend to be on the left and many, many more of the ones *involved in politics* tend to be on the left ( at least in part because of the urban-rural and Northern-Southern splits…how many rural Jews from Alabama are there? the few Jewish republicans who went to Congress, like Eric Cantor and Lee Zeldin, tended to be from suburbs of big blue cities). If you’re on the left, you’re surrounded by people who believe feminism is a good thing.

3. Cultural Marxist plot to destroy Western Civ. Basically, feminism destroys traditional gender roles and allows white culture to be weakened.

* The purpose of leftist propaganda is not to misinform, but to humiliate. The more dubious the champion, the greater the humiliation for those that have been told to accept him or her.

* I get the sense that Ellen Pao is a transgender, a gay man in a woman’s body-which might explain why her gay husband was attracted to her to begin with.

A straight woman would not marry a gay guy. A gay guy marries a gay guy. She is a gay man in a woman’s body. As such she hates her woman body and other women.

* Sexual harassment lawsuits tend to be nuisance type lawsuits in that they are never meant to go to trial. The employer is given a choice to either settle or fight a very public and protracted (expensive) battle. Once the employer decides he is not going to pay off that f*&$%#$@ C&^% is when the fun starts. If Pao was a SJW type then it would not matter because she would be operating out of spite or a sense of morality but it is clear that she is a whore so for her the fact that it went to trial meant that she really had already lost. she was just playing out her hand.

* Silicon Valley has a “problem with…ethnic diversity”. The Israeli General Staff has a “problem” with ethnic diversity, too: No Arab Israelis. Wait: The NYT doesn’t mention this particular “problem”. Therefore, it is not a “problem”. You got that, stupid racist people?

* A big piece of the puzzle is Jewish patriarchy, which is still fundamental Jewish law. The female role in traditional Judaism is extremely confined and restricted.

One can understand the bone-deep rage that enlightened Jewish feminists like Shulamith Firestone felt, living in an open Western culture yet being expected to wear the burkah (or sheitel, in her case). What woman wants to be conditioned to see herself as an evil temptress who leads men away from God with her essential and uncontrollable carnal powers?

One problem, however. A specific attack on Jewish patriarchy would create negative goy attention for Jews as a group. So Firestone spent her entire life working out all her Jewish daddy issues by projecting them on Western society at large as “feminism”.

It has been over 200 years and the Haskala is still tearing at the Jewish psyche … and us, too.

* New York Times’ Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

The world is still adjusting to the idea of instant news on the Internet and the ability to easily change and rewrite history in many ways. The Internet has, for better or worse, completely changed the way reporting can be done with a very simple tool: the ability to update pieces after launch. This has many upsides as it means new information can be added to easily augment or complete stories to provide more information to readers and keeping pieces timely. However, there is a hefty potential downside, where sites can cover up and completely rewrite stories without any informing, correcting major errors without comment or just flat out change the story they’re covering.
The New York Times is most recently guilty of this as a NewsDiff’s comparison of their story on Ellen Pao’s resignation shows. The original story was written by Mike Isaac who titled it “Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief” and presented a relatively neutral and information driven piece on the situation as a business technologies writer. That story, though, is not what you’d find if you went to the New York Times now, because nearly all of it was rewritten by David Streitfeld with reporting by Vindu Goel in San Francisco and published on the front page. It is titled “It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit” and is much more of an opinion heavy piece compared to the previous one.
The differences are astounding, as anyone who viewed the original article would return and find it replaced with a wholly other story dealing primarily with sexism around Reddit and how Ellen Pao was a “hero to many.”

* Rise in racist activity seen on social networks

After a long legal battle between Twitter and the French Union of Jewish Students (UEJF) backed by anti-racism groups, Twitter revealed to prosecutors the identity of the person who posted the hashtag: Gregory P., who faced court in January 2014 on charges of incitement of the people – the first person ever to be charged in France for hate speech via Twitter. The #UnBonJuif hashtag has not disappeared, however. In fact, it has trended again recently. Many of the hashtag’s users say it’s a question of their right to humor and freedom of speech and deny any anti-Semitic or racist intentions.

* I won’t pay money to lose customers, who would be rightly outraged to find my advertisement supporting a page called “CoonTown: Big List of Nigger Facts,” on which this posting is typical:

FUCK niggers.
FUCK kikes.
Fuck faggots.
FUCK trannys

A very large share of the content on reddit is evil filth like this.

* In historical Europe, the Right, defined as pro-core and and anti-fringe, had to be anti-Jewish by definition, just as the Jews, as a fringe group that wanted to remain a fringe group*, belonged naturally in the Left. That’s just how group dynamics works out, and we still see its legacy today.

(* Jews who didn’t want to be outsiders in a foreign land had plenty of opportunities to convert and blend into the host population, and a few did. Of course, that means they ceased to be Jewish, and left behind a Jewish population even more ardent about its fringe identity.)

Of course, the Republican Party is very pro Jewish these days. Incidentally, it is also not very pro-core. Its pro-white Christian lip service doesn’t rise above dog whistling and the slavish reference to “Judeo-Christian values,” while the paramount need to appeal to the “Hispanic votes” is touted ad nauseum.

Arguably, a new core is being formed, with the tiny Jewish minority at its very center. The question now is what kind partner it wants to make up the rest of that core — the now humbled mostly white former core or the ascendant rainbow coalition of former fringes. There seems to be a disagreement about this within the Jewish community, but it’s in the enviable position of having two suiters and no real enemy. As a result, Jewish sensibility is now clearly reflected in the public discourse and zealously enforced taboos.

* Anti-semitism tends to be a right thing, rather than a left thing. It should be noted that when you say “historically”, that really only goes back to the 18th century. As someone (I forget who) said, it makes no sense to talk about reactionary politics before the enlightenment, because prior to that, that was the only kind there was. That aphorism isn’t completely true, but mostly so.

However, was it the case that Jews gravitated to the left because rightists tended to dislike them, or that that rightists tended to dislike Jews because Jews tended to gravitate to the left? A lot of the jewish outlook seems to involve an implicit criticism, and even overt action, against traditional (Christian) society. Certainly you can see where rightists might take offense at that and consider it to be an attack on them and their culture.

* “Arianna Huffington married Michael Huffington, she knew he was gay
at the time of their marriage. She married a gay millionaire, not a gay plumber.”

And Huffington kept her married name too, even after she pulled the plug on her sham marriage. By that time she was a confidant of Newt Gingrich and a person of some influence in American political circles, so she had gotten out of Huffington what she needed – a name and a grub-steak.

To understand the motivations of women like Pao and Huffington, it helps to keep in mind that they do what they do because they are gold-digging harpies.

* I’ve worked with a couple of journalism school graduate who got their degrees around that time but were still conservatives, so instead of working at someplace like the Times, they were working in business as PR, advertising or marketing communications managers.
They told me that the J schools still do a great job of teaching the basic tools; spelling, grammar, writing style, research and interview techniques, etc, but the message the professors hammer home is that as journalists they are agents of “Progress”. The message, both overt and subliminal in that their goal is to serve truth, and truth is the idelaized society, therefore whatever they do to correct ancient evils and make the universe better serves the truth. Therefore you see the editorializing and selective presentation of facts that are now universal in the MSM.
Unfortunately the few conservatives who are left in the trade self select themselves into business leaving the true believers to end up running the university journalism departments and large media.

* The people who write for the New York Times, believe (or claim to believe) that a 119-pound nerdling who’s never had a girlfriend, and yet still prefers playing first-person-shooter games to sucking cock, is some kind of ultra-macho, manly man. Its embarrassing to read such nonsense, but that’s what they’re saying there.

These people are essentially claiming that anyone who is neither female nor homosexual, is a engaged in “toxic masculinity.” It would be an insulting slander, if it weren’t so stupid to be of no consequence. Basically, if you’re not taking dick, you are scum. That’s what they’re saying.

* What unifies progressive thought across its critiques of race, sex and homosexuality is its Utopian assumption of a natural, just order that would exist but for white cis-males and their crimes, and that this world wouldn’t differ significantly in technological advancement, political and individual rights, etc from the world we live in.

The problem always with the idea of “white privilege” or “supremacy” is that it gives no value to the transcendent contributions, to the invention of the modern world, for the creation of the very values the progressives invoke when condemning it. This used to at least be implied in the national debate; no more. The Democrats are now a very scary alliance of people too stupid to see the contradiction and people too corrupt to to care about it.

Posted in Feminism, Internet | Comments Off on Ellen Pao Steps Down From Reddit

Homosexuals Throw Human Excrement At Christians, And Wipe Their Anuses With Pages Of The Bible

Blog: When up to a thousand conservative Christian parents in Germany were protesting against a new pro-homosexual “sexual diversity” curriculum in their schools, homosexuals charged at them and thew human excrement at the Christians. They also ripped pages of the Bible, wiped their anuses with the pages, crumpled them up and threw them at the Christians.

What makes these sodomites so different than Muslims who defecate in churches? The answer is nothing.

According to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians:

“They were spit at, eggs were thrown, and little bags with feces or color. Cables of loud speakers were torn out …Pages were ripped out of the bible and used to wipe backsides, then formed into a ball and thrown at the parents. …Christians were deeply hurt in this process. At least one banner was snatched and destroyed in front of the eyes of the parents. Marshals were target[ed] with pepper sprays. Shouting by counter-demonstrator[s] made the planned public speaking partly impossible.”

The police, instead of bringing order, came and took the side of the sodomites, telling the Christian protesters to leave.

Posted in Christianity, Homosexuality | Comments Off on Homosexuals Throw Human Excrement At Christians, And Wipe Their Anuses With Pages Of The Bible

Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me!

* I was listening to an NPR word play game this morning. The caller was a Computer Science major, Religion minor who liked to solve word problems in his head during the sermon.

* “brown eyes” — I wonder if the NYPD could have added anything else to the rapist’s description? Perhaps that he is black?

Paul Ciotti: “It’s incredible that the police would have so much chutzpah as to describe his clothes, his shoes, his hairstyle, his age, height and weight but somehow forget his race. Would someone actually complain if the police said he was black? It’s official like this that is causing thousands in Arizona to go see Donald Trump. He’s saying what everyone knows. Illegal immigration is causing huge problems for America with few benefits (at least none that legal immigrants can’t provide).”

* Shouldn’t we get rid of rape laws since there is disparate impact?

* My Persian friend says we should learn two things from Mexicans — to work hard and to always be happy.

* My heart loves a mexican girl but my mind says, no way Jose!

Miriam Lilian D Or Take solace in the fact, that she’s somewhere in the barrio saying “my heart loves Luke, but ay ay ay no can’t do dat”

Damon Williams Luke needs the Rosetta Stone and an open heart… Luke, have you ever thought of becoming a bullfighter? I think you’d be quite the matador and the ladies would worship you.

Daniel de Porto Luke doesn’t fight bull. He produces it.

* You rarely hear the term “good American” anymore.

* “When the goyim get organized, it’s always bad for Jews.” Please discuss.

Cristian Bökös: BS!!! WASP goyim organized themselves brilliantly and created the best environment in the history of mankind where Jews have thrived much more than anywhere else in recorded history.America is the best place Jews have ever lived.

Posted in Blacks, Rape | Comments Off on Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me!

Many Marijuana Dispensaries With Mezuzot On The Door?

This smoke shop on La Cienega Blvd in 90035 appears to have a mezuzah on the door. How many smoke shops, marijuana dispensaries, massage parlors, whorehouses, porn studios, have mezuzot? I think it is wonderful that even when Jews are sinning, they never forget they are Jews.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Many Marijuana Dispensaries With Mezuzot On The Door?

Jews & Media

I’ve been talking to my Jewish friends about whether or not it is fair to say that “Jews control the media.”

My Orthodox Jewish friends say it is essentially true but we should not say that out loud in mixed company because that would be bad for the Jews.

They loathe the left-wing tilt of the Jewish controlled media and that they would prefer traditional Christians or any group of non-leftists ran the media.

When I think about taking on a belief such as “Jews control the media,” I immediately try to think of examples of how my belief could be falsified. So how about this test? What is shown on television, in major movies, and in major newspapers and magazines that is bad for Jews?

It seems that Jews have disproportionate influence in the media and that we should say that out loud and then monitor ourselves to make sure we use this power for good and we should welcome critiques and criticism and shaming for our failures when it is accurate.

Jews don’t have to constitute every major powerbroker to control the media, just as South Africa’s whites ran South Africa, even when they were less than 20% of the total population. So too Jews, who may well constitute less than 20% of the important players in the media, can dominate the media with their superior wealth, intelligence, industry, cohesion and skill (in a similar way to the tiny portion of South Africa that was white and still ran the country).

The British ruled much of the world between the 18th and 20th Centuries even though they were a tiny portion of the world’s population, but they knew how to use their resources to run things that were important to them.

According to Google: “Tsimtsum was a concept first taught by Isaac Luria, a kabbalist rabbi, who posited that God vacated a region within himself in order to create the world.” Perhaps we Jews should imitate God in this respect? Perhaps we should withdraw into the Torah Corral and let the goyim run their own media?

Joel Stein wrote for the Los Angeles Times Dec. 19, 2008:

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.

So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”

I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country.”

That’s a sinister canard, Foxman said. “It means they think Jews meet at Canter’s Deli on Friday mornings to decide what’s best for the Jews.” Foxman’s argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter’s more often.

“That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”

But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,” he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I’ve noticed, aren’t so big on circumcision.

I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Hollywood, Jews | Comments Off on Jews & Media

The greatest drug kingpin in history was an Orthodox Jew who attributed his business success to his careful observance of Jewish law

According to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry on David Sassoon: “his business, which included a monopoly of the opium-trade, extended as far as Yokohama, Nagasaki, and other cities in Japan. Sassoon attributed his great success to the employment of his sons as his agents and to his strict observance of the law of tithe.”

220px-david_sassoon_and_sons

sassoon

Fortune magazine 1930s

According to Wikipedia:

When the Treaty of Nanking opened up China to British traders, Sassoon developed his textile operations into a profitable triangular trade: Indian yarn and opium were carried to China, where he bought goods which were sold in Britain, from where he obtained Lancashire cotton products. He sent his son Elias David Sassoon to Canton, where he was the first Jewish trader (with 24 Parsi rivals). In 1845 David Sassoon & Sons opened an office in what would soon become Shanghai’s British concession, and it became the firm’s second hub of operations.

In 1844, he set up a branch in Hong Kong, and a year later, he set up his Shanghai branch on the Bund to cash in on the opium trade.

Haaretz Nov. 7, 2012:

2576501315

“In Jewish history books, David Sassoon, an observant Jew, is remembered mostly for his philanthropy.”

On November 7, 1864, businessman David Sassoon, founding father of the Sassoon business dynasty, died in Pune, India. The trading empire he created spanned the globe,  from what is now Mumbai on the western coast of India, via Shanghai and Hong Kong in China, all the way to London, England. It dominated world commerce in a number of commodities – most significantly opium – over the second half of the 19th century.
Sassoon was born in Baghdad in 1832 to Saleh Sassoon, a businessman and leader of that city’s Jewish community (the clan claimed descent from a Spanish family, the Ibn Shoshans). When David Sassoon, who like his father served as treasurer to the governors of Baghdad, clashed with one of them, Daud Pasha, he moved his family to Persia in 1826, and then to Bombay by 1832.
Sassoon initially owned a counting house and a carpet warehouse, but soon began trading in everything he could, including, most profitably, opium. When China’s emperor tried to outlaw the drug, which cut a wide swathe of destruction through the population of the country’s coastal regions, the British responded with war. The result was the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, which earned the United Kingdom a free hand in selling opium in China.
Sassoon established a triangle of trade, bringing Indian opium and cotton to China, where he received silver, tea and silk in exchange. He then carried these products to England for sale. Finished products from Britain, as well as cash, were then brought back to India where they were used to buy more opium. By the 1870s, David Sassoon had come to dominate the trade of opium to China, having pushed the British firm Jardine Matheson and the “Parsi” traders of Bombay out of the business.

Sassoon’s eights sons all went into one branch or another of the family’s business empire, with the Sassoon presence being felt in Hong Kong, Shanghai (where they became major players in the realm of real estate), and India (where they had their own textile mills), among many other lands. The vast Sassoon Docks of Bombay, built by Sassoon’s son Albert Abdullah, were the first wet docks in the west of India. 
In Jewish history books, David Sassoon, an observant Jew, is remembered mostly for his philanthropy, which included the construction of “Baghdadi” synagogues in Bombay (Magen David) and Pune (Ohel David), and also numerous schools and hospitals throughout India and other parts of Asia. David became a naturalized British citizen in 1853, although he continued to live in Pune.
His son Albert Abdullah moved to England, where he married into the Rothschild family and was elected to Parliament on the Conservative party’s ticket. Another son, Sassoon David Sassoon, was the father of Rachel Sassoon Beer, who became owner and editor of the Sunday Times at the turn of the century, and grandfather of the great poet of World War I, Siegfried Sassoon.

According to the 1944 Jewish Encyclopedia: “He employed only Jews in his business, and wherever he sent them, he built synagogues and schools for them. He imported whole families of fellow Jews…and put them to work.”

According to the 2003 book, Jews, Opium and the Kimono:

As British rule consolidated in India, there arose a greater need for employees to oversee their affairs. This need was a godsend for Bombay’s Babylonian Jews, who saw enormous financial potential in the opium trade. Transactions were discussed after prayers at the synagogues…
…it was his [David Sassoon’s] agents who set the prices for the various types of opium products…
The location of Shanghai, along the Whangpoo River, together with David Sassoon’s Jewish genius and foresight — were what made possible the passage of steamships into the Chinese hinterland, carrying valuable cargoes of opium…

Wealthy Jews, such as Silas Hardoon, who had made his money in the opium trade and subsequently moved into real estate and respectability, built fabulous mansions in the most prestigious parts of the city [Shanghai]…

Opium, that staple drug of the Chinese people, infuriated the Chinese intelligentsia, who waged a stubborn battle against its use… [The Society to Combat the Opium Trade’s]…demands faced the open hostility of British government officials in India who regarded the destruction of the opium fields as a hard blow to the country’s economy. These officials were joined by the opium traders of Calcutta and Bombay, most of them Jewish, who controlled two-thirds of the trade on the Calcutta exchange…

The Jews hated the rickshaw, which they considered immoral — forcing a man to do the work of a beast. (Pg. 44-46)

From Great Game India:

EIC [East India Company] trade as mentioned earlier was divided into many parts and a particular family owned a particular part. For example, the growing of opium and collecting taxes in India was owned by EIC and its paid officials or after 1837 by the British government itself. But the House of Sassoon’s handled the trading in opium and other goods in India. Thereafter, the House of Jardine and Matheson handled their distribution in China and the House of Inchapes handled the shipping of these goods. House of Openheimers/Rhodes handled the gold and diamond mining business. The American operations were handled by the House of Rockefellers, Seagrams, Sassoons, Japhets, Jardine – Mathesons etc. The Houses of Rothschilds and Warburgs coordinated the banking aspect of this trade. Apart from theses, Houses of Lloyds, Abes and Astors assisted these operations by insuring the business of EICs. Even today these houses control most of the MNCS we see. We do an in-depth study of Rothschilds and Rockefellers and at the end give a list of Indian MNCs, only to show how most of these belong to only one single group run by a single family which was associated with the EIC owners, by either business or marriage.

East India Companies had a unique managerial style. In any particular country, all trading, business and commerce was always handed over to one or at the most two business houses. They were given full control over a nation under consideration. From 1800 to 1947, the House of Sassoon controlled most of the trade within India: banking, trading, shipping, insurance etc., from their Mumbai headquarters. Most of them started moving out of India and to England from 1900. Wherever the MNCs were in operation, they followed the above rule. They developed local industrial/business house (India is a large nation so we may encounter multiplicity in case of India), through which they exploited the independent nations.

Christian missionaries allied with the opium traders in China, notes Julia Lovell in her excellent 2015 book, The Opium War: Drugs, Dreams, and the Making of Modern China:

The missionaries became natural allies of the smugglers: when they first arrived on the coast of China, they docked among opium traders on the island of Lintin; they interpreted for them in exchange for passages up the coast, distributing tracts while the drug was taken onshore; and in the Chinese Repository, Canton’s leading English-language publication, they shared a forum for spreading their views on the urgent need to open China, by whatever means necessary. By the 1830s, merchants and missionaries alike favoured violence. ‘[W]hen an opponent supports his argument with physical force, [the Chinese] can be crouching, gentle, and even kind’, observed Karl Gützlaff, a stout Pomeranian missionary who would, during the Opium War, lead the British military occupation of parts of eastern China, running armies of Chinese spies and collaborators. The slightest provocation would do. In 1831, traders had written to the government in India, demanding a fleet of warships to avenge the Chinese authorities’ partial demolition of a front garden that the British had illegally requisitioned…

Opium has been an extraordinary shape-shifter in both the countries that would fight a war in its name in the early 1840s. In Britain and China, it began as a foreign drug (Turkish and Indian, respectively) that was first naturalized during the nineteenth century, then – at the end of that same century – sternly repatriated as an alien poison. For most of the century, neither popular nor expert medical opinion could agree on anything concerning opium, beyond the fact that it relieved pain. Was it more or less harmful than alcohol? Did it bestialize its users? Did it make your lungs go black and crawl with opium-addicted maggots? No one could say for sure. ‘The disaster spread everywhere as the poison flowed into the hinterlands . . . Those fallen into this obsession will ever utterly waste themselves’, mourned one late-Qing smoker, Zhang Changjia, before observing a few pages on, ‘Truly, opium is something that the world cannot do without.’ The clichéd image of opium-smoking is of prostration and narcolepsy; to many (including Thomas de Quincey, who walked the London streets by night sustained by laudanum), it was a stimulant. China’s coolie masses would refresh their capacity for backbreaking labour with midday opium breaks. One reverend in the late-nineteenth century observed that such groups ‘literally live on the opium; it is their meat and drink’. Things were little different in the Victorian Fens: ‘A man who is setting about a hard job takes his [opium] pill as a preliminary,’ wrote one mid-century observer, ‘and many never take their beer without dropping a piece of opium into it’. To add to the confusion about opium’s effects, British commanders in China between 1840 and 1842 noticed that Qing soldiers often prepared themselves for battle by stoking themselves up on the drug: some it calmed; others it excited for the fight ahead; others again, it sent to sleep.

Even now, after far more than a century of modern medicine, much remains unknown about opium’s influence on the human constitution. Whether eaten, drunk or smoked, the drug’s basic effects are the same: its magic ingredient is morphine…

Opium began life in the Chinese empire as an import from the vaguely identified ‘Western regions’ (ancient Greece and Rome, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Persia and Afghanistan); the earliest Chinese reference (in a medical manual) occurs in the first half of the eighth century. Eaten or drunk, prepared in many different ways (ground, boiled, honeyed, infused, mixed with ginger, ginseng, liquorice, vinegar, black plums, ground rice, caterpillar fungus), it served for all kinds of ailments (diarrhoea and dysentery, arthritis, diabetes, malaria, chronic coughs, a weak constitution). By the eleventh century, it was recognized for its recreational, as well as curative uses. ‘It does good to the mouth and to the throat’, observed one satisfied user. ‘I have but to drink a cup of poppy-seed decoction, and I laugh, I am happy.’ ‘It looks like myrrha’, elaborated a court chronicle some four hundred years later. ‘It is dark yellow, soft and sticky like ox glue. It tastes bitter, produces excessive heat and is poisonous . . . It enhances the art of alchemists, sex and court ladies . . . Its price equals that of gold.’9 Opium was supposed to help control ejaculation which, as sexological theory told it, enabled the sperm to retreat to feed the male brain. Opium-enriched aphrodisiacs became a boom industry in Ming China (1368–1644) – possibly contributing to the high death-rate of the dynasty’s emperors (eleven out of a total of sixteen Ming rulers failed to get past their fortieth birthday). In 1958, as part of a final push to root out the narcotic in China, the new Communist government excavated the tomb of Wanli, the hypochondriac (though long-lived) emperor of the late Ming, and found his bones saturated with morphine. Enterprising Ming cooks even tried to stir-fry it, fashioning poppy seeds into curd as a substitute for tofu. Opium was one of the chief ingredients of a Ming-dynasty cure-all, the ‘big golden panacea’ (for use against toothache, athlete’s foot and too much sex), in which the drug was combined with (amongst other things) bezoar, pearl, borneol, musk, rhinoceros horn, antelope horn, catechu, cinnabar, amber, eaglewood, aucklandia root, white sandalwood; all of which had first to be gold-plated, then pulverized, turned into pellets with breast-milk, and finally swallowed with pear juice. (Take one at a time, the pharmacological manuals recommended.)

It was yet another import – in the shape of tobacco from the New World – that led to the smoking of opium. Introduced to China at some point between 1573 and 1627 (around the same time as the peanut, the sweet potato and maize), by the middle of the seventeenth century tobacco-smoking had become an empire-wide habit. As the Qing established itself in China after 1644, the dynasty made nervous attempts to ban it as ‘a crime more heinous even than that of neglecting archery’: smokers and sellers could be fined, whipped and even decapitated. But by around 1726, the regime had given up the empire’s tobacco addiction as a bad job, with great fields of the stuff swaying just beyond the capital’s walls. And somewhere in the early eighteenth century, a new, wonderful discovery had reached China from Java, carried on Chinese ships between the two places: that tobacco was even better if you soaked it first in opium syrup (carried mainly in Portuguese cargoes). First stop for this discovery was the Qing’s new conquest, Taiwan; from there it passed to the mainland’s maritime rim, and then the interior.

It was smoking that made Chinese consumers take properly to opium. Smoking was sociable, skilled and steeped in connoisseurship (with its carved, bejewelled pipes of jade, ivory and tortoiseshell, its silver lamps for heating and tempering the drug, its beautiful red sandalwood couches on which consumers reclined). It was also less likely to kill the consumer than the eaten or drunk version of the drug: around 80–90 per cent of the morphia may have been lost in fumes from the pipe or exhaled. Through the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, China made opium-smoking its own: a chic post-prandial; an essential lubricant of the sing-song (prostitution) trade; a must-have hospitality item for all self-respecting hosts; a favourite distraction from the pressures of court life for the emperor and his household. Opium houses could be salubrious, even luxurious institutions, far from the Dickensian den-of-vice stereotype (like an ‘intimate beer-house’, a surprised Somerset Maugham pronounced in 1922 – a mature stage in China’s drug plague), in which companionable groups of friends might enjoy a civilized pipe or two over tea and dim-sum.

Somewhere near the start of the nineteenth century, smokers began to dispense with the diluting presence of tobacco – perhaps because pure opium was more expensive, and therefore more status-laden. Around this time, thanks to the quality control exercised by the diligent rulers of British India (who established a monopoly over opium production in Bengal in 1793), the supply also became more reliable, no longer regularly contaminated by adulterants such as horse dung and sand. A way of burning money, smoking was the perfect act of conspicuous consumption. Every stage was enveloped in lengthy, elaborate, costly ritual: the acquisition of exquisite paraphernalia; the intricacy of learning how to cook and smoke it (softening the dark ball of opium to a dark, caramelized rubber, inserting it into the hole on the roof of the pipe bowl, then drawing slowly, steadily on the pipe to suck the gaseous morphia out); the leisurely doze that followed the narcotic hit. The best families would go one step further in flaunting their affluence, by keeping an opium chef to prepare their pipes for them. The empire’s love affair with opium can be told through the beautiful objects it manufactured for consuming the drug, through the lyrics that aficionados composed to their heavy, treacly object of desire, or in bald statistics…

And today, many Chinese people waste little time fuming over British gunboat diplomacy when left in peace by the state’s patriotic education campaign. Ask Beijing taxi-drivers (an overworked, underpaid labour-force more than entitled to a generalized sense of grievance against the world) what they think of Britain, and you are more likely to get a sigh of admiration (about how modern and developed Britain is, relative to China) than vitriol. Ask them about the Opium War, and they’ll often tell you what’s past is past; they’re too busy thinking about managing in the present (or they don’t listen to anything the government says). Even as secondary-school history textbooks and examinations still strive to indoctrinate young minds with the ‘China as Victim’ account of modern history, always starting with the Opium War, classroom discussions of the Opium War easily lapse out of anger towards the West, and into disgust at nineteenth-century China’s corruption and military weakness. Start a conversation about the Opium War and someone, sooner or later, is bound to come out with the catchphrase luohou jiu yao aida – a social Darwinist sentiment that translates as ‘if you’re backward, you’ll take a beating’; China, in other words, had it coming. Beneath the angry, hate-filled narrative of the Opium War and its aftermath told by Chinese nationalism, then, lies a more intriguing story: that of a painfully self-critical and uncertain, but open-minded quest to make sense of the country’s crisis-ridden last two centuries…

But foreign traders of the early nineteenth century had only a partial role to play: distribution deep into the mainland was carried out by native – Chinese, Manchu, Muslim – smugglers. The clippers sailed up to Lintin, a small, nondescript island about a third of the way between Hong Kong and Canton. There, they discharged their cargo onto superannuated versions of themselves: retired hulks serving as floating depots. Long, slim Chinese smuggling boats – known in the trade as ‘centipedes’, ‘fast crabs’ or ‘scrambling dragons’, and rowed by twenty to seventy thoroughly armed men apiece – would then draw up, into which opium was loaded, to fulfil orders purchased at the factories in Canton. From here, the drug entered the empire’s circulatory system: along the south coast’s threadwork of narrow waterways, and into Canton itself – amid consignments of less contentious goods, under clothes, inside coffins. At every stage, there was employment for locals: for the brokers, couriers and ‘shroffs’ (who checked for counterfeit silver) on board European vessels and in European pay; for the tough Tankas who made the dragons scramble; for the smugglers who brought it ashore; for the Cantonese middlemen; for the proprietors of opium shops, restaurants, tea-houses and brothels.

And every stage in the trade required officialdom to look the other way – which for the most part they obligingly did, even as the traces of the business surrounded them. One of Matheson’s Calcutta associates put it nicely, wondering sarcastically that the agency’s opium clippers ‘have ever been able to trade at all. A European-rigged vessel gives the alarm against herself whenever she appears, and lodges an information in the hands of every individual . . . Only think of the Chinese going to smuggle tea on the coast of England in a junk!’ Generally, all that was required to land opium was cash outlay and sometimes a touch of doublespeak. If an opium consignee was lucky, the responsible mandarin would simply demand a businesslike bribe per box of opium – like a species of duty, as if the cargo were nothing more controversial than cotton, or molasses. If he were less fortunate, he would suffer a lecture administered first on the evils of the opium trade, or perhaps a personal reading of the emperor’s latest edict on the subject, then be allowed to hand over the bribe. But connivance – because of the profit to be made from it – seems to have been the basic rule: one exploratory trade mission by the EIC up the north China coast in 1832 was greeted by disappointment all the way, as the ship, the Lord Amherst, had neglected to bring opium…

When – and only when – the clippers were safely unloaded and preparing to return to India, Qing government ships would, one sardonic observer of the mid-1830s noted, at last mount a sham pursuit: ‘twenty or thirty Chinese men-o-war junks are seen creeping slowly . . . towards them . . . never close enough to be within reach of a cannonball, and if, for the sake of a joke, one of the clippers heaves to, in order to allow them to come up, they never accept the invitation, but keep at a respectful distance . . . a proclamation is [then] issued to the entire nation, stating that “His Celestial Majesty’s Imperial fleet, after a desperate conflict, has made the Fan-quis [foreign devils] run before it, and given them such a drubbing, that they will never dare show themselves on the coast again.”’ Thus, summarized an American trader of the 1830s, ‘we pursued the evil tenor of our ways with supreme indifference, took care of our business, pulled boats, walked, dined well, and so the years rolled by as happily as possible.’

…When the Communist Party – while publicly denouncing their rivals, the Nationalists, and Western imperialists for profiting from the drug trade – secretly grew opium to make ends meet in north-west China in the early 1940s, they generated another couple of euphemisms: ‘special product’, and sometimes ‘soap’.

By the time of the Opium War, the empire was not just importing and domesticating this prized foreign drug; it was producing it, in tremendous quantities. (Nonetheless, although native opium appealed because of its cheapness, it was always a poor cousin to the foreign product, due to the greater potency of the latter.) Where it grew readily (especially in southwest China, but also along the east coast, and in Shaanxi, Gansu and Xinjiang to the north-west), it was the wonder crop: it sold well, and grew on the same land in an annual cycle alongside cotton, beans, maize and rice. Almost every part of the plant could be used: the sap, for raw opium; the leaves as a vegetable; the stem for dye; the seeds for oil. For southern peasants in the late 1830s, growing opium earned them ten times more than rice. By the time of the Opium War, the trade had spread across the entire empire: smoked (extensively) in prosperous south-eastern metropolises; trafficked; and cultivated (all along the western rim, from the mountain wildernesses of Yunnan in the south, to Xinjiang in the north).

Opium simply refused to go away: when the state moved to crack down on opium along the south and east coast by banishing smokers and smugglers to the frontier zone of Xinjiang, they merely brought their habit to the north-west. If domestic poppy-growing was cut back in south-western provinces such as Yunnan, civil servants predicted that coastal imports would increase to fill the market space made available. In 1835, officials optimistically announced that the poppy had been eradicated from Zhejiang, in east China; five years later, further investigation revealed that government representatives had lopped only the tops of the plants, carelessly leaving the roots still in the ground. That same year, thirty-four peasants fought officials sent to destroy their crops properly…

But why did the Qing fail to capitalize on their numerical superiority over the British? Theoretically, the dynasty commanded the largest standing army (800,000-strong) in the world at the time – 114 times more numerous than the 7,000-strong British force dispatched to China. In reality, however, most of these 800,000 soldiers were scattered through the empire, far too busy with domestic peace-keeping duties (suppressing bandits or rebels; carrying out disaster relief; guarding prisons; policing smugglers) to be spared for the quarrel with the British. In August 1840, when the British fleet glided up to Tianjin, to hand Palmerston’s official letter of complaint to the emperor, the imperial representative reported that a mere 600 of the 2,400 soldiers theoretically on the rolls could be mustered for immediate service. Almost every province of the empire had to contribute reinforcements to boost local forces: in the course of the war, some 51,000 soldiers found themselves in transit around the country, headed for the southern or eastern coasts. But they moved too slowly to be useful: troops from a neighbouring province took thirty to forty days to reach the front line (about the same amount of time it took the British to fetch reinforcements from India); those further away took ninety or more. In June 1840, the British fleet took only thirty-five days to sail up and capture Dinghai; the following year, the Qing took five months to rally a counter-offensive against the island – five months in which the British rested and reorganized, while reinforcements straggled in from distant corners of the empire. (By the time the last batches arrived, the Treaty of Nanjing was already being toasted in cherry brandy.)

…Military discipline was another problem for the Qing. British accounts of Opium War engagements were scattered with admissions that forts were adequately planned, placed and supplied, and would have cost the invaders many lives to capture – if only the Qing troops had fought, and not fled. The conquest of the empire had been achieved by creating a hereditary military: an elite minority of Manchu, Mongolian and Chinese Bannermen at the top, with the professional Chinese Green Standard Army (about three times the size) taking on basic garrison duties through the country. For the Bannermen, the state provided a stipend of rice, cash and land, in return for army service. But by the middle decades of the eighteenth century, the Banners were suffering from price rises just like everyone else in the empire – the level of stipends had been set in the early years of the conquest, long before the inflation of the Qianlong period set in. When handouts failed to keep up with inflation, or even shrank, soldiers protested, went on strike, ran away or took civilian jobs. As the nineteenth century approached, the system was rotten with corruption: superiors squeezed inferiors in exchange for the promise of promotion, while families concealed deaths (and invented births) to maintain stipends.

Equipment budgets and military esprit de corps were the principal casualties of the fiscal deficit. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, musketry and artillery practice were phased out across many garrisons, because ammunition was too dear. One of the east-coast garrisons in 1795 requested permission from the Board of War to cancel the spring artillery practice, for fear that the noise would disturb the well-being of profitable silk worms; so much grazing land had been sold or rented out that the number of horses dwindled to almost nothing. In the Canton garrison, half-naked Manchus on drill practice were observed dragging rusty swords and elderly bows about…

Repeatedly during the war, Qing armies of thousands would be routed by a few hundred, or even a few dozen well-disciplined British troops with functioning artillery and battle-plans.

During the Opium War, Qing politicians of the pro- and anti-war faction could agree on only one thing: that their army was hopeless. Travelling east from Canton to Zhejiang in 1841, Lin Zexu bluntly analysed the reasons for the army’s lack of interest in fighting the British. ‘The most coveted positions in the Guangdong garrisons were in the naval fleet, where one per cent of salaries was drawn from the grain and silver stipend, and the rest from opium-smugglers’ bribes. Once we banned opium, ninety-nine per cent of the navy’s income went up in smoke. How could we expect them to resist the English rebels?’ ‘Our soldiers cheat everyone’, echoed Qiying, the emperor’s chief negotiator at the close of the war. ‘They refuse to pay full prices, gather in brothels and gambling dens, corrupt the sons of good families and handle stolen goods.

…Bao Peng, this opium-smuggler turned imperial diplomat, offered a particularly colourful example of Chinese collaboration with the British, but he was only one of many who betrayed the Qing by helping the empire’s attackers: not out of conscious ideological choice, but simply because they needed to make a living, and the British were employers like any other.

According to both English and Chinese sources, locals defected back and forth between the two sides depending on which offered them the most reliable source of income. After the opium trade dried up in the late 1830s, those who had drawn a living from transporting, unpacking, supplying and peddling were recruited (at the wage of six dollars a month) into anti-British defence militias – a strategy that Lin Zexu described as ‘fighting traitors with traitors, poison with poison’. When these bands were disbanded in late 1840 as part of the ‘soothing’ process, their members quickly changed sides again. ‘Once they found themselves unemployed,’ recalled one Cantonese observer, ‘they took to wandering up and down the coast. The foreigners relied on two of their dastardly leaders, who incited others to go over too . . . Without this help, the British would not have known anything – this was how Charles Elliot found out how slack the defences leading up to Canton were.’ When the British fleet returned to the south, seasoned Cantonese boatmen offered their services to the British, with all the importunate matter-of-factness of taxi drivers touting for trade outside a railway station. ‘How four-piece ship no wanchee pilot’, one local navigator shook his head, on being rejected.8 Everywhere the British went, they were dependent on local willingness to provide them with fresh food and water. When the Elliots returned south in late November 1840, and docked their fleet on the eastern side of the mouth of the river up to Canton, a floating Chinese township kept them well supplied with fresh food, even at the risk of persecution by officials. When the names of this impromptu comprador community were taken down by a group of police spies, the businessmen besieged and set fire to the police boat. ‘These poor wretches were literally roasted alive, their persecutors preventing their escape with long bamboos’, recalled an English lieutenant. ‘What a most extraordinary nation this is! … They will trade with you at one spot, while you are fighting, killing and destroying them at another!’

…Just as at Zhapu a month of so earlier, or at Sanyuanli the previous year, the only effective opposition to the British in the Opium War fought not for patriotism or even profit, but for their own women and children. As they died inside the city, the Bannermen may have wondered why no reinforcements from the camps to the west of the city were coming to their aid. These troops from western and central China had fled south at the first exchange of fire with Britain – this was not their fight. The casualty statistics for the day tell the story well enough. 30 per cent of the garrison’s resident Banner troops died on 21 July, while only 1.6 per cent of the Chinese reinforcements from Hubei, Sichuan, Henan and Jiangxi lost their lives. The war was, British observers now noted, ‘a Manchu and not a Chinese affair.’ And once the Manchus were laid low by the British, their persecuted Chinese subjects took vengeful advantage of their disarray. After Zhapu, British intelligence officers observed, ‘the Chinese populace fell upon the helpless families [of Manchu soldiers], committed every enormity and carried off every moveable article worth taking.’ (Reprisal, perhaps, for the Qing army’s own brutality against civilian Chinese populations in previous decades’ suppressions of religious rebellions – which had left tens of thousands dead.) In Zhapu, at least two separate accounts claimed, the Manchus had so badly antagonized Chinese soldiers that the latter became fifth-columnists for the British: ‘As the Manchu garrison had been in the habit of calling the Chinese disloyal, the Fujian braves sided with the enemy and set fire to the town. The foreigners then scrambled in over the wall’.

Even as desperate struggles went on inside and around the city, many of those removed from the front line carried on with their lives, apparently unconcerned about what might be happening to their compatriots a few hundred yards away. To reach the city, Granville Loch and his column – under and returning fire – had to cross a village in easy sight of Zhenjiang. Far from escaping the theatre of war, its inhabitants were standing, spectating, in the streets, ‘coolly employed eating their bowls of rice . . . although they were viewing a contest between foreigners and their fellow-countrymen, and in danger themselves, from their position, of being shot’.

…Up to this point, Yan Fu’s education and career – with its loyalty to Chinese tradition and dedication to modern military science – bear passing resemblance to Rohmer’s paranoid hypotheses about ambitious Orientals conspiring to beat the West at its own game. But here, Yan’s life story departs from the Yellow Peril narrative. His decision to study Western science was not part of a grand, premeditated scheme – it sprang from economic necessity. After his father died when Yan was thirteen, the family finally abandoned all hope of supporting the boy through studying for the civil-service exams – in later life, Yan Fu recalled how his mother toiled at needlework to keep the family fed and clothed, and how he would be woken through the night by the sound of her weeping. The Fuzhou Shipyard, by contrast, could offer attractive incentives: free board and lodging, and a stipend of four silver dollars a month (with a bonus of ten silver dollars to students who came top in the quarterly exams).

The bribery was necessary, for in late-nineteenth-century China a Western education remained a disreputable life choice. ‘Only the truly desperate stooped to studying Western sciences’, remembered the writer Lu Xun, who took classes in medicine at one of the east-coast academies in the 1890s. ‘By following the course I had fixed upon, I would be selling my soul to foreign devils’. To praise the modernity of Western methods, to seek employment in the new Qing Foreign Office or (even more unthinkably) in an embassy abroad, was to court career catastrophe. Guo Songtao, the Qing ambassador to London during Yan Fu’s time in Britain, was a case in point. For his pro-Western views, he was physically assaulted, multiply impeached and eventually dismissed and sidelined from politics, while his house in China was vandalized. ‘The empire cold-shoulders him’, ran one contemporary scrap of doggerel. ‘He cannot serve human beings / So how can he serve demons?’

Secondly, Yan Fu had little interest in waging war on the white race. Quite the opposite: through his study of science and English, he fell in love with the West – and not just with the iron-plated steamers and guns that he was supposed to be studying, but also with its thinkers, writers and political and legal institutions. This, Yan concluded during his years abroad, was the foundation of Western strength. ‘The reason why England and the other countries of Europe are wealthy and strong is that impartial justice is daily extended’, he declared to Guo, during one of their Sunday conversations. ‘Here is the ultimate source.’ Yan Fu remains a celebrity in China today for a remarkable series of translations that he completed after his return from England: Smith’s Wealth of Nations, J. S. Mill’s On Liberty, Montesquieu’s L’Esprit des Lois. Yan Fu sought an idiom that would convince China’s educated elites of the profundity of Western thought, rendering canonical texts of the modern West in the pure classical Chinese of the first millennium BC. ‘The books with which I concern myself are profound and abstruse’, Yan Fu reasoned. ‘They are not designed to nourish schoolboys’. But he is famed also as a leading representative of the first generation of Chinese men after the Opium Wars to launch upon a pointedly introspective quest – one of the country’s key intellectual shifts of the nineteenth century – to understand China’s weakness, and Western strength.

In their long discussions in London, Yan Fu and Ambassador Guo whiled away the hours assessing the virtues of the West and bemoaning the sins of China and the Chinese. For according to his diary, Guo shared with Yan Fu an extravagantly high opinion of China’s imperialist adversaries (and of Great Britain in particular) – a fact that was all the more extraordinary given the discourteous reception that he received in Britain. On his arrival in London, Punch ran a cartoon and seven poetic stanzas of impeccable offensiveness, in which Guo was caricatured as a monkey (‘With his eyes aslant, and his pigtail’s braid / Coiled neatly round his close-shaved head . . . As stubborn as pigs and as hard to steer / With a taste for cheap buying and selling dear’), peering at the stately lion of the British empire. A week later, the magazine devoted a whole page of tasteless doggerel to the bound feet of Guo’s wife, whom it christened ‘the tottering Lily’ and depicted as a décolleté Geisha.

Yet Guo’s enthusiasm was undented. Even on his voyage to England, during which he suffered constant discomfort (in addition to seasickness, he was afflicted by a sore throat, laboured breathing, dizziness, swollen gums, toothache, a smarting nose and heart pain), he sportingly retained an appreciation for everything Western that he saw: the Europeans’ ‘ceremonial
courtesies’ he found ‘refined and civilised’, their navigational techniques extraordinarily commendable. ‘That country certainly produces admirably talented men’, he remarked, observing German officers seeking exercise in a game of leapfrog. ‘Admirable!’9 Given Great Britain’s not particularly creditable record in China, Guo also took a surprisingly positive view of its long-term intentions towards his country. The British have, he considered, ‘surrounded China and press close upon
her:

“With their hands reaching high and their feet travelling far, they rise up like eagles and glare like tigers . . . Yet for all this, they have not the slightest intention of presuming on their military strength to act violently or rapaciously . . . the nations of Europe do have insight into what is essential and what is not and possess a Way of their own which assists them in the acquisition of wealth and power . . . Their governmental and educational systems are well-ordered, enlightened and methodical.”

If Great Britain and the West were a repository of all that was worth emulating, the (in Guo’s view) stupid, smug Chinese were by contrast a source of disgust. ‘Surely this is not the time for China to indulge in highflown talk and vain boasting in order to aggrandise herself!’ he sighed on the subject of anti-European prejudice. ‘After thirty years of foreign relations, our provincial authorities still know nothing . . . The weakening of the Song and the downfall of the Ming, were both the outcome of the actions of such irresponsible and ignorant people.’

…Even as opium remained a Chinese aspirin for the under-medicated masses, a fuel (as stimulant and appetite suppressant) for armies of cheap labour and a pleasure-giving narcotic for those with money and leisure, elite moral opinion was starting to move against the drug.

[…]

In the first decade of the twentieth century, in cities and towns across the country, opium-suppression societies denounced the drug in parades, meetings, journals and pamphlets. Hundreds of thousands of dens were shut down, while crowds gathered to attend burnings of confiscated opium and pipes. Investigators raided suspected illicit dens by night; vigilantes set upon inveterate smokers.

[…]

The truly unfortunate were locked up, abruptly deprived of the drug and dosed with strong coffee. ‘Opium took us to paradise’, scrawled one unfortunate on the wall of a late-nineteenth-century clinic. ‘Now we are tortured in hell.’ Those too poor or overworked to find an alternative, one missionary reported, simply died of the shock: ‘When the opium dens were first closed the mortality among the poorer people was dreadful, for the opium smokers lived from hand to mouth, and, as they could not work without their usual opium, they died, partly of starvation, and partly from sudden deprivation of the drug.’

[…]

In a province like Sichuan, in any case, locals had some difficulty in viewing opium as a foreign commodity, because local production had long outstripped imports. Since 1860, opium duties had bought boats, guns and ammunition to help the Qing government suppress civil wars such as the Taiping Rebellion. After 1874, Li Hongzhang had argued that domestic cultivation should openly resume, while piously declaring that the ‘single aim of my Government in taxing opium will be in the future, as it has always been in the past, to repress the traffic – never the desire to gain revenue from such a source.’ Nonetheless, during the 1870s south-west China alone began to produce more opium than the country was importing. Anti-imperialist passions in late-Qing China were often directed at issues other than opium. Through the 1900s, many regions of China were in the grip of a passionate Rights Recovery Movement, opposing European and American attempts to buy up the country’s nascent railway system and Qing willingness to sell it: students threatened to starve themselves to death, soldiers wrote letters of protest in blood and one academic allegedly died of sadness on hearing the news that the government had accepted a massive foreign loan to build one stretch of track.

[…]

And despite the anti-opium fury generated across the fin-de-siècle empire, plenty of people seemed unable to make up their minds about it or to treat it as a serious problem. The inconsistency of Sun Yat-sen, acclaimed on both sides of the Taiwanese straits as guofu (the father of the modern Chinese nation), was exemplary. ‘Opium has caused more harm than war, plague and famine in China for more than ten years’, he pronounced in the 1920s, perhaps forgetting that back in 1894 he had advised the Qing leadership to exhort the people to grow their own poppies to squeeze out the foreign competition, informing them that he had enjoyed much success persuading farmers in his home village in Guangdong to do just that. The bouquet of his local variety, he commented with authority, was ‘even better than that of Indian opium, and far superior to that of Sichuan and Yunnan.’ Shanghai guidebooks vacillated over opium, exclaiming on one page about the wonders of the city’s opium halls, while attacking the drug as a poison on another.

[…]

But our best example of early twentieth-century China’s ambivalence towards opium is perhaps Yan Fu. Aged twenty-eight, he acquired – to the tremendous disappointment of his later nationalist biographers – the opium habit himself, thirteen years before he would begin to characterize it as one of China’s most pernicious customs. He struggled guiltily with the habit for the rest of his life – even though his breathing problems gave him a sound medical reason for taking the drug as a cough suppressant. In 1921, a year after he had finally succeeded in giving up his opium pipe, he died of asthma.
…In Nationalist declarations, opium was legally and morally beyond the pale: in 1928, Chiang’s new government announced a ‘total prohibition’ (juedui jinyan). Unofficially, however, the Nationalists – like the warlord regimes they fought through the 1920s and 1930s – needed the opium trade for revenue. Between 1927 and 1937, the Nationalist government strove (often with surprising success, given appalling obstacles such as Japanese invasion and worldwide depression) to transform an impoverished, fragmented country into a modern unified state: creating national ministries, commissions, academies; building roads, railways, industries, dams. In the absence of crucial resources such as income tax, opium duties would have to do instead. For the creative tax-collector – and Republican China was full of them – there was a wealth of surcharges to be extracted from opium: in duties on the drug itself (plus its transport and retail); and licences to sell and smoke it. The state even maintained a monopoly on opium-addiction cures. The citizens of the republic dodged these taxes with comparable ingenuity: one filial individual smuggled opium between west and east China by concealing it not just inside his father’s coffin, but inside his father’s skull inside the coffin.

In 1928, drug revenues helped keep the country’s armies – at a total of 2.2 million, the largest in the world (costing $800 million a year) – standing. A 1931 cartoon entitled ‘Shanghai business’ pictured three figures: to left and right two dwarfs labelled ‘industry’ looked skyward at the towering colossus between them – Opium. In 1933, the size of the opium traffic in China was estimated at $2 billion annually (5.2 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product). In many regions and contexts, opium was as good as, if not better than, money, and an essential commercial and social lubricant – ‘light the lamps’ was standard Chinese for ‘let’s talk business’; opium pipes were offered at weddings as conventionally as wine. The country literally reeked of the stuff, thanks to the vats of the drug publicly boiled in the streets of towns and cities: by the 1930s, China may have had as many as 50 million smokers (around 9 per cent of the population).

[…]

In the meantime, the Nationalist government identified offices for collecting opium tax as ‘opium suppression bureaus’, while opium merchant guilds could be euphemistically labelled ‘medicinal merchants’ friendship associations’.54 ‘Millions have been raised out of opium’, remarked the International Anti-Opium Association in 1928. ‘Nationalist Government monopolies exist in every large centre, and are so efficiently organised that enormous revenues result. And although the evil of the so-called “Opium Wars” has invariably been referred to on every Nationalist platform and in every proletarian demonstration, the Government is raising the very last cent out of the cultivation and use of opium.’ Not for nothing did the Cantonese have the saying, ‘Opium addiction is easy to cure; opium tax addiction far harder.’

Anti-opium activists reviled the government’s pragmatic efforts to generate useful, state-building money out of the drug: ‘As we look around at the conditions within China, opium is everywhere, how sickening! HOW SICKENING! We truly hope that the government authorities will . . . completely prohibit opium, and earnestly eradicate it in order to save the tarnished reputation of our country and forever consolidate the foundation of this nation.’ The government gave earnest public pledges that it ‘will absolutely not derive one copper from opium revenue. If anything of this sort is suspected . . . we can regard this government as bankrupt and place no confidence in it.’ ‘If we want to save China,’ Chiang Kai-shek added, ‘we must begin with prohibiting opium, and that prohibition must begin with the highest echelons of the leadership . . . Prohibit the poison if you want to save the country, the people, yourself, your sons and grand-sons.’ ‘The opium evil’, he explained elsewhere, ‘constitutes a greater menace to the nation than foreign aggression, because the former leads to self-degeneration and self-suicide, whereas the latter is invited by mutual dissension, weakness and degeneracy.’ In private, the regime did its best to silence inconvenient opponents by frightening off their sponsors, by smearing them with accusations of drug-smuggling, by sending them death threats; or simply by planting bombs in their houses. In 1931, the government was buffeted by one of its biggest drug scandals, when a group of Shanghai constables intercepted an opium shipment that a company of Nationalist soldiers were busy unloading. The men of the law were promptly taken prisoner until the precious drug had found its way to its gangland destination.

[…]

For decades, Communist propaganda held that the Maoists worked their way out of their predicament through frugality and popular democracy (by introducing rent reduction and cooperative farming practices), until a historian called Chen Yung-fa noticed at the end of the 1980s that account books for the period were scattered with references to a ‘special product’ that rescued the Communists from their trade deficit of the early 1940s and that, by 1945, was generating more than 40 per cent of the state’s budget. A little more detective work revealed that this was opium, processed in ‘Special Factories’ and transported south and west to generate export revenue for Communist armies. (‘Since opium entered China’, a Communist editorial of 1941 explained, ‘it has become the greatest source of harm to the Chinese people, inseparable from imperialist invasion . . . Imperialism has used opium to enslave and oppress the Chinese people. As the Chinese people have become ever weaker, ever poorer, opium has played a most detestable and poisonous destructive role.’86) But in 1945, as an American mission flew in to inspect Mao’s kingdom, it found itself gazing over nothing more controversial than swaying fields of sorghum and wheat. The opium poppies had been uprooted just in time to maintain – for the next forty years at least – the propriety of the Chinese Communist wartime image.

A Chinese blogger in Sinagpore (with a background in Christianity) says:

This is why I will never understand the pathological self-loathing of the West. I mean, come on, with your persistent self-flagellation you’re just asking to be taken advantage of and of course the Chinese are experts of emotional blackmail. The minute you try to criticise us we’ll drag every tiny infraction from ten thousand years ago to shut you down. Seriously man…

What justifies other world powers’ attempt to destroy the ISIS? If one simply says that that’s because they persecute Christians within their land and that we must make the land free for the spread of the Gospel, then this would also justify the British blasting open China to allow their missionaries to enter and enable the free spread of the Gospel. If we want to go by the logic of leaving China alone even if they don’t allow Christianity within her, wouldn’t the same logic apply to the ISIS as well, and that the fact that they don’t allow Christianity in their midst is no justification for trying to wipe them out?

If one says that the ISIS are persecuting pre-existing Christians who are already there then the obvious solution would be to evacuate them and not to instigate regime change. So what really justifies our destroying the ISIS? The fact that they have horrible practices? Doesn’t Saudi Arabia have them as well? But that doesn’t justify us trying to level them.

In the end, I do not know what the answer is here. Here I invoke my moral particularist/nihilist credentials and simply fall silent. However I think I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that if Britain did not blast open China, Christianity would be as extinct in China as it would be in Japan, virtually a tiny minority spreading at snail’s pace. For good or bad, the British forcing China open to the West has allowed Christianity to flourish there today. As a Chinese, I choose to enjoy the side benefits of the Opium War, and leave the judgement of the actors to God.

…we’re not annoyed that the British smuggled opium in China but that they managed to do it more effectively than us and for a larger cut of the profits.

For regardless of the “official” position of both the British and Chinese government on the opium trade, at the local level the peoples on both sides were more than happy to profit from it.

This honestly reminds me a lot of why we are annoyed with the Americans. It isn’t that they were more treacherous or immoral than the rest of us. It’s simply that they tend to engage in more insufferable moral posturing which makes the dissonance of their less than perfect behaviour irritating. Likewise the pathological self-loathing of the West and the British with regards the opium trade is simply because they have a much higher opinion of their own moral standards and treat their “fall” from it with greater loathing and disgust. The rest of us merely have a much more lower and pragmatic attitude towards morality which is why our no less dastardly deeds gets a free pass while the West gets the endless blame of the academia…

We take covering up a bribe to the nth degree with an elaborate spectacle to boot. It might have something to do with the way we are able to compartmentalise our minds and maintain many faces at once. I guess this is why I’ve never taken moral posturings or outrageous seriously. Being Chinese, moral posturing is normally a theatrical act invoked to disguise our true motives or to accomplish some very specific agendas. I prefer to simply objectively observe facts without feeling the need to indulge in pretentious moral posturing…

Perhaps the Chinese Legalist thinking of Han Feizi does run deeper in the Chinese psyche than we would care to admit. Our “might is right” attitude of selling our services to whoever is the most powerful, our pursuit of self-interest and disregard for macro-political or national loyalties and forces, etc…

Sigh, I am starting to see why the Chinese themselves believed that we deserve to get beaten during the Opium War. It was a foolish and utterly unnecessary war if the Emperor had exercised a little bit more pragmatism towards the British. Sometimes it may really be better to be ruled by foreigners than to be protected by one’s “own” idiots. This book is causing me to re-evaluate my recent more sympathetic attitude towards China.

Pax Britannica may not be that bad an idea after all…

To be honest, this is an incredibly depressing book to me personally. As much as I may have ranted against Confucian hypocritical moral posturing, but our race takes spin, lying, and sheer deception to a whole new level. With one side of our mouths we lecture the West about their opium trade with the other side we discreetly give orders for their taxation and farming.

I feel the last vestiges of my recent sinophilia dying with this book, and perhaps along with it any remaining belief in strong authoritarian nation-states. Reading about the futile wars for the reunification of China and the lengths of hypocrisy which people will go to to make it happen, I cannot help but wonder whether the British had a good point about localism after all.

It is my incredible good fortune or divine mercy for me to have been born a Singaporean where English rule of law and fair play is respected.

I will need to think very carefully the implications of this book in the days to come. Perhaps it would be a mercy for God to wipe out the very idea of the Chinese race itself and have us all assimilated into the West…

One of the more interesting insights to come out of the book is that while the Chinese would naturally blamed the foreign devils for their unjust invasion, the Chinese would in fact blame themselves more than the foreigners. There is a sort of self-loathing to the point of pathological in Chinese reflections on the topic whereby they blamed their own backwardness, their own moral weakness, their outdated political systems, science or philosophy, etc, for their defeat by the Western imperialists.

Consciousness of these facts has generated a very dialectical to the point of contradictory love-hate relationship between the Chinese and the West. On the one hand, the West are loathed for their invasion and humiliation of China, on the other hand they must have gotten something right which is precisely why they could beat us, leading to the need for us to emulate and copy their ways that we might partake of their strength and success. Lovell notes in her book the ironic posture of fervent young Chinese nationalists who would swear at the British at one moment and then ask her how might one go about studying in Britain at the next.

From Geni.com:

The trade that made Sassoon a multi-millionaire was opium, grown in India and shipped east to China…

Opium was introduced in China as a medical treatment in the 8th century by the Arabs. In 1793 British East India Company secured a monopoly whereby it would be the only company allowed to sell opium produced in India’s fields, most of which was then sold into China.

Opium became the single most valuable commodity of the entire 19th century. This monopoly was broken in the 1830’s when other British companies such as Jardine Matheson as well as Parsi, Arab and Jewish traders were able to get into the opium trade. British firms began to withdraw from the market as competition ate into their profits.

In the 1890’s Singapore’s Jewish merchants began reinvesting their profits in stocks and property. By the end of the 19th century the Jewish merchants had long been well out of the opium business.

The traders were Orthodox Jews.

I initially found only one book on the family — Sassoons by Stanley Jackson, published in 1968:

The first Sassoon arrived in China in 1844. He was David’s second son, Elias, who decided that Shanghai and Hong Kong offered by far the best prospects for opium and textiles…

Like most other wealthy Jews of Persian or Mesopotamian origin, the Sassoons kept a number of slaves bought from Arabic-speaking tribes.

…no Jewish beggar would ever be seen in the streets of Bombay…

[David Sassoon] endowed almost a miniature ‘welfare state’ for his co-religionists…

This was harvest time for David Sassoon & Sns. The Yangtse mud glinted with gold as soon as they laid a brick on it. It was the same in all the Treaty Ports where land values bounded from year to year. Their wharves and godowns were bursting with opiums, cotton goods, silks, spices, tea and metals… Scores of junk masters along the China coast were now…permanently on their payroll…

The Sassoons had an easier passage to royal favour [with England’s Queen Victoria]. They were admirably poised to make the best of both worlds. They profited by their friendships with the Rothschilds, yet enjoyed more immunity from the snobbery and racial prejudice that persisted towards that clan… Opium trading was still considered unexceptionable and apparently less noxious socially than vulgar profit-making on the Stock Exchange.

Then I found, “Jews, Opium and the Kimono: Story of the Jews in the Far East” by Ezra Yehezkel-Shaked. One description says: “RARE book on the central role the Jewish people played in the Far East countries, such as building Shanghai and Hong Kong, helping creating the Chinese Army, introducing Communism to the Chinese people, arming the Japanese forces in their war against Russia (1904-05), discovering in Bombay and spreading the vaccine against cholera and the plague throughout the Far East…”

According to Wikispooks:

David Sasson has been memorably and accurately described as “the greatest Drugs Kingpin in the history of the world” [1] but official histories do their level best to obfuscate his dominant involvement in the opium trade which was the major source of his wealth. Sassoon was a pivotal figure in both the trading regime of the British Raj and British Subjugation of China in the first “Opium War” of 1839-41, but in spite of this, he does not have an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica. Similarly the Wikipedia entry has been sanitised over the years to remove all reference to his instigation of the “Opium Wars” [2]; the Jewish encyclopedia devotes two thirds of its entry to his philanthropy [3]

He is justifiably best known for monopolizing the opium trade into China and encouraging its use there. He was born in Baghdad into a family of Nasis, traditional leaders of the Jewish community. His father, Saleh Sassoon, was a wealthy banker and chief treasurer to the pashas, the governors of Baghdad, from 1781 to 1817. However, the Jews came under pressure from the Muslim Turkish rulers of Baghdad. Fleeing with his wife and family and a small part of the family’s wealth, Sassoon arrived in Bombay in 1833.
He started business in Bombay with a counting house, a small carpet godown, and an opium business. He was soon one of the richest men in Bombay. He chose to follow the market, but he pursued all his enterprises better than his chief rivals, the Parsis. By the end of the 1850s, it was said of him that “silver and gold, silks, gums and spices, opium and cotton, wool and wheat – whatever moves over sea or land feels the hand or bears the mark of Sassoon and Company”…

In Bombay, David Sassoon established the house of David Sassoon & Co., with branches at Calcutta, Shanghai, Canton and Hong Kong. His business, which included a monopoly of the opium trade in China, (even though opium was banned in China) extended as far as Yokohama, Nagasaki, and other cities in Japan.
In 1836, the opium trade reached over 30,000 chests per annum and drug addiction in coastal cities became endemic. In 1839, the Manchu Emperor ordered that the opium smuggling be stopped. He named the Commissioner of Canton, Lin Tse-hsu, to lead a campaign against opium. Lin seized and destroyed 2,000 chests of Sassoon opium. An outraged David Sassoon demanded that China compensate for the seizure or Great Britain retaliate.

…David Sassoon was conscious of his role as a leader of the Jewish community in Bombay. He helped to arouse a sense of Jewish identity amongst the Bene Israeli and Cochin Jewish communities. The Sassoon Docks (built by his son) and the David Sassoon Library are named after him. He also built a synagogue in Byculla.

Posted in Drugs, Sassoon, Sephardim | Comments Off on The greatest drug kingpin in history was an Orthodox Jew who attributed his business success to his careful observance of Jewish law