ADL Leader Abraham Foxman To Retire In 2015

The New York Times reports Feb. 10, 2014:

Abraham H. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor whose 50-year tenure battling anti-Semitism made him one of the visible and influential leaders of the American Jewish community, announced on Monday that he will retire next year as national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

Mr. Foxman, who has headed the organization since 1987, played a central role in most of the major controversies involving Israel and the Jewish community in recent years, and has stirred up a few of his own. He was frequently lionized as a forceful defender of Jews and Israel, but periodically criticized as too quick to call criticism of Israel anti-Semitic and too hesitant to label the early 20th-century killings of Armenians in Turkey as genocide…

Mr. Foxman said that he is pleased anti-Semitic acts and attitudes have drastically decreased in the United States over the last half-century, but that he is concerned about rising anti-Semitism elsewhere. “Globally, it’s the worst that it has been since World War II,” he said.

“He’s been a somewhat controversial figure, and there were moments when he has been perceived by some to be out of touch, and yet, when serious issues of anti-Semitism arose, everybody would go back to Abe Foxman,” said Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University. “He would be on anybody’s short list of the most significant American Jewish leaders of the postwar period.”

I ask Dr. Sarna via email:

Dear Jonathan,

I read your comments about Abe Foxman in the New York Times. I’m working on a blog post about the ADL’s legacy and it touches on our previous email exchange about Jewish influence.

Do you think the ADL has been the model for fighting racism in America? In other words, the ADL’s encouraging of the tape recording of alleged bigotry, the bullying of those who say negative things about Jews to intimidate the wider society, infiltrating and exposing alleged bigotry, turning in your neighbors for saying nasty things about groups, stigmatizing it, yelling if anyone in the media says anything remotely offensive or critical of a protected ethnic group such as Jews or blacks, rallying the media and politicians to condemn it so that we have an America today where you are not allowed to publicly make critical remarks about any ethnic group in the news media? Have Jews been at the forefront of this stigmatizing, perceiving it as in their group interest as well as in America’s to forbid public discussion of negative patterns of behavior in groups (such as high violent crime rates among blacks, low literacy rates among American latinos, the Jewish ethnicity of the billionaires who looted Russia under Yeltsin (aka the Russian Mafia being overwhelmingly a Jewish mafia), all the Jews getting caught for insider trading and white collar crime on Wall Street, etc)? So today you can’t make negative comments about gays, or blacks or Jews without getting fired if you work in the media (eg, Gregg Easterbook fired [from ESPN] in 2003, Rick Sanchez fired by CNN in 2010 for denying that Jews were underdogs, Marlon Brando‘s 1996 remarks, the perhaps misplaced hysteria about The Passion of The Christ)? While Jews in the media certainly disagree about many issues, but by composing about half of the leading pundits (according to an article in The Atlantic in 2007), do Jews such as Abe Foxman largely get to set the parameters of what is acceptable public discussion (with disproportionate Jewish influence in the media, finance and politics being one of those topics you can’t talk about publicly)? Have Jews like Foxman and the ADL often been hysterical and misplaced in their work?

In short, do you believe that Jews are well-served by the current climate in America where you are not allowed to say anything critical about Jews as a group and keep your job in public life? If I am not seeing reality, can you think of examples of prominent Americans criticizing Jews and not getting hurt for it? Do Jews largely get to set the agenda of public discourse in America, and if so, is that good for the Jews and for America?

There are certain weaknesses that Jewish intellectuals are prone to and should this sort of thing be allowed to be discussed in the news media? For example, non-Jew Steve Sailer wrote: “Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad — for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms.”

He replies:

You are asking me whether I agree with you. The answer is no. Since World War II, we Americans have agreed to limit our freedom in some respects in order to create a better society. We gave up the freedom to discriminate (in employment, in housing, in recreation, and in some respects in public speech). I think we made a great decision, but I understand perfectly well that others disagree.

In the 1995 book Jews and the New American Scene, Seymour Martin Lipset, a Senior Scholar of the Wilstein Institute for Jewish Policy Studies, and Earl Raab, Director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, wrote:

“During the last three decades, Jews have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals, 40 percent of American Nobel Prize Winners in science and economics, 20 percent of professors at the leading universities, 21 percent of high level civil servants, 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington, 26% of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the fifty top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series.” [pp 26-27]

Posted in ADL, Anti-Semitism, Jews, Race | Comments Off on ADL Leader Abraham Foxman To Retire In 2015

Are Supporters Of Immigration Amnesty Traitors To America?

I was wondering: “Do you think it is over-statement to call the pundits and politicians favoring amnesty traitors? Given that the US had no strategic interest in invading and occupying Iraq, would it be fair to call those who favored that 2003 invasion traitors? Particularly if they were doing it because they primarily thought it was in Israel’s best interests?”

John* told me: To be a traitor, one must knowingly be working against the interest of one’s country.

This limits the traitors to those who are avowedly nationalists, such as the fringe group of Mexican Latino activists who want to take back the Southwest and make it part of greater Mexico. However, even these activists don’t want a formal merger with Mexico, they want the protections and benefits of being in the United States, without having to assimilate to the culture and values of the United States.

So many of the people who support amnesty and increased immigration do so for reasons that they may actually believe.

One subset sees a graying U.S. population and believes that without a large tax base of younger persons, the government won’t be able to keep its promises regarding social welfare programs, including social security and medicare, to protect its older citizens. They believe the size of the population must continue to increase to support those who are in and approaching retirement, and they see no reason to believe that immigrants, (illegal or legal, skilled or unskilled) will not ultimately pay more in taxes than they take from benefits. They do not accept that immigrants depress the wages that citizens would earn. I would call these people fools, but not traitors.

Another subset includes strict libertarians who believe that by stripping away the welfare state, and allowing free movement of labor and capital among nations, everyone will prosper, not that everyone, except the capitalists, will have wages depressed and that the richer countries will see their living standards plunge. These are people who are idealists, who have a particular vision of how economics work, and do not think they are acting in a traitorous way.

Another subset are the chamber of commerce types who along with the new silicon valley entrepreneurs, want cheap labor. They must realize that by doing so they depress wages and deprive citizens of jobs, but they also rationalize it that it allows them to provide less expensive products to consumers, spend more money on innovation, and return greater profits to their shareholders. Thus they justify it by expanding their view of their narrow self interest by rationalizing the benefits and downplaying the downside.

The benign liberals, look at the way that their ancestors came to America and were assimilated and thrived, and/or feel guilty about the standard of living they enjoy, and don’t want to deprive others of the same opportunities. This fails to accept that the country has changed and doesn’t need immigrants in the same way and also ignores that today’s immigrants do not necessarily have the same values and attitudes toward their new country that their ancestors had. It also disregards the impact of new immigrants on existing American jobs and culture.

For many of the advocates of amnesty, they believe America is a propositional nation. That the values set out in our Declaration of Independence (not our Constitution) are universal themes that everyone aspires to. They believe (and our laws on asylum promote this belief) that the United States is unique in providing constitutional protections to people who have run afoul of the political powers in their home countries. Now of course this has been expanded to protection for gay men and women in countries with official positions opposing homosexuality.

They do not seem to understand or appreciate how much of what makes the United States what it is, is the Northern European culture that for most of its history dominated it. The Protestant ethic and desire for a sense of order is what allowed community to thrive. All you have to do is listen to Garrison Keillor poke fun at the German Catholics and the Norwegian Lutherans in Lake Wobegon to see how different that is from Southern California with its pastiche of cultures primarily the cultures from the different areas of Mexico and El Salvador, China, Korea, Armenia, Thailand, Iran, Israel. We certainly have better food, but is there more crime? Is there less trust? Is any of that related to fostering illegal immigration.

On one level anyone who supports amnesty is a traitor. That person is a traitor because he is sanctioning someone for violating the law which undermines the rule of law. When we allow someone who breaks the rules to benefit from breaking the rules, while someone who plays by the rules, must wait for entry to the country, we encourage law breaking.

RE: the pundits who urged us to war against Iraq are traitors. Again the issue is were they working against America’s interest. Many of them believed they were working in Israel’s interest but they also believed that in doing so they were working in America’s interest. I don’t think they could accurately be described as traitors since they didn’t believe that they were harming American interests even though in fact the Iraq intervention was probably the worst foreign policy move in America’s history and definitely moved us from responsive or defensive war to peremptory or aggressive war. This also brings into play the whole notion of dual loyalty. Is it possible that countries in fact have identical interests? A short glance at historical disputes shows that countries always have disparate interests, but sometimes their common interests outweigh those. What is best for Israel is not always what is best for the U.S. and vice versa. I don’t know whether the Jewish neo-cons honestly believe the interests are the same, or whether they understand the policies they advance are better for Israel, and downplay the downside for the U.S.

Posted in America, Immigration | Comments Off on Are Supporters Of Immigration Amnesty Traitors To America?

Israel Is No Ethno-State

Anonymous writes: “You goys keep perpetuating the fallacy that Israel is an ethno-state, where did you get such a misguided notion? While I sure would like to see what an Ashkenazi super state would look like, Israel is no such place. Israel has a population of 8 million; 3 million Askenazis, 3 million Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews and 2 million Arab Sunnis, Druze and Christians. The Sephardis and Mizrahis are Jews that remained in the vicinity of the Middle East after the Roman expulsions, consequently, they are basically Arabs with yarmulkes, their average IQ is about 90, their academic and economic performance in Israel bears this out. Israel cannot be described as an ethno-state, but perhaps theo-state, as immigrants are screened by religious affiliation. Israel idiotically flies in hundreds of thousands of brain-dead Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews, permanently ensconces them into its welfare system and is both decried and idealized as an as a racially pure whitopia by the stupid goyim. If it was not for the excellent birth-rates of the Ashkenazi Haredim, Israel would be in the same dysgenic death-spiral as the rest of the West.”

Aaron Gross writes: “Regarding what you can do: In Israel, the government was indifferent for years to mass immigration (“infiltration”) from Sudan and Eritrea. It took violent protests, nearly riots, to get the government to do anything. Even now, parts of south Tel Aviv look like Africa. So the Israeli approach is to take to the streets and demonstrate loudly and violently until the government takes action. In Israel, that’s the only thing that finally worked.”

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Israel Is No Ethno-State

Are Jews A Blessing To The World?

Sometimes I get so disgusted by the things that a small number of Jews are doing (the pro-amnesty Southern Poverty Law Center and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the ADL, the Democratic party, the Republican establishment, etc) that I wonder if we, the Jewish people, are a blessing to the world? God and Torah command us to be a blessing to the world, but are we really? Is it possible that at any given point in time, we’re doing more harm than good?

I’ve been talking to my Jewish friends about this and most of us have agreed that the Jews are definitely a blessing to the world. I agree with this. Just look at Israel, the biggest concentration of Jews. It’s such a moral improvement on its neighbors. All of my Orthodox friends have no doubt that Jews are a blessing to the world because they look at secular Jews as not real Jews. My secular Jewish friends are more likely to question whether Jews are a blessing to the world.

My secular friend Joey Kurtzman told me: “Jewry is an expression of the world rather than an agent acting on the world. So absent the Jews, the world would find other channels to express same impulses.”

“Put like this, I can give an answer: ‘If all the Jews in the world suddenly moved to another planet, do I think the world would become a better or worse place?’The answer is that I think it would be a wash, history would proceed differently but I doubt better or worse. However I don’t think Jews as a collective, as a people, have any responsibility to make the world a better place for others, so I’m not troubled by the question.”

“I’ve discussed with Orthodox Jews before the fact that in a certain sense secular Jews like me are not just astray from Israel, we’re actually so mongrelized that I don’t think we’re Jewish by their standards. But for me I think the Jewish people have to own the secularists Even Jews who are generations removed from any kind of Judaism carry some kind of Jewish essence, the means of transmission I have no clue.”

Jack the Secular Jew* emails:

Dear Luke,

It is hard to read your posts without concluding that the influence of Jews on financial affairs and public policy, even if often well intended, has been on the whole, a bad thing.

It is especially difficult to assess Jewish influence with any degree of objectivity. Modern Zionism is barely one hundred years old and World War II ended less than 70 years ago. As you know it is difficult to pigeonhole Jews. You want to separate the religious ones from the secular ones, and attribute any negative impact on Western societies in general and the U.S. specifically in the hands of the secular Jews.

It is very tough for Jews to be honest about the history and importance of Judaism. Considering that Judaism has something less than 25 million (and possibly less than 15 million) adherents in a world with more than 7 billion non-Jews, its contemporary (as opposed to its historical) value as a religion is negligible. It has been supplanted by Christianity and Islam, monotheistic religions that are at least in part outgrowths of Judaism. (Let’s leave it alone that there is credibly historic evidence that Judaism itself is an outgrowth of Abraham’s exposure to Zoroastrianism, the first monotheistic religion.) No non Jew considers any opinion or ruling by any Rabbi, no matter how exalted, in the same league as non-Catholics consider the pronouncements of the Pope or non Moslems consider various Ayatollahs or Imams. Learned Jews like to hash out the arcane teachings of the Talmud, but no one in Western Culture looks to the Talmud as a guide to governance or ethics, the way they do the teachings of the Old and New Testament, the teachings of the Greek and Roman philosophers and the early Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas. So this is all delusional on the part of Jews or in the case of second raters like Dennis Prager, propaganda to promote the historical fiction that America is a “Judeo-Christian Nation.” The founders may have drawn on the Old and New Testaments, but they didn’t rely on any Talmudic sages or rabbinical teachings, while they were quite open in crediting the Greeks and Romans.

Progressive liberals, Jews and non-Jews suffer from the same myopia. They identify a specific problem and seek to alleviate it (even when it may not be a problem at all) without really thinking through all the possible adverse consequences. For instance the attempts of Jews from Julius Rosenwald funding schools for Southern blacks, to the founding of the NAACP, to the freedom riders and actual work integrating businesses and registering voters in the South, (often led by red diaper babies) was based on the perception that there were no fundamental differences between Blacks living in a Jim Crow South, and Jews living in Nazi Germany under the Nuremburg laws. Absent the cruel yoke of Southern racist repression, Blacks would become like their white neighbors, socially, economically, professionally and politically. The difference between being smart and being wise, is the ability to foresee possible adverse consequences. That doesn’t mean one doesn’t necessarily proceed with what one think’s is right, but it does mean one is prepared for the consequences and has taken steps to ameliorate them.

This was the great insight of Garrett Hardin, truly a revolutionary environmental thinker, although if he lived to today, he would be attacked for being a racist. He said that we have to learn when we attack a problem, that “we can never do one thing.” There are always other side effects or consequences to the action. This philosophy has been echoed more recently by Thomas Sowell who after people make proposals to do something, asks them “and then what,” because there is a follow up which may not be pretty.

I am not saying one can never take any action, but our governance would be better if legislators would ask themselves these questions before proposing new laws, have these issues thoroughly discussed at hearings before voting, and then thinking them through before voting. But it is a quandary how to make someone who wants to please his constituents We have to elect persons who are not politicians first and foremost, but willing to face uncomfortable truths and sometimes say no to their most important voters.

I realize this is far afield from the issues about Jews. But when you look at the litany of places where David Duke sees Jewish influence, he is right that many of the things that have happened is because of the influence of Jews in these fields. But it is hard to see this as some vast conspiracy by Jews to spread a particular message. As an example, its undisputed when one looks at the prevalence of Jews (and non Jews with some Jewish heritage, and non Jews with Jewish spouses) in the ranks of the Bolsheviks, that it was not without justification that Adolph Hitler rose to power railing about the Judeo-Bolsheviks. In fact, in his speeches throughout his career, it is exceedingly rare that he ever attacked Jews without linking them to Communists. If one looks at where the Communist Party was successful within the United States, it is clear that Jews were overrepresented within its ranks.

Yet the Soviet Communists ruthlessly suppressed Judaism (although Stalin wanted the Jews to have their own independent Republic within the Soviet Union) and within the United States, the Jews who were Communist or Communist sympathizers were never more than a large minority. So even if Jews were a major influence in Soviet Communism, that influence did not extend to helping practicing Jews, it only liberated non-practicing Jews who sympathized with Communism. Is this then a conspiracy.

Within the arts, the Jewish contribution is hard to Judge. Jews have been instrumental in modern art history and in development of the commercial art market. But there are no Jewish artists through most of the 20th century anywhere near the quality or importance as Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Vermeer, Velasquez etc up. It is hard to see that Chagall or Mark Rothko will be treated by history like them or even the more recent impressionists.

Music, is the same story. Yes, American popular music in the 20th century is dominated by Jews from Irving Berlin, to George Gershwin, to Neil Diamond and Carole King, and Jews are very influential in all aspects of Broadway Musicals but considering more serious music, does anyone think that Steve Reich, Aaron Copeland, Leonard Bernstein, or Arnold Schoenberg will ever be thought of in the same league as Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Rossini and Wagner? (Wagner gets a a bad rap because of his anti Semitism, but any serious musicologist will tell you how important and revolutionary his music was.) The only Jewish composer of note before the mid 19th century was Felix Mendelsohn who was convert to Christianity who wrote Hark the Herald Angels sing (among other great works)

Jewish novelists have been prominent since World War II with Saul Bellow, Norman Mailer, Bernard Malamud and Philip Roth, and J.D. Salinger (half Jewish) dominating the field. (William Styron, though a southern wasp was married to a Jew). Unfortunately, the novel has been supplanted by film (and considering theater, David Mamet, much as I admire him, will never be another William Shakespeare (who I greatly admire) won’t be performed in a hundred years .

Is there a Jewish sensibility that conflicts with that of the dominant culture? I think so. Joseph Sobran, who was shunned by the conservative community because of his anti Israel and anti Jewish columns, even though they made up but a miniscule percentage of what he wrote, said that Jews were like garlic. A little sprinkled here and there brings out the flavor but two many and they dominate the flavor.

Jews have never been more welcomed in any land than in the United States. They have gained unprecedented power and influence. What made America, what it was, was a combination of things. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, it had a lot of land. When most Jews emigrated, it needed a lot of labor. (Again, it is a common Jewish myth that Eastern European Jews emigrated here to escape anti-semitism. No center of learning relocated to the United States from Central and Eastern Europe, the supposed hotbed of anti Semitism until after the second world war. The Jews had a tremendous population explosion within the Pale of the Settlement and economic conditions are what prompted emigration. Even though there were pogroms, such as the Kishniev progrom, and the ritual murder trial of Mendel Beiliss (who was not convicted) these were relatively insignificant in the population of Jews in Tsarist Russia and Poland.

What happened is that some Jews looked at the country that provided them so much opportunity and ostensibly wanted to change it in ways that they thought would help it, but perhaps unconsciously served the purpose of helping the Jews. For instance, if Jews are the only distinct successful minority, an envious majority population such as what happened in Germany under Hitler, might turn against them, even if Jews had a lot of influence. (and German Jews at the time the Nazis rose to power, were influential writers and publishers, were very powerful in finance, department stores and certain segments of manufacturing, and dominated law as well) But if there were other minority groups then the wrath and envy of the white Protestants and Catholics wouldn’t be turned on the Jews.

In fact, mass third world immigration has destroyed the traditional American nation to the point that within a few years, the majority of babies will be non white, meaning with 30 years , whites may still be the plurality, but not the majority. I do not think that most Jews wanted to destroy what made America great, but I think it was hubris that allowed so many of the leading pundits and public policy mavens to think that you could (again as Steve Sailer has written) elect a new people, without fundamentally altering the culture. Sociologists such as Robert Putnam had pointed out how multiculturalism fragments communities and erodes trust, something that was taken for granted in most of America thoughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries.

You seem to think that if Jews just stayed in ghettos and remained religious there would be no conflict with the greater American nation (whatever that term means now) but as long as people exercise political power, even if only to advance their own ghetto existence, as it happens in New York, that religious community also corrupts the politicians.

Jews should not be second class citizens, in the United States or elsewhere, but they should subordinate their religious beliefs, where in conflict with American values (whatever they are) to those values. If their religious beliefs conflict, then they should emigrate someplace where there is no conflict, most likely Israel. But more important than the religious beliefs is the social, cultural and societal values. I am sure that few Jews consciously feel like outsiders in America anymore as the Jews who influence broader mass media have seen their vision accepted throughout the United States as a result of television, films and music. But they do not seem to understand how important the values that have been undermined whether consciously are not, constitute the glue that holds America together. The loss of Christian religious faith, which most Jews are not unhappy about, is at least part of the reason for fewer marriages and more children being born out of wedlock. The idea of a government safety net, at least above a certain level, prevents the community from influencing “bad” decisions that young people might make. Jews who are in a position to influence the culture first must understand what has been the dominant culture and values and determine whether those values and culture have benefited people including Jews more than decimating those values and replacing them with new values would. This is an almost impossible level of empathy, understanding and historical analysis to ask from people who work in mass media, whether they be Jews or non-Jews.

No assessment of Jewish impact would be complete without considering the Jews who have been prominent in science. Advances in science and technology separate us from previous generations. It’s a truism that the amount of computing power in your smart phone vastly exceeds the computing power that was used to get men to the moon.

Jews have in modern times, been the leading theoretical thinkers in physics. Not just Einstein, but also Nils Bohr (who was half Jewish) Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman and many others. But Rutherford, Fermi, Heisenberg, Dirac were not Jewish.

In medicine Pasteur and Fleming were not Jews, but Erlich, Salk and Sabin were

Jews have been less well represented in the ranks of those who revolutionized electronics through the invention of the transistor (Bardeen and Shockley) or in the studies on DNA ( Crick and Watson) Jews were not involved in the initial development of Apple (Wozniak and Jobs) or Microsoft (Gates) although Kurzweil and Ellison are Jewish. But still a disproportionate share of the cutting edge research in Physics and Astrophysics, Mathematics, Computer Sciences and Biochemistry is being done by Jews, although it seems that more and more of the brilliant minds are being hired out of MIT and Cal Tech to work as quants on Wall Street, rather than by research labs or Universities.

I think it is fair to say that at least some level of our technological advancement is due to the influence and research of Jews, but I don’t know how crucial it is. For instance in the construction of our Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb, many of the physicists were non Jews although both Oppenheimer and Teller were brilliant physicists. Would the bomb have been designed and built as quickly as it was without Jewish physicists working on it?

However, the Russian design of the hydrogen bomb, which differed from ours and was equally brilliant if not more so was by Sakharov who was not Jewish (although the head of the Soviet nuclear weapons program Landau was Jewish) Would our computer systems be as good as they are without Jewish engineers and scientists? Probably. What about communication systems? Probably. What about research on the cancer? Probably not. What about exploration of space? Considering that NASA was basically run by Hitler’s rocket scientists, probably yes.

The point is that scientific advances happen with and without Jews. The actual application of electricity was done by Edison, Steinmetz and Tesla, none of whom were Jews. Was Simon Ramo really important in defense and aerospace and really a brilliant scientist. Yes, he was, but did he so revolutionize things that the aerospace industry wouldn’t have developed as it did without him? That’s hard to say.

Michael Dell is Jewish, but the advances in computer science and software were not by him. His genius was in marketing and sales of computers. The first big computer company was IBM. Tom Watson was as waspish as they come.

Where Jews have really been important is in shaping the modern culture, through the mass media in all its forms, in dominating academia and in influencing law. Ever since Brandeis there was one Jewish seat on the Supreme Court. Now one third of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices are Jews.

Again, this doesn’t deal with Jewish influence in the world. Jewish influence outside of Europe, Israel and North America is almost nil. Its irrelevant to the powers in East Asia: Japan, China and Korea. Its irrelevant to the countries of Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. Its irrelevant to India. Its irrelevant to all of sub Saharan Africa, except for South Africa and irrelevant to North Africa except for Morocco and Egypt. And of course Bernard Henri-Levi’s war against Libya which left that country in ruins. Its irrelevant to South America. But since the U.S. is the most culturally influential country in the world and the most powerful militarily (in the sense that we can destroy a country) what happens here cannot be divorced from the rest of the world and to the extent that the policies of the United States (and this relates not only to governmental foreign policy, but also to economic and social influences) are influenced or promoted by Jews, even though I doubt there is a coordinated Jewish view on these things, then Jews do have an impact on the rest of the world.

The Sochi games are a pretty good example of this. The United States has recently become obsessed, since President Obama’s evolution on same sex marriage in the summer of 2012, with wiping out anything remotely construed as anti gay anywhere within our sphere of influence. Although I haven’t touched on it in this email, much of the impetus for same sex marriage comes from either Jewish homosexuals, or secular Jewish liberals. The U.S. wants to punish Russia for passing legislation which forbids the promoting homosexuality to children. If one accepts that any part of homosexual behavior is environmental rather than purely genetic, then the question one has to ask oneself is what sort of society do we want. The Russians have concluded that they do not want to encourage homosexuality among its population. That is not the sort of society that they desire. Yet President Obama who less than two years ago publicly opposed same sex marriage, wants the Russians to embrace not just same sex marriage, but to allow gay activists to promote homosexuality as an appropriate lifestyle, and this attempt to internally influence Russian attitudes is duly echoed by many Jewish public policy intellectuals.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It depends entirely on your view of homosexuality.

A New York sage who had a Jewess steal a dreidel from him and ever since that trauma, he’s been on Craigslist looking for a shiksa to marry, says:

What’s the old Joke, what do you call a world without Jews in it? “Heaven”

BH, the white goyim always worship a Jew: Jesus, Marx, Freud, Ayn Rand, Woody Allen. But what of the Brown ones taking their place? What then, yidden, when the goy has brown skin?

OK, so first it was the colored, then the women, then the People of Color who bring us our diversity and now it is the gays. So who comes after them? I hope it is Muslims. The kind who take the teachings of the Holy Quran seriously.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Are Jews A Blessing To The World?

A Few Thoughts On Israel And America

I am a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. I love my adopted country.

I believe that the primary purpose of the United States government is to insure the welfare of its citizens and their progeny. Therefore, I see little reason for the United States to expend resources in interventions around the world (particularly not military interventions) because you never know how these can backfire. I think that contrary to current American policy, the Ukraine will be better off if we let Ukrainians work out their own government. I feel the same way about Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and the like.

I particularly don’t want the United States to get bogged down in savage backward countries like Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia. I think Africa is by and large a hell hole, and contrary to Jonah Goldberg in 2005, I don’t want America invading to set things straight. I want no more disasters like Black Hawk Down.

I am a convert to Orthodox Judaism and Israel (the nation and the nation-state) are as important to me as God and Torah.

I often feel a conflict between my love for America and my love for Israel because I want America to ally with Israel, even though that may not be in America’s strategic interest. I know that Israel, like every sovereign nation, does things in its own interests (such as sell American nuclear secrets stolen by Jonathan Pollard to the Soviet Union to extract Jews).

I don’t believe America has any important strategic interests in the Middle East beyond a steady flow of oil, and that oil is less important by the day because we are finding so much at home.

I believe that the primary reason America is so closely allied with Israel is that Israel is a charity case dear to most American’s hearts (Israel was the land where Jesus walked and talked, etc) and that Jews have been superb at marshaling these warm feelings in Israel’s interests.

The more the United States intervenes in the Middle East, the more difficult it is for America to support Israel. Things get complicated when you’re trying to tell Iraqis and Iranians and Lebanese and Syrians what to do and these interventions raise the price of America’s commitments to Israel.

I believe that Israel is a bastion of Western values in a sea of barbarity, just as South Korea and Taiwan are bastions of western values next door to tyrannies who want to destroy them. I’m good with the way America has extended itself to protect all three countries, even thought that may not have been in America’s interests, but I don’t want America to take on more such charity cases. Rather, I’d like America to start pulling back.

Posted in Africa, America, Israel | Comments Off on A Few Thoughts On Israel And America

Is Israel Better Off For The Presence Of 120,000 Ethiopians?

Why do civilizations decline? Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton described one 19th Century theory:

The character of a civilization was determined by the traits of the dominant race, often created by the union of several related tribes. If wealth grows, cities develop, and an international society forms. Among the new arrivals are persons belonging to ethnic taxa that have never initiated a civilization. Degeneration sets in and the intrinsic worth the people originally possessed becomes lost, for the population no longer has in its veins the same quality blood with which it began. (Race, Evolution and Behavior, pg. 274)

I started paying attention to the wonderful story of Ethiopian Jewry in 2004 when I began reading the Failed Messiah website. In 1984, Shmarya Rosenberg had written to the Lubavitcher rebbe to complain that Chabad wasn’t doing enough for Ethiopian Jews. Rosenberg did not get his hands on the rebbe’s reply until 2004. It disgusted him because it seemed to him that the rebbe did not show sufficient concern for Ethiopian Jews and so Rosenberg quit Chabad, quit observing Orthodox Judaism, and set up his website with the latest news, usually bad, about traditional Judaism.

So I read Rosenberg’s protests and I read a book about Ethiopian Jews and I saw some videos about the ingathering of Ethiopian Jews to Israel. I might have even shed a tear or two at the beauty of it. And then I forgot about Ethiopian Jews.

In 2013, I started reading about IQ again (in 1998, I read the book, The Bell Curve) and I came across information that Ethiopian Jews averaged IQs under 70. “That can’t be right,” I thought to myself. “Jews are very smart people and all the right people say that these Ethiopians are Jews. I’m sure they’ll assimilate into Israel just like the rest of the country’s immigrants.”

Then I started noticing that as Israel got richer, all sorts of people around the world started discovering they were Jewish and demanding the right of return.

I did a little research and found out that the Ethiopians are not assimilating into Israel, just as most African-Americans haven’t assimilated into America after four centuries.

So I didn’t like these thoughts I was having because they get you run out of polite society and they made me feel uncomfortable, so I cast around for other explanations, and found this one by Dr. Girma Bermahu, who writes a review of Richard Lynn’s book entitled, “Black Intellectual Genocide: An Essay Review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations”:

First, I am principally concerned with the way the authors interpreted the data about Ethiopian immigrants’ “IQ values” from Israel and how Ethiopia, my homeland, was described as one of the “dumbest” countries with the lowest IQ, in fact second from last. That figure – average IQ 63 – which was attached to Ethiopia as
average national intelligence in their book (see p.75, p. 137, p. 204) had an extremely negative effect on me and at the same time saddened me about what that message conveys to the bright, struggling, and hard working young boys and girls of ancient Ethiopia whose contribution to world civilisation as the cradle of human civilization/species and its astounding histories were
undeniably documented. (Note that this same IQ datum (63) has been (as a third-hand information) used in a most Tatu Vanhanen
recent article in the November issue of the British Journal
of Health Psychology by Satoshi Kanazawa (2006) where the author confidently stated that low IQ levels (rather than inequality, poverty, and disease) are the reason for African nations chronic ill-health, high infant mortality rate, and low life expectancy. Kanazawa claims that he has reached this conclusion by comparing
national IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries)…

The IQ figure which stood in the authors’ book to represent Ethiopia came from Israel not directly from Ethiopia. I have met some of those who tested the young people (newly arriving immigrants from Ethiopia) and I have probably met half of these
immigrants. It is very possible that a few of them are my acquaintances. That was made possible because I collected data for my PhD dissertation from Israel; my research concerns Ethiopian Jews’ school achievement and integration process in Israel (Berhanu, 2001). The IQ score which Lynn and Vanhanen assigned to Ethiopia was simply picked from Kaniel & Fisherman’s article that appeared in The International Journal of Psychology (1991, 26, pp. 25-33). Lynn & Vanhanen (2002:204) wrote:

“Around 1989, data for a sample of 250 15-year-old Ethiopian
immigrants to Israel tested with the Standard Progressive Matrices
have been reported by Kaniel and Fisherman (1991). In relation to
the 1979 British standardization sample, their mean IQ was 65.
Because of the 10-year interval between the two collections of data, this needs to be reduced to 63.”

Here one could question the validity of the writers’ knowledge of these 250 Ethiopian immigrants. These 15-year-olds came from a region called Gonder. They lived most of their lives in the countryside with rudimentary knowledge of “school-related tasks”
that so-called modern industrialised societies highly value. They were airlifted by Israeli security agents in extremely dramatic circumstances, and their arrival in Israel was abrupt. Many lost their near relatives in this dramatic episode; and many more
were unattended, solitary children. Family disintegration, psychological trauma, confusion, dislocation, and cultural shock were rampant at the moment when the test was administered. Most of these students who are described as having low IQs are presently enjoying a satisfying life and are occupationally competent and socially adequate; they are now in their late 20s or early 30s.
The story of how the Ethiopian Jews – known as Falasha, meaning “gone to exile”–survived for so many centuries in exile clinging to their Jewish tradition and how, finally, they came to Israel is fascinating. As to their history and origin, there are contradictory statements and theories, and it has been an intensely debatable issue, especially in Israel among different religious Jewish authorities, pertaining, for instance, to their rights to Israeli citizenship and the authenticity of their Jewishness.
It was not until 1973 that they were officially accepted as having the right to “return” to Israel and become Israeli citizens. It is important to recognise that while in Ethiopia the Ethiopian Jews lived most of their lives in isolation both in time and space. They
have a singular, defined traditional way of raising and educating children. Therefore, the abrupt transition (Aliya) from village life in Ethiopia to Israel, which occurred en masse within the past two decades, has been accompanied by adjustment crises which
in turn greatly affected their learning and integration into Israeli society (see Berhanu, 2001). From the very start, the absorption of Ethiopian Jews was, to say the least, bumpy…

In the original study Kaniel and Fisherman suggested that the low performance of the Ethiopian immigrants reflects cognitive delay rather than cognitive difference. They stated that there are two approaches to characterizing the “lower performance” on intelligence tests of minorities and immigrants: The first is that ethnic differences and genetic make-up are sources of variations in the time of cognitive development.

Regarding this approach, the authors referred to, among others, Arthur Jensen. The other approach is, as they stated, minorities’ low performance in cognitive tests, due to differences in culturally induced psychological, cognitive, and behavioral
strategies. Although the way they described the social, cultural and historical circumstances of these newly arrived, most of them “illiterate” immigrants from Ethiopia logically would allow them to adopt the second approach, they preferred to hypothesize (as in other distorted studies, interested in ‘highlighting’ the black-white gap in intelligence) that low performance of the Ethiopian immigrants is caused by cognitive delay rather than cultural difference. They were out to confirm this and it was very easy to do so.

Yes! That must be it. I am so mad at Richard Lynn for writing books that hurt people’s feelings, and damage their self-esteem, leading to lowered educational performance and a life of crime.

I wish we had PC police who could arrest people like Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray for crime think.

The problems of Ethiopians in Israel, and Ethiopians in Ethiopia, and Africans in Africa, and African-Americans in America and aboriginees in Australia and African descendants in the Caribbean are all the fault of white racism. All black problems are the fault of the evil white man.

Once I arrived at this thought, I immediately relaxed.

According to Wikipedia: “Despite progress, Ethiopian Jews have so far largely failed to assimilate into Israeli-Jewish society. They remain, on average, on a lower economic and educational level than average Israelis. Also, while marriages between Jews of different backgrounds are very common in Israel, marriages between Ethiopians and non-Ethiopians are not very common. According to a 2009 study, 90% of Ethiopian-Israelis – 93% of men and 85% of women, are married to other Ethiopian-Israelis. A survey found that found 57% of Israelis consider a daughter marrying an Ethiopian unacceptable and 39% consider a son marrying an Ethiopian to be unacceptable. Barriers to intermarriage have been attributed to sentiments in both the Ethiopian community and Israeli society generally.[124] A 2011 study showed that only 13% of high school students of Ethiopian origin felt “fully Israeli”.”

When I have daughters, I’m going to force them to marry Ethiopians! I am going to march off to shul, demand an aliyah, and then announce to the whole congregation, “Baruch HaShem! My daughter’s marrying a schvartze!”

I am now sure that before Barack Obama leaves office, African-Americans and Ethiopian Jews will assimilate into their host countries and produce educational and socio-economic results on par with their fellow citizens. And if they don’t, I know who to blame — evil white men!

From The Forward: “…Bene Israel of India nor Ethiopian Jews. Genetic tests show that both groups are converts, contradicting their founding myths.”

Steve Sailer wrote:

Between 1984 and 1991, Israel achieved a public-relations coup by importing tens of thousands of Ethiopians who claimed to be Jews. Over the last decade, however, Israel has been taking direct action to limit its black citizens’ fertility.

Originally, Israel had banned immigration by the various sub-Saharan African tribes that claim some kind of hazy Jewish heritage, arguing that they aren’t real Jews. (Recent DNA studies suggest that Ethiopian Jews are only tenuously related to other Jews. These communities probably had a limited number of Jewish ancestors, travelers who married into the much larger local populations.)

In the fevered post-1967 ideological climate, however, Zionism was denounced around the world as racism, as the latest manifestation of white colonialism. The Jewish state hit upon the PR masterstroke of embracing its Ethiopian aspirants.

This didn’t mollify the Arabs, but the symbolism pleased a more important audience: American Jews concerned about Israel appearing racist. Unsurprisingly, this living proof that you could be Israeli and black proved immensely popular with American Jews, who showered Israel’s small community of Ethiopians with $600 million in donations.

Also unsurprisingly, the Ethiopians have proved increasingly less popular with their Israeli neighbors, who have come to view them and their children as backward and crime-prone…

In Israel, Ethiopian women have said on camera that Israeli immigration officials told them that they wouldn’t be allowed into the country without taking Depo-Provera shots. They claim to have been subsequently browbeaten into staying on the contraceptive. One study found that Ethiopian women account for 57 percent of all Israel’s Depo-Provera prescriptions.

In December, an Israeli news show recorded an Israeli nurse telling an Ethiopian immigrant that the injections are given “primarily to Ethiopian women because they forget, they don’t understand, and it’s hard to explain to them, so it’s best that they receive a shot once every three months…basically they don’t understand anything.”

Anonymous writes: “The Ethiopian “Jews” are not Jews at all. That is a scam and everyone knows it. US liberal Jews forced them on Israel. The problems with them are not stopping. There are 5000 Ethiopians in the IDF, a very small percentage, but 11% of all persons in jail in the IDF are Ethiopian. Whether you think this is due to the army or the Ethiopians depends on whether you are a US or Israeli Jew. Israel has received millions of immigrants and some from very primitive countries, but none like this before.”

Here‘s an English translation of the rebbe’s 1984 letter:

By the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson
– as published in Kfar Chabad Magazine, Volume 1079, 5 Shevat 5764 (January 28, 2004) Page 35.

[The letter the Rebbe was responding to can be read here: Part 1; Part 2.]

Baruch HaShem
12 Shevat 5744 [Monday, January 16, 1984]
Brooklyn, NY

Mr. Shmarya Rosenberg1
S. Paul, MN 55116

Shalom u’Bracha! 2

Your special delivery registered letter with enclosures dated 7 Kislev [Sunday, November 13, 1983 — two months before the Rebbe wrote this letter] was received in it’s proper time. You are raising several questions beginning with a question that is related to a complicated problem of Jewish law (“Halakha”). As is well-known and widely publicized, it is outside the scope of my duties to render Jewish legal decisions (“paskin shailot”). I can only suggest that your question be addressed to a qualified rabbinical body, like Agudat HaRabbonim. 3

Aside from this, I am surprised by the wording of your letter because I do not remember receiving any letter from you in the past. 4

Your attitude appears presumptuous and unbecoming. You demand to know why Chabad-Lubavitch representatives (“shluchim”) are not doing anything or are not doing enough, related to this problem that you are very concerned with. Not only this, but your letter is tasteless and illogical, because your questions would be no more logical if you asked a physician why he is not actively involved in a matter related to engineering.

You should know that Chabad-Lubavitch representatives (“shluchim”) have a specific mission assigned to them, which is to spread Judaism in the communities designated to them. Congressional resolutions and the like are not part of those duties that are planned for them.5, 6

Furthermore, there is very little — if anything — they can achieve in the area that interests you most. Therefore, to divert their minds and to turn their energies and their time to something not related to their mission will be wasteful and diversionary to the work that they already do superbly and with full devotion.

Equally, your claims regarding scholarships and other projects you mention in your letter are not logical and they do not fit in with the activities and duties of Chabad-Lubavitch institutions of representatives (“shluchim”).7

The impression received from your letter is that you are probably not familiar with the correct way to achieve success for the cause you are so eager to work for.

In light of the above mentioned, and because you have begun your letter with B”H [an abbreviation for Baruch HaShem, Blessed is God], it is absolutely correct for me to ask you two questions related to this matter:

1. Remember the law (“din kadima”) that the needs of the poor of your own city come first. Did all the Jews in your city receive adequate necessities to cover their Jewish [i.e., spiritual] needs? If not, why not?

2. What have you done and what are you currently doing — are you doing all you can? — to convince and encourage the Jews in your community — men, women and children — to live their lives as truly devoted Jews, Jews devoted to the Torah and its laws, fulfilling the daily mitzvot and acting as Jews? If not, why not?

Of course, there are many differences between your questions and mine. In fact, an operation to benefit the Jews of your community (along with it having precedence in Jewish law, “din kadima”) can be carried out without the necessity of assistance from the American Congress and without the approval of any foreign government. Furthermore, such an operation would undoubtedly be successful — it depends only on you and your willingness and determination to carry out such an urgent action. 8 Surely there is no need to explain to you the conditions in America — including in your state and in your city — that so very many Jews — men, women and young children — are carried away on the stream of assimilation, influenced by foreign surroundings that leads to intermarriage, etc. So many of them are lost to our people day-after-day, and, according to our sages, even the soul of one Jew is regarded as an entire world, and certainly it is so with regard to the rescue of so many of our brothers [from assimilation].

I must say that the purpose of my letter to you is not to argue with you or even to give you mussar (“moral guidance”) because I do not know you. Your letter is one of very many letters I receive and your letter does not fit in with any of them. It occurs to me that perhaps it is providential (“hashgakha pratit”), and that this gives me the opportunity to bring to your attention the fact that the many Jews nearby you have important needs and that an effort must be made to reach and save them — they have the priority, the first claim on Jews like you.

May G-d give you the correct answers to answer my questions, not for my self-indulgence but for the sake of our brethren (“acheynu b’nai yisrael”), especially the younger generation in your city, assuming that you are a resident there for at least a few years or perhaps were born there.

With The Respect That Is Fitting (“B’Kavod HaRoy”),

[Signed]
P.S. I would like to respectfully ask you as an additional question related to this matter: In what way can it be helpful to this issue (that you are so angry about) for you to be well-informed on what I do or do not do to benefit it?

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Is Israel Better Off For The Presence Of 120,000 Ethiopians?

Jews and Japan

I was talking to an Australian friend today who pointed out that Jews are insignificant in Japan.

That’s largely right. There are fewer than 2,000 Jews in the country (Jews have been in Japan since the 16th Century and the fews Jews there today are often highly successful), but to the extent that America, as the world’s sole superpower, affects Japan, and America is disproportionately influenced and shaped by Jews, than Japan is affected by Jews.

The two island cultures of Japan and England have many similarities with Jews such as high achievement and widespread influence (Japan has economic influence but little cultural influence).

I know two guys at shul who married Japanese girls after converting them to Orthodox Judaism.

The American Thinker published Jan. 6, 2013:

Japan continues to be afflicted by widespread leftist ideology among academics and the mass media. One of its unfortunate fruits is pervasive anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment in Japan.

One prominent advocate of anti-Semitism in Japan is the photojournalist Ryuichi Hirokawa. I first encountered his work in the early 1990s, when I discovered that my women’s junior college students were making use of his books to write research papers in a class I was teaching there about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I had been baffled to read papers from the mild-mannered Japanese young women in my class condemning Israel and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state as the only solution to the conflict.

Here‘s a report on Japanese views of Jews:

Japan represents a special case in the research of modern antisemitism since there have been few Jews in Japan, and the Japanese are unable to distinguish Jews from other non-Japanese. This has not prevented several waves of antisemitism to arise during the last century.

The existence of recurrent negative attitudes toward Jews in Japan is a fascinating phenomenon because of the absence of most of the bases for it that characterize antisemitic attitudes in other nations. First, antisemitism in Japan has not been evolved from an encounter with Jews, for the Jewish community in Japan consists of about a thousand members, and the Japanese do not, and probably cannot, distinguish between them and other Western residents. Antisemitism does not have long roots in Japan; it started to flourish only in the twentieth century. Similarly, it does not have any religious roots: Judaism has never threatened or come into theological conflict with any of the leading religions practiced in Japan.

Furthermore, antisemitism in Japan never gained full governmental support nor did it become a national ideology. It did not develop out of any significant conflict between Israel and Japan, as is the case with Arab countries. In fact, antisemitism never penetrated the lower classes in Japan nor had it any popular support. Finally it has appeared almost solely in written form and never deteriorated to the point of material damage or physical attacks on Jews.

Posted in Japan, Jews | Comments Off on Jews and Japan

The Fearsome Foursome

I thought I loved the NFL series, “A Football Life.” I loved, for instance, the episodes on Tom Landry and Jimmy Johnson.

Then I watched the one on Tim Tebow. It was lame. Next I watched one entitled, “The Fearsome Foursome” (about the Los Angeles Rams defensive line of the 1960s).

It was done by Jennifer Allen, daughter of the late football coach George Allen, and it sucked. It had very little about football and a lot about love and feelings and relationships and caring. It was just what you would expect from a woman given 45 minutes to make a show about four football players. If I start another one of these “Football Life” programs and it is narrated by a woman, I’m going to be quick to give up on it.

When I watch a show on football, I want to understand why one side won and the other side lost. I want to understand how the game worked. I want to understand strategy and fragility on the field. I don’t care about the players kids and I don’t care about their musical ability and their political views and I’m not much interested in their perspectives on racial integration. I certainly don’t care about the narrator and how she named her kids. I don’t want to see footage of her playing with her kids. I don’t care about her and child-rearing when I seek out a documentary on football called “The Fearsome Foursome.” I feel ripped off. Unless she’s hot, I don’t want to see her. I want to learn about football, which is a polite substitute for war. When it comes to reporting on sports and war, most women are going to be limited by their biology just as much as men trying to breastfeed. Women have 1/100th as much testosterone as men and don’t appreciate winning and losing and strategy as much as men. No woman has coached an NFL football team. The women we’ve had as National Security advisors and Secretary of State have been terrible (Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton). There’s never been a female Secretary of Defense. Margaret Thatcher was a great politician but they don’t make many like her and I’m not sure she knew much about football. There’s no woman writing on sports who I seek out. Women are sportswriters because America is now Affirmative Action Nation (yes, there are plenty of competent female sportswriters, but no stars). There’s no female Skip Bayless.

Posted in Football, Journalism | Comments Off on The Fearsome Foursome

Why Do So Many People Deny The Holocaust?

I was asked this question by a friend in Australia today.

I said that people deny the Holocaust because they want to get back at Jews.

Imagine your face, body and life had been terribly disfigured by a brutal battle with cancer. Now you’ve staggered back to work and you’re trying to get yourself going again. What would be the most hurtful thing somebody could say to you? To deny that you had cancer and to claim that it was all in your head.

My life was disfigured at age 21 by something that some doctors called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and I was essentially bedridden until 27 and then moderately hobbled after that. Few things felt more hurtful for many years (until I became largely inured) than people denying the reality of what I had endured.

So too with Jews. They’ve staggered away from the Holocaust, but it has left an open wound on the Jewish psyche. To deny the Holocaust is to deny the thing that is most sensitive to Jews. We all have the ability to wound others and so when we want to inflict pain, we’re all pretty good at finding at these sensitive points.

My friend particularly heard from one South African mate who denied the Holocaust. I said that while most Jews went along with apartheid, many of the regime’s most prominent critics were Jewish and so you could, in part, blame the Jews for the fall of apartheid.

To back up my point that denying the Holocaust was just a tactic to get back at Jews, I said that you will notice deniers never contain themselves to history. They immediately jump from denying the Holocaust to complain about Jews running the media and the banks and the politicians and the like. So their real beef is not with historical facts about WWII, but with Jews.

Posted in Holocaust | Comments Off on Why Do So Many People Deny The Holocaust?

Can You Name Any Japanese Celebrities?

I can name a bunch of black ones — Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Oprah, Michael Irvin, Deon Sanders, etc, but I can’t name any Japanese superstars. The NYT wrote last week: “In Japan, a Beloved Deaf Composer Appears to Be None of the Above”

I’m watching KABC TV News this afternoon and this bloke Rob Fukuzaki does the sports capably enough, but he has no charisma. According to his official bio, “He was the first male Japanese-American TV anchor in Los Angeles local TV News.” Well, when you watch him, you can understand that. The Japanese are great at building electronics, bombing Pearl Harbor, and developing an advanced economy and culture, but they don’t zing with charisma.

Why not? Charisma is largely a function of testosterone and blacks tend to have more testosterone than whites and whites tend to have more testosterone than orientals.

Steve Sailer wrote:

Interestingly, many of the most striking racial differences can be thought of as resembling faint sex differences. For example, contrast the triumph of Japanese manufacturing with Japan’s near-total failure in the brutally competitive global market for celebrities. (A recent survey revealed that Americans believe the most famous living Japanese person is Bruce Lee, a dead Chinese guy.) It’s the mirror image of African-Americans’ undistinguished technological achievements versus their outstanding performance in producing media personalities.
Why? Japanese talents extend far beyond chopstick-handling to a set of extremely masculine intellectual skills. Tests show they tend to excel at objective abilities like mathematics and mentally manipulating 3-d objects through “single-tasking” (focusing deeply upon a one impersonal logical problem). Blacks, on the other hand, are often better at typically feminine, more subjective cerebral skills like verbalization, emotional intuition and expression, sense of rhythm, sense of style, improvisation, situational awareness, and mental multi-tasking. Michael Jordan’s brain, for instance, enables him to anticipate his opponent’s every move while simultaneously demoralizing his foe with nonstop trash-talking. (Try it sometime. It’s not easy.)
Next, think about physical and emotional/personality traits. Here the races are arrayed in the opposite order. Blacks tend to display more of typically male qualities like muscularity, aggressiveness, self-esteem, need for dominance, and impulsiveness. In contrast, the Japanese economy benefits from a male workforce endowed with more typically feminine virtues like small fingers and fine motor skills, cooperativeness, humility and anxiety, loyalty, long-term orientation, diligence, and carefulness. Combined with their first-rate masculine mental skills, these make Japanese companies powerhouses at exporting superbly engineered machinery.
Compared to Japanese organizations, black communities tend to be physically and psychologically masculine, sometimes to the point of disorderliness. Yet a relatively high percentage of individual black men achieve fame by possessing charismatically masculine looks and personalities, without the nerdishness that Dilbert-style male intellectual skills often induce.
Like astronomer Tycho Brahe’s attempt at a compromise between the theories of Ptolemy and Copernicus, Landes’s notion that geography influences culture but not genes may someday be seen as a waystation between the 20th Century social scientist’s flat-earthish insistence that nothing affects culture except culture, and the 21st Century’s exploration of the fascinating interactions among environment, genes, and culture.

Steve Sailer wrote:

While interracial marriage is increasingly accepted by whites, a surprising number of Asian men and black women are bitterly opposed. Why?

…The heart of the problem for Asian men and black women is that intermarriage does not treat every sex/race combination equally: on average, it has offered black men and Asian women new opportunities for finding mates among whites, while exposing Asian men and black women to new competition from whites.

…Muscularity may most sharply differentiate the races in terms of sexual attractiveness. Women like men who are stronger than they; men like women who are rounder and softer. The ending of segregation in sports has made racial differences in muscularity harder to ignore.

Posted in Japan, Steve Sailer | Comments Off on Can You Name Any Japanese Celebrities?