Cathy Young’s Sloppy Point ‘n Sputter Alt Right Attack In THE FEDERALIST

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Luke Ford

John Derbyshire writes:

So here is journalist Cathy Young [Email her] who writes commentary from a position somewhere in the borderlands where libertarianism meets neoconservatism. Her response to Yiannopoulos and Bokhari went up on the Federalist website this last Thursday. Title: You Can’t Whitewash the Alt-Right’s Bigotry.

We know where we are right away from that title. The word “bigotry” is only ever used nowadays by enforcers of the multiculti, ethnomasochist narrative. In the stylized diction of these enforcers, it’s standard to precede the word “bigotry” with the adjective “ugly.” Sure enough, the first occurrence of the word “bigotry” in the actual text of Cathy Young’s article is preceded by “ugly.”

This is a writer who thinks in clichés out of the leftist phrasebook. Unless, of course, she thinks that beautiful bigotry is a possible attitude. If she doesn’t think that, then the word “ugly” is redundant, isn’t it?

She’s very particularly concerned with antisemites on the Alt-Right, of which there certainly are some, along with plenty of Jewish writers and anti-antisemites like myself. Is Ms Young herself Jewish? Yes she is. Of all the people reading her article and nodding along in agreement, is the majority Jewish? I very seriously doubt it. There, once again, is your problem, according to me.

It’s in that context — of antisemitism, I mean — that Ms Young mentions me and my MacDonald review. Quote from her, after a paragraph and a half mocking Kevin MacDonald, quote:

Interestingly, back in 2003, MacDonald’s book “The Culture of Critique” was the subject of a scathing review in The American Conservative by John Derbyshire, currently another VDARE stalwart, who described its main thesis as not only anti-Semitic but, quote, “silly.”

End quote, end quote. Reading that, I frowned. I didn’t think my review was “scathing.” I thought it was balanced and thoughtful, with plenty of compliments. Nor did I remember describing Kevin’s main thesis as “silly.” I pulled up the review and went searching for the word “silly.” There is just one occurrence of that word in my review. Here it is, towards the end of a longish quote. Quote:

I think that the evolutionary psychologists are probably on to something, but some of their more extreme claims seem to me to be improbable and unpleasantly nihilistic. Here, for example, is Kevin MacDonald in a previous book: “The human mind was not designed to seek truth but rather to attain evolutionary goals.” This trembles on the edge of deconstructionist words-have-no-meaning relativism, of the kind that … MacDonald himself debunks very forcefully in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique. After all, if it is so, should we not suppose that evolutionary psychologists are pursuing their own “group evolutionary strategy”? And that, in criticizing them, I am pursuing mine? And that there is, therefore, no point at all in my writing, or your reading, any further?To be fair to Kevin MacDonald, not all of his writing is as silly as that. The Culture of Critique includes many good things.

So I applied the word “silly” not to Kevin’s main thesis, towards which I expressed only some diffident and qualified doubts, but to one particular thing he said in a different book.

Sloppy journalism there, Ms Young. There are other sloppinesses too, logged by our own James Fulford here at VDARE.

The refreshing thing about that original Yiannopoulos and Bokhari article was its willingness to treat the Dissident Right as a legitimate object of inquiry, with a calm discussion of its ideas and its sociology. The far more usual approach by outsiders looking at the Alt-Right is just to point and sputter and reach for the Cultural Marxist phrasebook.

Yiannopoulos and Bokhari did their homework and pondered what they had found without, if you’ll excuse the word, prejudice.

With Cathy Young, we’re back to point’n’sputter.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Cathy Young’s Sloppy Point ‘n Sputter Alt Right Attack In THE FEDERALIST

Cathy Young: The Alt-Right: They’re creepy and they’re kooky, and not in the cute Addams Family way

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Luke Ford

Is throwing slurs such as “creepy” and “kooky” supposed to be an honorable form of argument?

There are only two honorable forms of argument — disputing facts and logic. Most women are not cut out for such disputation. Most men aren’t either.

Relating to her piece below, I read last week this bit of commonsense: “Anti-Semitism is as natural to Western civilization as anti-Christianity is to Jewish civilization, Islamic civilization and Japanese civilization.”

I wonder if Cathy Young ever read this Newsweek piece about Sabrina Erdely’s destructive anti-Christian journalism: “CATHOLIC GUILT? THE LYING, SCHEMING ALTAR BOY BEHIND A LURID RAPE CASE”

It is as normal, natural and understandable for Jews to have an anti-Christian bias as it is normal, natural and understandable for Christians to have an anti-Jewish bent. Both traditions are filled with hatred toward the other. How could they not?

Cathy Young writes: My Federalist article taking on the Allum Bokhari/Milo Yiannopoulos defense of the “alternative right” at Breitbart.com (developed from my earlier post here at Allthink) has drawn some responses along predictable lines: Cathy Young is a Jew (true), a “Marxist” ex-Soviet immigrant (here’s a tip: people who emigrated from the Soviet Union generally did so because they didn’t like Marxism), a militant feminist (quick, someone tell Amanda Marcotte!), and a well-paid shill for the Koch brothers (yes, I get that from leftists too; FYI, my position as a research fellow at the Cato Institute is unpaid, and my annual income is below the average for writers and journalists).

Amidst all this drollery, a couple of responses warrant a reply: a string of tweets by a user who goes by “Pale Primate” purporting to be a detailed rebuttal of my piece, and a blogpost by one Luke Ford.

First, both of them point out a genuine error: I referred to VDARE as Steve Sailer’s site when, in fact, it’s Peter Brimelow’s site. This came from a misreading of a line in the Breitbart article which referred to “nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance.” I should have checked the information better. The Federalist has now made a correction at my quest.

…I don’t think our only options are denialism or VDARE-style “racialism” that constantly stresses the ethnic, racial or religious identity of perpetrators and always presuming it relevant to the crime. Incidentally, if a “social justice” website decided to highlight violent crimes by white people in order to counteract racial stereotypes, and started covering such crimes in the same way that VDARE covers crime by blacks, Latinos and Muslims, I would consider that racist and repulsive.

“Pale Primate” accuses me of “tone policing” – a phrase that comes, by the way, straight from the lexicon of “social justice warriors,” who insist that “people of color” and women who want to talk about racism or sexism should never be criticized for expressing their frustration in such phrases as “white people suck” or “kill all men.”

Yes, I think tone matters. I believe that when we discuss differences between population groups, we should be careful not to do it in a way that dehumanizes people or demeans them on the basis of identity, imputes collective guilt, or justifies relegating a group to inferior status (especially a group with a very real history of oppression and dehumanization). If that’s “tone policing,” guilty as charged. I call it basic human decency. (And yes, I’m well aware that progressives sometimes pretend that the “SJW” version of political correctness is nothing more than basic and civility toward women and minorities. As we all know, that’s nonsense. But just because the SocJus crowd uses decency as a shield doesn’t make decency a bad thing.)

By the way, when I said that the tone at VDARE “reeks of hostility and contempt toward the presumed losers in the ‘biodiversity’ lottery,” I didn’t mean criminals, as “Pale Primate” suggests. I meant mainly blacks and Hispanics.

And then we get to the Jews.

“Pale Primate” tries to exonerate retired psychology professor Kevin MacDonald of the charge of anti-Semitism, claiming that MacDonald is merely interested in “document[ing] Jewish intellectual and political movements.” Since the alt-rightists apparently appreciate bluntness, I’ll be blunt: don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. I invite anyone to read MacDonald’s articles for themselves and to peruse his website, The Occidental Observer (dedicated to “white identity, interests, and culture”), where some 40 of the 136 topic tags refer to Jews – from “Israel Lobby” and “Holocaust Industry” to “Jewish aggressiveness,” “Jewish influence,” “Jewish wealth,” “Jews as a hostile elite,” and “Historical anti-Jewish writings.”

“Pale Primate” also defends MacDonald’s view that “Jews played a major role in destroying Russia via Bolshevism,” since “Jews were a massively disproportionate share of upper level positions in every commissariat” in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and ’30s, including the secret police. Well, let’s see. This 1920 photo of the presidium of the 9th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) has 13 people identified by name. Two (Mikhail Lashevich and Lev Kamenev) are Jews. Obviously, 15% is disproportionate given that Jews made up only 2% of Russia’s population at the time. But that hardly equals “Jewish-dominated.” As for the secret police, according to Yuri Slezkine, the author cited by “Pale Primate,” 4.3 percent of Cheka (secret police) commissars and 8 to 9 percent of senior officials in 1918-1920 were Jewish. The real overrepresented minority in the Cheka were Latvians, who made up less than 0.1% of Russia’s population at the time but over 50% of Cheka commissars and senior officials. In 1922, the “collegium” of the Cheka’s successor, the GPU, was made up of eight people, two of whom were Jews, one Latvian, one Ukrainian, and four (including its head, Felix Dzerzhinsky) were ethnic Poles.

Let’s hear about how the Poles and the Latvians destroyed Russia, shall we?

But never mind MacDonald on the subject of the Jews. Here’s Steve Sailer (at VDARE and on his own blog), reviewing the Amy Chua/Jeb Rubenfeld book on successful minorities in America. After quoting their assertion that members of these groups tend to be afflicted with insecurity and “to instill it in their children,” Sailer adds: “Or in the case of the wealthiest, most powerful group, they use their influence over the media to instill it in their children and to depress, demoralize, and divide other groups` children.”

That link? It leads to an article about a book commemorating the Holocaust.

I really don’t think any further comment is needed.

(I do appreciate “Pale Primate’s” tweets, which led me to do a bit more digging and find this gem.)

Luke Ford’s blogpost, which speculates on whether or not I’m a “neocon,” contains a tidbit that led me to another interesting discovery. As an aside, Ford takes a jab at me for having written two Reason.com columns on the University of Virginia/Rolling Stone rape hoax “without mentioning Steve [Sailer] or Richard Bradley”: “Hard to say if she is just lazy or ignores the work of writers she doesn’t like.” Actually, both of those columns were reprints from RealClearPolitics.com; earlier, I had written two other RCP columns on the subject which did mention Bradley, a blogger and former magazine editor, and credit him for being first to raise questions about the credibility of the alleged fraternity gang rape victim, Jackie.

I’m not really sure why I should have credited Steve Sailer, who posted about the case on his Unz Review blog and then wrote about it for Taki Magazine but added nothing original. (In the magazine piece, Sailer claims that his November 29 blogpost drew attention to Bradley’s post, which had languished unnoticed since November 24. Reason‘s Robby Soave wrote about it on December 1. I don’t know if he was tipped off to Bradley’s post by Sailer or one of Sailer’s readers, but I can say that Robby and I were among several journalists privately discussing the problems with the Rolling Stone story by November 25.)

However! Ford’s mention of Sailer’s commentary on the UVA story reminded me of something I had forgotten: the Sailer acolytes in Bradley’s blog comments who tried to argue that Rolling Stone author Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s piece about rape culture at UVA, centered around Jackie’s story, had something to do with Erdely being Jewish. Apparently, she had some kind of Jewish agenda to destroy UVA because it’s too white, Christian, pretty and conservative, or something. (When another commenter pointed out that many of the journalists who helped debunk the hoax were also Jewish, the conspiracy nuts were undeterred: Of course the Jews will do that when their mischief is caught out!)

Okay, so these are just random commenters. But a December 3, 2014 post at VDARE by one of their prolific bloggers, Eugene Gant, highlighting Sailer’s Taki Magazine article, referred to Erdely as “militantly Jewish” (linking to an article about a Jewish day camp that briefly referenced Erdely as one of the parents) and “a hit thing for the Christophobic left” (because she had previously written a story, also of dubious veracity, about a boy’s sexual abuse by priests). The Occidental Observer ran a longer piece depicting the rape-hoax story as “ethnic warfare” born from Erdely’s “anti-White animus” (in the Alt-Right taxonomy, Jews are, of course, not “white”) and noting that some of her staunchest defenders were “Jewish female journalists.” Oh, and Luke Ford did a blogpost that referred to Erdely as an “proud Jew and anti-white fabulist” (with a headline calling her a “left-wing Jew with a history of Christian-bashing).

As for Sailer? Well, he didn’t exactly peddle this slimy nuttery himself, but he sure did pander to it. Check out this April 7, 2015 Sailer blogpost at VDARE titled “Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s Kristallnacht on Campus.” Its actual subject is the theme of broken glass in Erdely’s story (such as the glass table shattering during Jackie’s alleged rape) and actual broken glass at the fraternity named in the rape allegations, which was attacked by vandals throwing bottles and bricks through the windows in December 2014, shortly after the story’s publication.

If it weren’t for the obsession with Erdely’s Jewishness in certain quarters, I would have assumed that “Kristallnacht” was just a fancy metaphor. But was it actually a not-so-subtle reversal of an infamous attack on Jews in which a “militant Jew” becomes the perpetrator inflicting a Kristallnacht on gentiles? You decide.

I suppose “Pale Primate” will tell me that I’m not actually disputing any of this, just “tone policing.” Right-o. I’m also not in the habit of disputing the arguments of people who think rape is a male conspiracy to keep women in their place.

“Pale Primate” thinks my attack on the Alt-Right was “poorly researched.” Well, it’s better researched now, and the Alt-Right looks like an even more odious collection of kooky bigots.

Some people who are cautiously sympathetic to the Alt-Right because they believe large-scale immigration endangers America’s cultural values keep trying to prove otherwise. For instance, the other night on Twitter, user Steven Falco offered this partial defense:

https://twitter.com/nunzioni/status/721509127164465152

“Pale Primate,” who is an alt-right moderate, did agree, arguing that the real issue is bringing in “people that don’t fit well into Western societies.”

But here are the other two responses Falco got:

https://twitter.com/marylovefreedom/status/721510004138840064

https://twitter.com/skiguru/status/721511128342347776

Incidentally, I do think that large-scale immigration of people who find Western cultural norms alien and don’t want to assimilate poses real problems. I absolutely agree that we need to confront those issues. But the Alt-Right is not helping such a discussion; on the contrary, it’s making it easier to dismiss all such concerns as racist.

COMMENTS POSTED:

* Well at least you admitted you’re not disputing anything. You still don’t explain why it’s wrong for whites to play the game as it is played by everyone else. You just appeal to a morality that no other side agrees to.

* People on the alt-right are already intimately familiar with the the gene based heritability for traits including intelligence, time preference (your ability to delay gratification and plan for the future), and the big 5 personality traits. We don’t try to dismiss or weasel around such things because the evidence for them is damning.

That’s why for us, respectability doesn’t matter. We’re not here for respectability. The right wing has tried that for decades while the left aggressively took cultural control. Maybe its time to reevaluate the whole “let’s try our hardest to seem even handed in the face of people who think men in dresses should be allowed to go into women’s bathrooms” idea.

* CY: I’m a Zionist. I also applaud the fact that 25% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish and strongly oppose moves to clamp down on immigration by non-Jews. Actually, Israeli law and German law are very similar in that both give automatic citizenship to immigrants from the dominant ethnic group.

Also: nice job of boosting the SJW claim that political correctness is simply about treating minorities with respect and decency. Honestly, the idea that you can break the left’s near-monopoly on culture by spouting racist and anti-Semitic crap because it defies PC is mind-bogglingly dumb. All it will do is push decent people into the arms of the left and give cover to actual bigots.

* So, if Jews can have a homeland where they can write their own rules for admission, what exactly is the problem with WNs?

Define “respect” and “decency” (and “bigotry,” while we’re on the topic.) Remember, those terms are defined by the left as, basically, “anything I don’t like,” and they have their yuge propaganda machine to signal-boost every bit of outrage they can gin up over the most ridiculous garbage. You’re playing into their hands by saying “[x] is unacceptable,” while ignoring the fact that narrative control means that the left gets to define [x]. Since they can move the goalposts whenever/wherever they like, the ultimate result of your concession of the frame has been to give them a plug number that they use to concern-troll you into condemning any right-winger that rustles their jimmies. It’s impressive, the level of pwned-ness that you’ve managed to achieve: you’re their useful idiot, and think you’re clever for being so.

Your clever maneuver of ceding the frame to them has accomplished/will accomplish… what, exactly? What have decades of “respectable” (HA!) conservative/libertarian line-toeing and hand-wringing produced in terms of tangible policy results? And, frankly, why should anyone have any interest in the opinions of thoroughly pwned chronic failures?

* “Bigotry” has no fixed meaning, and is constantly redefined on the fly to suit the political whims of the left. You can say that it oughtn’t be so, and I would agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is. You, and I, and everyone on not toeing the line with The Current Year will always be defined as a “bigot,” because that’s what’s in the interest of the people controlling the definitions. Playing the “bigotry” game is a trap by design. The alt-right’s plan to escape it is to break out of the trap by rejecting the premise. Do you have a better strategy?

2) Here we agree: America is not an ethnostate. Of course, WNs agree with us too: that’s why they want a white American ethnostate, and are trying to get one (either by reorganizing the existing state or breaking it up.) Yes, it’s all very LARPy, but that’s beside the point; here an ethnostate is goal, not the existing regime.

3) You may not be interested in sociopolitical gas warfare, but sociopolitical gas warfare is interested in you, and me, and all of us. I don’t like these tactics, but I can’t deny their proven effectiveness. So if we’re trapped in a race to the bottom (signs point to “yes,”) the correct move isn’t to tut-tut about how races to the bottom suck and we shouldn’t be trapped in one- both of those statements are true, but irrelevant to the situation at hand. So if you’re going to claim that I’m like an SJW in that I believe that “cultural appropriation” is a thing, you’re wrong. If you’re going to claim that I’m like an SJW in that I believe in using effective tactics that do work instead of idealized tactics that “should” work but don’t, I’ll own that one in a heartbeat.

* CY: I checked out at “Semitic mutterings.” Good Lord, you people are a bunch of creeps. (Oh, and by the way… the so-called “racial” component of being Jewish is an ethnicity, not a race. “Whiteness” is not an ethnicity. And Israel recognizes black Ethiopian Jews as Jewish.

Posted in Alt Right, Christianity, Jews | Comments Off on Cathy Young: The Alt-Right: They’re creepy and they’re kooky, and not in the cute Addams Family way

Harvard critic Ron Unz faces scrutiny on donations

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Luke Ford

Boston Globe: Conservative software engineer Ron Unz, who led a successful 2002 ballot initiative that severely limited bilingual education in Massachusetts, has rounded up four other candidates — including Ralph Nader — on a platform of making Harvard tuition free for undergraduates and questioning its use of race in admissions.

The race veered into new territory last week, after opponents of Unz brought to light his funding of some authors and researchers with views critics brand as white supremacist, including several who write for a website that professes “diversity per se is not strength, but a vulnerability.”

Unz, a member of the Harvard class of 1983, defended his donations to VDare.com writers and others, including $600,000 to Gregory Cochran, who posited in an article that a “gay germ” causes homosexuality, and $24,000 to Steven Sailer, who wrote that combining economic populism with “white party” issues would win the presidency.

Unz, who is also running for US Senate in California, said he does not agree with or support the positions taken by all the writers, including Cochran and Sailer, he supports financially but wants to provide an assist to “alternative media.”

“I most certainly do NOT stand behind everything said or written by everyone with whom I’m friendly, whose writings I publish, or even who have been the recipient of my financial support over the years,” Unz said in an e-mail last week.

As part of his Free Harvard/Fair Harvard campaign, Unz is also pushing for more information about the university admissions process, which prior analyses, he said, found tilted against Asians in favor of less-qualified minorities.

Meanwhile, Harvard is facing a lawsuit from a coalition of Asian-American groups, also claiming it discriminates against Asians in admissions. The groups seek the same information Unz wants, about how Harvard chooses whom to admit.

Posted in Ron Unz | Comments Off on Harvard critic Ron Unz faces scrutiny on donations

Israel vs America

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Luke Ford

In many ways, Israel is a much healthier and more serious nation than the United States. Israel has a serious wall to stop illegal immigrants, America does not. Israel is run for the benefit of its majority population — Jews, while in America, the majority population, whites, are frequently seen as the major cause of evil in the world and frequently discriminated against (affirmative action for blacks, etc). In Israel, the religious and ethnic expression of the majority is encouraged and carried out in the public square.

Comments:

* Kids in Israel have not had their heads crammed full of anti-Israeli propaganda. Whereas in america and western europe white kids are told that whites are the demons of history and that immigrants and nonwhites are good and holy. Just coincidentally, that propaganda makes white kids grow up to be ashamed of their race. And just coincidentally that reservoir of white guilt makes it easier for the corporations to get more immigrants into america and western europe. And just coincidentally that surplus pool of workers and consumers suppresses wage growth and increases sales, which increases corporate profits.

* Prior to the Reformation, Europe was basically a Roman Catholic Caliphate. The values that it defined itself against were not primarily Islamic or Arabian, but Jewish. (And very quickly those were the values Islam defined itself against, just as it yearned to establish itself as a caliphate, to the extent histories I read haven’t been retconned by anti-semites.)

Those values, back then, were understood to reduce to the sinfulness of usury. And it’s always good to remind people that what Shakespeare’s Shylock demanded from delinquent debtors was historically accurate: Jewish moneylenders were barbaric bankers.

The history of Europe is, in a blazing way, the history of how a culture fructifies against and amidst usury. This is exactly what Ezra Pound’s Cantos are about. Art sought patrons when it could not seek usurers. Artists created Europe’s identity by making Cathedrals that didn’t stand a chance to make a profit. If you can derive a rule about history from the cultural monuments that give Europe it’s identity as much as the pyramids are yet still Egypts identity, it would be you must cut out the moneymen if you want true identiy; their must be patrons, and those patrons must not assent to Jewish taste. Elsewise you have entertainments, nickelodeons, ect.

* We are on the cusp of another spiritual cataclysm, and the vast majority of our conservative commentators have opted out of the game. To do what? Leave it to Pope Francis and the liberals? Leave it to the Muslims? The left-nihilists?

There’s no spiritual response from the West to what’s happening. It’s like a total surrender. What are we supposed to rally behind Ted Cruz who’ll fix it all by fighting Russia for Israel (or whatever other psychotic, non-sequitur garbage he comes up with)?

Islam is the most democratic of all the Abrahamic faiths. This point is lost on the Ross Douthats of the world. Christianity is fundamentally aristocratic, yet it has totally abdicated its throne.

So we are a people unmoored, without leadership, living in a state of spiritual anarchy, ripe for the picking. If this doesn’t change, we’ll lose. We can’t throw facts and opinions at our enemies and hope that moves people’s hearts and souls. It’s a hopeless endeavor. Trump’s popularity stems from this yearning for conviction that’s been lost since the Berlin Wall fell down. Right or wrong, we need faith more than ever, and we neglect it to our peril and probable doom.

Does anyone besides me and a few other weirdos like Houellebecq even recognize this?

* What would it take to reform Muslim societies to make them compatible with Western civilization?

To begin with, you would have to end polygamy and cousin marriage, break up the clans, outlaw the hijab along with the sequestration of women, and gradually develop representative national institutions that work with, rather than at cross purposes, to the tribal groupings that compose these societies. You would also have to ban the Koran, destroy all the mosques, imprison all imams and jihadis for life, throw the Kaaba stone into the sea and level Mecca to the ground. Madrases would be closed and replaced with a system of secular public education. In place of Islam the original, pure religion of Abraham (hanifya) would be reintroduced as it existed in that part of the world before Muhammad appeared on the scene. As for Muhammad himself, he would be disavowed as an evil false prophet in the same category as Hitler and Mao-Tse Tung.

Clearly it would take generations, if not centuries, to accomplish these changes. It could only be done under the aegis of an authoritarian central government like the one Ataturk established in Turkey.

* Once upon a time I was thoroughly fascinated by [Robert D.] Kaplan and read everything by him I could find.

In his writings on topics where I had some expertise, I came to believe that for all his large erudition, Kaplan’s filter is “is it good for my tribe” and to a lesser extent “is it good for Israel.” Facts that don’t meet this test were simply ignored, no matter how important they are to understanding the topic.

And there ended my interest in Kaplan.

* “How Islam Created Europe”

This quote reminded me of a similar quote written a few months back that was covered in an iSteve post. Someone in the NYT (I think) declared that islam has always been a part of America and that islam in effect contributed to the Founding of America. They were suggesting that since some slaves were muslim, and since a couple more muslims washed up on shore, that the muslims were part of the Founding and that the US and islam are inseparable. I might be misquoting, but that is the gist of what I recall.

Anyway this headline seems similar. It is written in such a way as to portray islam as part and parcel with Europe. My guess is that it is being done like the earlier comment on islam and America to weaken the will of the people to resist further immigration into the USA and Europe of muslims. After all if they created the US and Europe, we can’t keep them out.

Of course the guy’s description about islam and Europe also let’s the astute reader read between the lines and realize that islam has really been at war with Europe for centuries with a goal of conquering it all. But I imagine the author knows that the racism slur can pretty much guarantee that no one will take away that message.

BTW, isn’t Turkey trying to get in the EU by playing the same card? They say that the Turks have been a part of Europe for centuries and played a crucial role in their history. Of course they don’t dwell on the fact that their role was one of outside occupier and slave taker.

* I am ever so glad that Western civilization has these Ashkenazi moral guideposts to chart our course and point out our failings. I just don’t know where we’d be without them.

* In the final analysis, Kaplan is actually questioning the right of Europeans to exist.
– that is what all the flowery overblown rhetoric and cod scholarship reduces down to.

Now, the ‘right to exist’ is a curious term. At the most basic, fundamental level, it is *the* principle behind all life on this planet be it microbiological, vegetable or animal, since the very first replicators emerged from that much hypothesized ‘soup’ billions of years ago.

It is also the guiding principle of absolutely every human societal construct from the family, to the tribe, to the nation to Microsoft and Apple, and even iSteve and Steve posters daring to sound their voices.

So, Robert Kaplan is in, effect, calling for the voluntary extinction, nay, negation, of the primordial impulse of this existential universe, as manifest in its highest bearers.

Even a flea fights for its life.

* Frankfurt School is a symptom, not a cause. A place with civilizational confidence would have laughed in their faces or done much worse. Why doesn’t Frankfurt School mojo work on the head choppers in Mosul? Did Christianity cause the fall of the Roman Empire or did it move in when praying to the old gods no longer worked? European lions fought with each other and then the jackals came to finish off the wounded animals.

* Jews just are not going to admit that their model, their experience–transnational tribalism–is anomalous and an *inferior* model for organizing the world. Most people across geography and history have been around people like them–same race, language, culture–and much prefer that. (At the boundaries … there is conflict. ) People don’t actually like being bossed around–dictated to–by a racially or cultural different overclass. With nationalism you can have republics, representative, democracy, civil rights, the joys of shared culture, community harmony and peace and prosperity. In contrast the Jewish diversitopia model, suppresses republicanism, gives you a bullying overclass, an intrusive state bureaucracy, speech codes, political allocation of everything, continual cultural contention (schools, communities, neighborhoods, nations), reduced community and atomization. It’s just unpleasant. It’s inferior. But admitting that pretty darn obvious fact, messes up the Jewish narrative of being the multicultural heroes by their separatism and refusing to assimilate with the local populations.

* I have a Bronx-born Jewish friend who loved to regale me with tales of how horrible the mean, nasty American white people were and are to the innocent, humble black people. I used to try to rebut, temper and contextualize his arguments, but he always had more energy for this kind of thing than I did, so I finally just let him go on uninterrupted until he said everything he had to say and he took my lack of rebuttal for assent. Offhandedly, I said, “And that’s why you just moved to the whitest zip code in the country,” and then changed the subject.

I haven’t heard white supremacy complaint since.

* Kaplan’s fundamental problem is that he seems to think that opposition to large scale immigration has to do with opposition to people who look different and have different languages and customs. That’s a bit of it, but I don’t think that much of it.

The problem is that any concept of “universal values” is not going to work, when the immigrants favor things like FGM, and the hosts do not, when the immigrants carry on blood sports, and the hosts do not, when the immigrants engage in child marriage, and the hosts do not, when the immigrants have attitudes towards small mammals, conceived either as demonic or as food, that the hosts do not, when the immigrants proscribe certain foods or drinks, and the hosts do not, when the immigrants believe they are entitled to carry out honor killings, and the hosts do not, when the immigrants believe various sexual behaviors ranging from loss of virginity to pederasty to same sex behaviors have to be conducted, or not, according to their customs on penalty of death, and the hosts do not, when the immigrants believe the free exercise of their religion involves the use of force or terror, when their hosts do not, etc. etc. etc.

And, of course, when the immigrants feel no need to assimilate or change their “universal values” to the “universal values” of their hosts.

Now of course there are some outliers in the West that diverge from the presumed “universal values” of the West (e.g., Mennonites, some Hassidic sects, Romany). But these groups are relatively small, and the divergencies are also small.

Ultimately, if this level of immigration continues — and I didn’t even speak of “universal values” in terms of politics, family and tribal ties, social organization, etc. — Kaplan will be schooled as to the polymorphous nature of “universal values.”

One more point worth making: Western whites, especially Western white bourgeois, have small families because of their “universal values” about parental investment and protecting the environment, while many people who comprise these immigrants have completely different “universal values” not only in terms of the prestige of having large families (e.g., 3 wives, 17 children) but also a sort of general thoughtlessness about the consequences of having so many children. Put another way, when the population of Great Britain reaches 200 million, or the population of the United States reaches one billion, that will not only put a severe crimp on any of the multicolored sets of “universal values” but it will also put cause celebres like Climate Change completely in the shade.

* In the 90s, my Jewish friend who’s the biggest promoter of all things NAM proudly owned and lived in a lovely property in the Mission Hill section of Boston, a dicey area hard by Roxbury…until it was time to send his kids to school. He then decamped to tony, 98% white/Asian Weston. And no, he didn’t cop to the hypocrisy.

Posted in Diversity, Immigration, Islam, Israel, Jews | Comments Off on Israel vs America

The Hate Speech Doctrine

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* We’re probably witnessing the development of a “hate speech” doctrine to swallow the First Amendment in real time. There is already broad support for such a thing in the academy, in law schools, and among fully indoctrinated Millennials who state reflexively the anti-constitutional mantra that “Hate Speech is not Free Speech.” It’s also already an accepted part of the law in the “more enlightened” legal regimes of the Anglosphere, and a mere logical step away from hate crimes laws already in force, which propose a theory of punishing harm to a discrete racial or sexual minority community.

It’s simply a matter of time at this point – the future has been lost, but has simply not come to full fruition as yet.

* Give it a few years. Under the Muslim hudood laws, six (6) male Muslim eyewitnesses are required to convict a Muslim of rape. If a woman reports a rape without the requisite eyewitnesses she can find herself charged with fornication and be beaten or do prison time.

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on The Hate Speech Doctrine