I glanced at the WashingtonPost.com just now and saw 16 anti-Trump stories and four neutral stories about Trump.
My impression of the news media over the past two years is that their stories are about 70% negative about Trump, about 25% neutral, and about 5% positive. By contrast, it seemed like the media’s focus was about 50% positive on Obama, and then evenly divided between negative and neutral.
Amy Wax, a brilliant and courageous woman, has long been a race realist. Jared Taylor has praised her.
University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Amy Wax may come across as somewhat of an aberration at one of the high-ranking bastions of liberal academia.
That’s because Wax — the Ivy League school’s Robert Mundheim Professor of Law who boasts degrees from Yale, Harvard and Columbia — often stands against the left-wing tide.
Wax penned an op-ed for Philly.com Wednesday, co-written with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego School of Law, in which she declares that our society’s multifaceted breakdown can be linked to the abandonment of a long-lost cultural “script.”
You know what it is: “Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime,” she writes.
Her piece also blasts as culturally unsuitable the “single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants” and warns that we need to get back to old values — and fast.
In a follow-up interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian Thursday, Wax told the school paper that Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.
“I don’t shrink from the word, ‘superior,’” she told the paper, adding that “everyone wants to come to the countries that exemplify” these values and that “everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans.”
Wikipedia: “The parashah is the longest weekly Torah portion in the Book of Deuteronomy.” Listen here.
* Shouldn’t the WN leaders themselves have been asked these two questions instead of leaders from the Cathedral?
* Deut: 10:19: “Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
In our parashah this week we find an odd statement masquerading as banal—a revolutionary idea that at first glance seems familiar, but is something else entirely. In Deuteronomy 10:19 the Torah commands: “Ve-ahavtem et hager ki gerim hayitem be-eretz mitzrayim” (“Love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”).
We find very similar statements elsewhere in the Torah, of course, but with a crucial difference. Consider Exodus 22:20, for example: “Veger lo toneh velo tilhatzenu” (“Do not wrong a stranger, do not oppress him”). The end of this verse—which provides the reason for the law, or perhaps the reason why the people should take care to follow it—is the same as that in Deuteronomy: for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt. But in Exodus, and in most of the other biblical verses that address this issue, the command is: Do not harm, do not oppress. In Deuteronomy 10:19, we are told: Love. One is a negative injunction—do not act in such a way toward a stranger—while in this week’s parashah we have an affirmative requirement: Seek a ger out and show favor to him or her.
It is perhaps the oddity of this that leads Rashi to his interesting comment on this verse. He quotes from the Talmud (BT Bava Metzia 59b): “Do not taunt your fellow with the blemish you yourself have.” This is an unexpected take on the verse—and one that affects the level of difficulty of this mitzvah. After all, not oppressing someone is easier, and takes far less effort, than acting affirmatively to befriend them, to try to understand and love them. While the Exodus version of the command can be followed simply by staying out of the way of a ger, this Deuteronomic version in our parashah seems to require the exact opposite: to get in their way such that we can see the ger, and the ger can see us. Rashi, perhaps sensing this difference, reads the verse as being less about public policy and more about public comity. We all have blemishes, Rashi seems to be saying, and perhaps we should remember that when we are interacting with our neighbors.
* Moshe: “See, I present before you today a blessing and a curse.” Every choice we make contains a blessing and a curse.
* Det. 11:32: “You shall be careful to perform all the decrees and the ordinances that I present before you today.”
Every people has an operating procedure for maximum success. When they drift from it, they decline.
* Regarding the events in Charlottesville, we should remember that not all white nationalists are murderers. As 4Chan Pol put it: “White nationalism is a movement of peace, anyone who does violence in the name of white nationalism is no true white nationalist. To conflate violence with white nationalism is bigotry of the highest order, I’m offended at your bigotry.”
* I believe in right and wrong. I believe there is objective morality (which requires belief in a transcendent God who is the source of morality aka the Torah). Right now, however, regarding the events in Charlotte, I prefer clarity and objectivity. There are different forms of life here struggling for survival. When conflicts of interest become sufficiently intense, there is inevitably violence. That’s how intense conflicts of interest are solved.
There are iron laws of life that apply to everybody, such as gravity and social identity theory. Many conflicts, personal and group, are win-lose. One party wins and another party loses. Sometimes, you have to kill or be killed. The more you identify with your group, the more likely you are to have negative feelings about out-groups. The more pressure a group or an individual feels, the less likely he is to be tolerant. The more intelligent the person, the more able he is to empathy and to find win-win solutions.
* The parasha offers some insights into Saturday’s events. Deut. 12:2-3: “Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains, on the hills and under every spreading tree, where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods. 3 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places.”
One side is trying to destroy all the symbols of the Confederacy and white supremacy. The other side is trying to maintain their civilization and not be replaced.
It is similar to the situation 3200 years ago laid out in the Torah in the fight for the Holy Land. The natives wanted to keep their civilization. The Jews want to destroy it and take over with their own civilization. If we want to discuss this conflict in terms of right and wrong, we have to share the same faith in the transcendent God who’s the source of objective morality. If you don’t share the same faith, it is hard to have a fruitful discussion of right and wrong. But all people can discuss group conflicts of interest. No faith required.
Non-monotheist approaches to life don’t have the same need as monotheists to wipe out other religions and to install allegiance to the one universal morality.
* Det: 12: “8 You are not to do as we do here today, everyone doing as they see fit, 9 since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance the Lord your God is giving you.”
Even with objective morality and God-given morality, there are different moralities for different places and situations. Ethics can be both divine, universal and situational. Judaism is situational morality. The situation determines the moral.
* In Hebrew, the word for “slave” and for “servant” is the same — “eved.”
* The Protestant approach to the Bible is that every man can open it up and on his own divine what it is saying. The Catholic and Jewish approach is to approach the text through the eyes of tradition (you follow the guidance of your wisest ancestors).
* Det. 12:18: “You shall rejoice before HaShem, your God, in every undertaking.” The Torah places tremendous importance on happiness though this happiness is secondary to observance. The U.S. Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Do other religions place equal value on happiness? Islam does not radiate happiness. Hasidic Judaism places more importance on happiness than any other Jewish movement.
* LINK:
What makes something “chukat goyim?”
* One of the most famous examples I have heard is that one should not even tie one’s shoes like the non-Jews do in times of persecution. That seems rather excessive. What if the Jews started doing some custom, and it gets co-opted by the non-Jews. Can we still do it? If not, that could wipe out a lot of Passover seder traditions, since a large fraction of Christian (in particular Catholic) ritual is based on the last supper, which of course was a seder.
* Rabbi Feinstein says we follow the opinion of the Ran, that chukat goyim is only something that the Jews haven’t done until now, AND it has something to do with paganism or sexual immodesty. (Halloween is generally understood as an example of the former; for the latter, R’ Moshe suggests that theoretically, if the Jewish women in a society clearly had the practice not to wear red clothing, then choosing to do so in imitation of the non-Jews — red is flashier and more attractive — would be a problem.)
Another possibility of chukat goyim is where the action makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, so the only reason to do it would be to try to blend in with non-Jews. A doctor’s white coat (or the specialized clothing of craft guilds in Renaissance Italy) is okay because it’s not pagan nor immodest, and you’re wearing it for professional reasons. R’ Moshe also writes that all the funny things about American clothing — well, American men’s clothing in the 1950s — are considered decorations, and not a problem.
Fascinatingly, R’ Moshe concludes that “American clothing” today is in fact “American Jewish clothing”, no different than “Polish Jewish clothing” and thus not “goyish” at all. (Provided it’s appropriate!)
The shoelace case is one where clearly the Jews had one shoelace style, and the non-Jews another. One choosing to change shoelace style would be making a statement “I want to look like a non-Jew.” In this case, the non-Jewish style was also flashier, so the switch is both a statement, and a drift away from modesty. It’s also important to realize that in times of persecution, we need to hold strong.
Wikipedia: Chukot Akum or Chukat Ha’Akum is a prohibition in Judaism of imitating Gentile manners in their dressings and practices. The prohibition comes from the old testament commandment “You shall not follow gentile customs”(Leviticus 20:23). Modern life has created many dilemmas on what constitutes a violation of this prohibition and there is ongoing debate about this topic. For example can a Jew attend thanksgiving or Mother’s day observance without violating this prohibition.
* If white nationalists are not allowed to rally, then what are their alternatives?
Washington Post: Richard Spencer, the white nationalist and one of the leaders of the rally, said police failed to protect groups with which he is affiliated. “We came here as a demonstration of our movement,” Spencer said. “And we were effectively thrown to the wolves.” The police, he said, “did not protect us.”
* Marshawn Lynch sits during national anthem…
* David Brooks writes in the NYT: “Damore was tapping into the long and contentious debate about genes and behavior. On one side are those who believe that humans come out as blank slates and are formed by social structures. On the other are the evolutionary psychologists who argue that genes interact with environment and play a large role in shaping who we are. In general the evolutionary psychologists have been winning this debate.”
I parked my car at a meter yesterday and got outside into the sun and happily and blissfully walked away without putting any money in the meter. I do this quite a lot but yesterday I didn’t catch myself and got my first parking ticket ($63) in about eight years. In my first year in Los Angeles (1994), I racked up about $1000 in traffic tickets, but in all the years subsequent, my parking tickets wouldn’t add up to that. The number of women I got to know well in my first year in LA also exceed all women since. I’m a bloke who can make a great first impression.
I have a friend who’s lived in LA most of his life and he’s never gotten a parking ticket nor a moving violation. He inspires me. When I told him about my credit card debt (it was about $42,000 at the time), he said I should know to the day that I’ll have it all paid off.
I’ve never been a detail person. I don’t usually mention this in job interviews. Once I get a job, I find myself saying, “This will still work” about my typically shoddy output. And I’ll usually get a reply to the effect, “We don’t do things this way. That crap might be how things are in the Seventh-Day Adventist world, but in Jewish Hollywood, we spell names correctly.”
The piece is by Seyward Darby, who’s cute, smart and accomplished.
A motley coalition of online provocateurs, the alt-right opposes political correctness and multiculturalism. Many of its supporters rhapsodize about the eventual creation of white ethnostates in Europe and North America. The group is the offspring of various extremist ideologies — the European New Right, identitarianism, paleoconservatism, and Nazism, to name a few.
The United States thought of itself as an explicitly white nation for hundreds of years (until about 1965). But noting that the founders of our country were race-realists intent on developing a white nation is contrary to the zeitgeist, so Darby labels the thinking that was mainstream in America for hundreds of years prior to 1965 as “extremist” and partly derived from “Nazism.” Nazism, in fact, is partly derived from America’s racial policies. Hitler admired America’s ruthless expansion and he also respected Australia’s “White Australia” policy.
“Lokteff was the conference’s only female speaker — perhaps because the alt-right has certain ideas about how women should behave.”
Is there any civilization that does not have ideas about how men and women should behave? Does the alt-right only have ideas for how women should behave but does not care how men behave?
Another presenter, Matt Forney, a fleshy, goateed blogger in his twenties, once wrote a screed called “The Case Against Female Self-esteem.”
If you don’t like an essay, call it a “screed.”
“Paul Ramsey, who appeared at the event to decry a purported scourge of left-wing violence in America…”
So there hasn’t been a Ferguson Effect? There haven’t been a string of hate hoaxes preoccupying media attention?
“Other soldiers in the alt-right’s fractious army regularly insult women on digital platforms such as Twitter, 4chan, and Reddit.”
And they don’t just as often insult men?
“Despite the vitriol she faces from ostensible ideological allies…”
Is there any significant person who does not face vitriol from ostensible ideological allies? Or is this limited to women?
“Red Ice is a slick propaganda platform for white nationalists.”
And Harpers is a propaganda platform for its crowd. And Tabletmag.com is a propaganda platform for its crowd. And the New York Times is a propaganda platform for its crowd.
I know a lot of Jews who are not white nationalists who find thoughtful material on Red Ice. I think any fair-minded person will find thoughtful material there (along with plenty of absurd material).
“Lately, Lokteff has been using Red Ice to amplify the voices of self-made female pundits.”
Which pundits are not self-made? Is not Seyward Darby self-made?
They also embody a glaring contradiction: By supporting the alt-right, they stand shoulder to shoulder with men who think that female independence has undermined Western civilization.
Why is that a contradiction? Most women will only respect and possibly marry a guy who’s willing to stand up to her and save her from her worst impulses? Most women want a guy who wants to take charge of protecting and providing for her.
“As the alt-right creeps out of the digital shadows and strives for civic legitimacy…”
Much of what is now considered alt-right was considered normal and healthy prior to 1960 in the West.
“these female commentators are trying to temper the movement’s misogynist reputation.”
I don’t think they care that much about lefty accusations of misogyny. I think they care about certain things, just as men care about certain things. We all hold some things sacred.
“No movement can survive on men alone.”
The armed forces were doing pretty well before women got in.
“…the intellectual contortions women must perform to justify participating in a movement so hostile to their freedom.”
I would think that freedom to walk down the street without being raped and robbed is an important freedom that the alt right endorses. The alt right seeks about the same amount of freedom for men and women as does any other ideology. Different ideologies pursue different types of freedom.
“According to Keegan Hankes, a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center (S.P.L.C.), the alt-right is only superficially heterogeneous.”
And we should listen to the Southern Poverty Law Center why?
“The alt-right derives from the same impulses that have launched other white extremist groups…”
Such as the United States of America? Such as Australia? Such as Canada? Were all these explicitly white societies prior to the 1960s extremist? In 1950, London and Australia were about 99% white. Was that extremist?
“…the S.P.L.C. designates various entities in the alt-right as hate groups…”
Are Jews a hate group? Is the Torah a hate document? How is the genocide commanded in the Torah not hate? Are Christians a hate group? They hold the Torah as holy and sacred and divine.
“What sets it apart,” according to George Hawley, the author of the forthcoming Making Sense of the Alt-Right, “is the ability to troll itself into the conversation.”
That’s a good line but trolling only works when it is underlain by truth.
“The digital netherworld, however, is also a haven for hate speech.”
What is hate speech? By what definition of hate speech is the Bible not hate speech? I’d love to see that.
“Her guests toe the alt-right’s party line on gender, which mimics that of fascist and white-power movements of the twentieth century…”
Which alt-right beliefs about gender are different from what was considered normal and healthy prior to the 1960s?
“By design, the sexes are not equal, physically or otherwise, but they are complementary and equally important.”
That was the normal belief in the West prior to the 1960s. How is it misogynist? In this sentence, the author admits that the alt-right believes that men and women are equally important but that they have different roles. If you look at America in 2017, you will see that generally speaking, men and women have different roles. It sounds like the alt right is grounded in reality and biology.
“Every single culture in existence has resisted diversity by means of killing each other, segregating against one another, and saying it was even immoral to even be around one another,” Faucheux said in defense of books with only white characters. “Taking comfort in one’s own ethnic group or race is not racist.”
That sounds right to me. Animals are the same way.
“The group also chastised feminists for being conformists.”
Most women tend to prefer conformity. They’re afraid to stand out and to publicly hold unpopular opinions.
“White nationalists almost never explain how they would create pure ethnostates.”
Not true. Just as a change in immigration policies brought non-whites into our countries, a reversal of these policies could expel them. It’s not that complicated.
“Whites, generally speaking, are the richest and safest population in America, with twelve times the wealth of African Americans and a lower crime rate than most racial groups. ”
Whites are not as rich and safe as Jews and asians in America and whites also have a higher crime rate than Jews and asians. Facts are so inconvenient to liberals like Seyward Darby.
“There is a long legacy of pro-white extremists trying to create illusions of normalcy.”
England, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand all saw themselves as white countries prior to the 1960s. They were also pretty normal. How exactly were they extreme?
Kathleen Blee, a sociology professor at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in her book Inside Organized Racism that “much about racist groups appears disturbingly ordinary, especially their evocation of community, family, and social ties.” In a two-year study of thirty-four women across the United States, Blee found that her subjects, many of whom were educated and held good jobs, were “responsible for socializing their children into racial and religious bigotry.”
Most people normally and naturally develop to prefer their own kind and to fear that which is different. Anglo-Saxons are the least ethnocentric of any group but they still have some of these tendencies.
“Women have always been part of white extremist groups.”
Yeah, extremist groups like pre-1960s America, Canada, England and Australia.
Tyler told them to recruit friends, to use churches as staging grounds, and to cast local minorities — blacks, Jews, Catholics, immigrants — as enemies.
Because without Tyler telling them, no white American would have ever regarded blacks, Jews, Catholics and immigrants as enemies because all of these groups have identical interests and no conflicts with white America except when it is artificially ginned up by people like Tyler. Sad!
“Big,” in the context of the alt-right, can mean controversial, profane, or outright hateful.
So “Big” in other political contexts never means controversial, profane, or outright hateful? How is the alt right any more hateful than any other politics?
“It tends toward the extreme…”
So other politics don’t tend to the extreme?
Lokteff and Palmgren were formal but cordial, to me and to each other. Before I flew to Charleston, Lokteff had offered to pick me up from the airport; I’d declined. Palmgren apologized for interrupting us when he brought Lokteff a glass of water. Their ordinary behavior was hard to square with their rhetoric.
Only if you’re a snowflake.
I had listened to Lokteff’s June 2016 appearance on David Duke’s radio show, in which she’d agreed that Jews were “parasites” against whom white people “need to inoculate ourselves.
Every group in certain circumstances acts in a parasitic manner against other groups. Orthodox Jews, for example, don’t send their kids to public schools and yet they pay more taxes than the average goy and commit fewer crimes. They might have reason to regard goyim as parasites on them.
“Her responses were as mystifying as the phenomenon of the alt-right itself.”
Only mystifying to snowflakes. The red-pilled understand. There are some mysteries that are only available to those in the dance.
You can’t expect anyone to understand a concept when their livelihood, friendships and status depend upon them not understanding. Let us suppose that the author understood her subject. That she’d never again be able to publish in Harpers and the like and she’d lose many of her friends.
I find most political ideologies easy to understand. Once you identify the premises, everything follows.
