James Kirchick: ‘Can American Jews Be White Nationalists?’

Posted on October 15, 2017 by Luke Ford

I say yes because for many American Jews, their American identity is stronger than their Jewish identity. Also, for many Jews, their European genes outnumber their Middle Eastern genes. Also, many Jews are indistinguishable in appearance from whites. Many Jews identify more with the West than with Israel or Judaism. Many Jews understand that from an Arab and black perspective, the Jewish state of Israel is an outcrop of white supremacy in the midst of brown people. Many Jews and non-Jews see Zionism as a subset of white nationalism aka a distinct type of European nationalism.

James Kirchick writes for Zocalo:

American Jews, then, have something of a communal obligation to pay it forward by supporting a liberal immigration regime. And by and large we have: Jews and Jewish organizations are very pro-immigration. This implied social responsibility doesn’t necessarily entail support for open borders. Nor does it apply to other parts of the world; continued mass Muslim immigration from North Africa and the Middle East into Europe, for example, is a portentous development that will make Jewish life there, already difficult, increasingly so. But an American Jew calling for a drastic reduction in legal immigration to America is unseemly.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Kirchick has literally confirmed the MacDonald thesis.

If the sine non qua of a Jewish identity is supporting mass immigration…

* If Jews were not white they never would have been able to naturalize from the late 18th to the mid 19th century. The Naturalization Act of 1790, and several of its successors, limited naturalization to free whites of good character. European Jews were not prevented from naturalizing. I suppose an Ethiopian Jew would have. But I doubt any even tried.

* He’s against restricting immigration, except when it’s obviously bad for the Jews.

* So for Kirchick the immigration matter is simply contingent on what is good for his ethnic affiliates. I’m glad that he articulates this point so clearly.

* They are throwing absolutely everything they can at this Stephen Miller guy. He absolutely infuriates them! An apostate in a position of power! So many reasons to like him.

My favorite part of this angry screed is the recurring subtext that if the alt-right doesn’t stop making inconvenient noise about immigration, righteous republicans will quit the right wing. That’s really rich.

* The late Lawrence Auster, himself born Jewish, posed this rhetorical question to his co-ethnics: Would 19th century America have allowed masses of Jews to immigrate if it had known that the price of that was that those Jews would would oppose against any sensible immigration policy in the future?

* For Kirchick, Miller as a Jew is guilty of the ultimate sin: not being ethnocentric enough. Needless to say, we Gentiles need more “traitors” like Stephen Miller.

* Jews are in the same position as Republicans were in the 1990s to the mid-2000s. There is a powerful establishment with a certain set of ideas, and for the most part, the rank-and-file go along with it.

Like Ron Paul, or even earlier Pat Buchanan, Stephen Miller is one of the first iconoclasts to really start attracting attention.

While enmity with white Gentiles (antijaphetism) is not, on the whole, good for the Jews in America, it is very, very good for the Jewish establishment, which derives much of its power from making Jews feel they must be protected from the white Gentiles, and by allying with other groups that have resentment of whites in general. Anti-Jewish hate crimes means more Jews giving to the Anti-Defamation League, just as liberal atrocities once drove conservatives to the National Review, and maybe more support for the ADL from various Gentile grievance groups.

I think the same is likely true in Europe, to the extent that there are any Jewish elements in the European establishment.

If problems with Muslims become more and more publicized, I have a feeling that over the next decade or so, more and more Jews are going to start developing counter-establishment views on immigration, and we could get a full-scale revolt against, e.g., the ADL, the AJC, Commentary in the same way that we are now getting a revolt against the leadership of the Republican Party.

I think in general in the coming years there is going to be more of a revolt against all of the current elites in every institution, as they have all become too self-interested and stopped caring about those whom they are supposed to represent.

* The gist of this piece is “we jews can never be on your side, because we are jews”. I could not have put it better myself, although maybe not quite as explicit.

* An ethnocentric market-dominant minority will always have some interests different from those of their hosts. They will use their power to serve the interests of their small number of people at the expense of the far greater number of their hosts.

* …the best looking Jews are the Israelis and the Mid Eastern Jews. They’re not super smart like the Euro Ashkenazis, but they often look good. Especially the Israeli women, who are pretty and femme fatales. Israel these days has a very non-intellectual party culture that revolves around night clubs, late night eating establishments, and vanity. Israel is like the SoCal of the Middle East.

* This op-Ed is an important exemplar of a curious phenomenon: America is the only country in the world where Jews insist that they aren’t “white.” They find it safer to see themselves as another oppressed “person-of-color”, and for good reason. I guess that little ruse will work, for now, until the Left finds Jews less politically useful and discards them as “Uber-white”, the way the European Left has.

* Kirchick is fanatical about Jewish support for larger US immigration, but simultaneously thinks white nationalists are delusional for accusing Jews of conspiring to increase immigration. He’s refusing to connect the dots and acknowledge that a lot of Americans genuinely and passionately want restricted immigration and are correctly identifying him and other Jews as being political opponents.

* I think that Jews will be caught between two fires: Conservatives and Nationalists fed up with the aggressive hostility of many Jews towards the West, its peoples, cultures and Christianity, and the Left, who see them as “Uber-white.” Good guys such as Stephen Miller, Paul Gottfried and our host with the most Ron Unz will be caught inbetween, too.

* Paul Gottfried has commented on the parochialism of most American Jews hailing from Eastern Europe : it’s like their vision of what is Jewish is limited to their own particular fold. Thus Cossacks and Stormtroopers (i.e., White Christians) are the imminent threat to guard against. Muslims, once they touch the magical soil of America, become defanged, apparently.
The likes of Kirkchick don’t seem to have any great insight into why say, French Jews living in Marseille, whose parents fled Algeria in the 50s/60s in fear of Arabs exacting for their perceived loyalty to Mother France, are now stuck in French housing projects only to find the children of their Arab tormentors have followed them across the Med, and well, living among these people in Multi-culti France is a daily hell. Kirchick writes as if this could never happen in America, since if the browning of America would not necessarily be of an Islamic hue, US Jews need not fear. But Kirchick shows remarkable confidence that the People of Color/Coalition of the Fringers banner will not adopt the foreign policy mores of its Arab and Muslim component. Does he really want to do a poll among Guatemalans and find out which side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict they favor?

And as to this notion of Steve Miller being obligated to favor immigration because his gramps benefited from a liberal influx policy prior to 1924, Kirchick doesn’t follow his argument to its proper conclusion: it’s precisely because America is among the most PhiloSemitic countries that US Jews should not want to see the character of that country change. Miller seems to get the Marseille factor. For Kirchick, American exceptionalism will spare his descendents this scenario.

* He’s a patriot. Plenty of Jewish people favor reducing immigration. That doesn’t make them a white nationalist. Don’t most Jewish people favor reducing immigration?

Posted in Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off on James Kirchick: ‘Can American Jews Be White Nationalists?’

Parasha Noach (Genesis 6:9–11:32)

Posted on October 15, 2017 by Luke Ford

This week’s Torah portion covers the story of the Flood and the Tower of Babel.

Listen here.

* God decides to destroy the world because it is corrupt. What was so corrupt? The world at this time had same-sex marriage, according to the Talmud (same-sex-marriage).

* Leviticus Rabbah 23:9
Rabbi Yishma’el taught: The generation of the Flood were kings, and were only wiped off the earth because they were soaked in sexual sin…
Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Yosef (said): The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote gemamasi’ot for (the union of a man to) a male or to an animal.

Talmud scholar Gail Labovitz writes:

There are several rabbinic passages which take up, or very likely take up, the subject of same-sex marital unions – always negatively. In each case, homosexual marriage (particularly male homosexual marriage) is rhetorically stigmatized as the practice of non-Jewish (or pre-Israelite) societies, and is presented as an outstanding marker of the depravity of those societies; homosexual marriage is thus clearly associated with the
Other. The first three of the four rabbinic texts presented here also associate homosexual marriage with bestiality. These texts also employ a rhetoric of fear: societal recognition of such homosexual relationships will bring upon that society extreme forms of Divine punishment – the destruction of the generation of the Flood, the utter defeat of the Egyptians at the Exodus, the wiping out of native Canaanite peoples in favor of the Israelites…

Three of the four unions mentioned here are explicitly forbidden in Leviticus 18. Moreover, the biblical source suggests that any sexual contact between the people listed is forbidden. That is, although this passage mentions only marriage explicitly, this does not imply that sexual relationships between these persons outside of marriage is condoned or overlooked. Also, this is the only source to mention women marrying women as well as men marrying men.2

There is no explicit prohibition on female homoeroticism in Scripture, but by linking marriage between two women with the other
forbidden sexual pairings here, the passage rhetorically implies that the prohibition/sin involved is of a similar degree of authority and seriousness. Two parallel passages in amoraic midrashic texts also link same-sex marriage to the destruction of the society in which they take place; in this case, it is the generation destroyed in the Flood who is “guilty” of this sin.

What all of these sources suggest is that in the rabbinic mindset giving societal recognition to same-sex marriage is among the most egregious violations that human beings can commit. Only non-Israelites might be suspected of sanctioning such relationships; there is no suggestion that Israelites would ever consider such a thing. Indeed, Israelites are to avoid this in no small measure precisely because it is the (imagined) practiced of the Other. Homosexual contact, especially between men, is already highly stigmatized in rabbinic literature and is often associated with non-Jews (see, as just one example, Sifra Acharei Mot, perek 13:86). Marriage between members of the same gender, however, goes beyond forbidden sexual acts between individuals to the level of societal approval of this sin. When sin is no longer recognized as sin by a society, the rabbis would assert, that society loses its right to existence – like the generation of the Flood, or the defeated Egyptians and Canaanites, such a society deserves to be swept away.

CNSNEWS:

Leading into the discussion, guest host [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.)] noted Faith2Action’s documentary, Light Wins, which is about the LGBT movement and the attacks on real marriage. He said to Porter, “But in the video you point out, according to the Babylonian Talmud — a book of rabbinical interpretation of the scriptures written 1,000 years before Christ — there was only one other time in history when homosexual marriage was practiced.”

“It wasn’t the time of Sodom and Gomorrah,” he said. “Although homosexuality was rampant, according to the Talmud, homosexual marriage was not. It wasn’t in Babylon or even ancient Greece or Rome.”

“According to rabbinical writings, the only other time in history where homosexual unions were authorized as marriage was ‘in the days of Noah,'” said Rep. Gohmert, a former state district judge for Texas.

* The story of the Flood reminds me of the Alt Right’s view of the United States of America — these worlds are irretrievably corrupt and must be destroyed and made over. After all, if American democracy and the U.S. Constitution lead inevitably to same-sex marriage and trannies in the bathroom, then the AR wants no part of democracy and the U.S. Constitution. If that is true, then the AR have given up on America. They might feel like God in the beginning of this week’s parasha. “God saw the earth and behold it was corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.” (Gen. 6:12)

* What’s the point of preserving a country if it is to be filled up by people hostile to you? The reason that the country of Israel matters to Jews is that it is a country filled with Jews and run by Jews. If all Israeli Jews were replaced by Arabs, then Jewish attachment to Palestine would be diminished.

* The plain meaning of the Torah text seems to indicate that God does not know the future. God seems unpleasantly surprised that the world has gone to hell. If people have free will, then God can’t know the future. Rabbinic commentator Gersonides held this.

* We condemn Nazis and communists for genocide, but in this week’s parasha, God kills everyone and all the animals. So is mass genocide ok when God does it?

* From this week’s parasha, it seems that surviving in a filthy society is not enough. You either have to clean up the filth or you leave.

* According to the Torah, there is one universal moral law whose source is God. Morality is not set by democracy. If people vote for legalizing same-sex marriage, that does not make it moral.

* Gen. 9:24: “When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him.”

So what did Ham do to his father? He took a selfie next to his naked passed out dad and posted it on Facebook.

If you mess with parental authority, you mess with civilization. Leon Kass writes:

Noah, without his clothes, and prostrate in his tent in a drunken stupor, lies dehumanized and “unfathered,” stripped of all human ways (though as a result of a peculiarly human way, the way of Bacchus). Ham’s viewing confirms and ratifies his father’s unfathering. To put it sharply, Ham’s viewing—and telling—is, metaphorically, an act of patricide and incest, of overturning the father as a father. Without disturbing a hair on Noah’s head, Ham engages in father-killing.

This overturning of the father is not the overturning of his biological paternity or the taking of his life; on the contrary, he is overturned precisely by being reduced to mere male-source-of-seed. Eliminated is the father as authority, as guide, as teacher of law, custom, and a way of life. Ham sees and celebrates only the natural and barest fact of sex; he is blind to everything that makes transmission and rearing possible…

Modern times have produced a third human type—neither tyrant nor philosopher—who is also deaf to authority and who knows neither awe nor reverence: democratic man. For him, all hierarchy is suspect, all distinctions odious, all claims on his modesty or respect confining. Last names, and even familial titles like Uncle or Aunt, are much too formal. Honor and respect, fear and awe, and filial piety seem increasingly vestiges of an archaic world. Sex, utterly demystified, is now sport and chatter; nakedness is no big deal. Severed now from their source in what is truly venerable, the customs of respect and modesty become anemic; increasingly petrified, they crumble beneath the avalanche of equality, explicitness, and the “right to be myself.” We are all pals now. But we should not be self-deceived. The sins of unfatherly fathers are still being visited on the sons. Canaan will still—and again—be cursed to live like a pagan. If you need a monument, just look around.

When I was growing up a Seventh-Day Adventist, the mother of my best friend held that there was nothing wrong with her walking around the house naked. My parents thought she was very wrong.

You can see gadolim naked if you go to the right mikveh. I don’t think I’d like to see a gadol naked.

NYT: “Debate Over the Rabbi and the Sauna”

For most people, they see God the same way they see their father. If your father was absent, God will be absent. If you love your father, you’ll likely love God.

* The Tower of Babel story teaches us that God loves ethno-nationalism. He deliberately separates the people of the world into their own nations and languages.

5. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Making a name for yourself is not considered a sin in Judaism. God promises Abraham that He will make his name “big.”

* Andrew Fraser writes in his book The WASP Question:

Only those blinded by the secular humanist cult of equality can fail to see that “the Bible teaches that mankind is composed not of an amorphous mass of individuals but of nations.” Maurice was sure that the “dispersions” and “distinctions” of the nations were “the fulfilment of God’s designs for the race which He had made after His own likeness.” Others observe that in Genesis 10 we see that “God organized mankind into discrete nations in the aftermath of the Great Flood.” In Genesis 11 the sons of Noah built the Tower of Babel in an attempt to frustrate God’s design thus demonstrating their power and independence. God’s response was to destroy the Tower and scatter its builders “over the face of all the earth.” But, as HA Scott Trask observes, “the scattering was neither arbitrary nor chaotic. According to the Biblical account, people moved with their nations in an orderly exodus that fulfilled God’s purposes.” Each nation or people received its own lands separated from the others by territorial boundaries. Clearly, both the Old and the New Testament sanction the love of nations, each grounded in its own distinctive ethnic stock.

* Orthodox rabbi Sforno said that the real crime of the Babel builders was that they wanted to have just one religion.

* A Torah Perspective on National Borders and Illegal Immigration:

In the poetic song of Ha’azinu, Moses proclaims:

When the Most High gave nations their lot, when He separated the sons of man,
He set up the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. (Deut. 32:8)

…Japanese and Britons wait patiently in queues for trains and buses. Compare that to the scene in a New York City subway at rush hour, or at a crowded Tel Aviv bus stop when there are only a few seats left. The Italian language is melodic, and lends itself to romantic and passionate lyrics; the German language lends itself to scientific and philosophical precision, or to the epic and the serious in poetry and song. Such generalizations reflect some real truth, which the Torah recognizes. These national characteristics, and the distinct bounded lands that give rise to them, are part of G‑d’s providential plan.

…Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi) explains:

“The mighty men of Israel would dwell in the border towns and lock the frontier so no enemies could enter; it was as if it were closed with locks and bars of iron and brass.”

The borders posed a unique danger, and Jewish law mandated that authorities search out the real motivations of those who would enter the country. It cautioned that a deadly danger could lurk, and we should be wary of all who wish to cross it. So much so, that we are permitted to transgress the holy Sabbath for these security concerns. As the Code of Jewish Law puts it:

“In a border city, even if the non-Jews approach you [ostensibly] regarding straw and hay, one must violate the Shabbat to repel them, lest they take over the city and proceed from there to conquer the land.”

…In addition to security concerns, Jewish law recognizes that there are ideological dangers as well. Expounding on the negative commandment of not allowing idol-worshippers a holding in the land of Israel,8 Maimonides writes:

“When Israel [meets the conditions for observing the Jubilee], it is forbidden for us to allow an idolater among us. Even a temporary resident or a merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through our land until he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, as the verse states: “They shall not dwell in your land”9—i.e., even temporarily. A person who accepts these seven mitzvot is a ger toshav, “resident alien.””

…It is true that verse tells us that “one Torah and one law shall there be for you and the stranger who comes to live with you.”23 However, the prophet also proclaims:

Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to G‑d for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.24

This implies that we must not only conform to the laws of the city to where we migrate, but also to devote ourselves actively to its welfare, not just merely comply with its rules. As Rabbi Yehuda Loew (Maharal of Prague) puts it:

“Since the prophet commanded us to pray to G‑d for the place to which we were exiled, how could we ordain something the opposite of that, G‑d forbid, thereby transgressing the prophet’s words? To the contrary: the sages warned us to accept the sovereignty and the rule of the nations. After G‑d decreed that we should be under their authority, it is proper for us to accept their rule, and not to act as if the decree were void.”

* New Yorker: “Birth of a White Supremacist: Mike Enoch’s transformation from leftist contrarian to nationalist shock jock”

The media pretends to be fascinated, or is genuinely fascinated, by the process that produces “white supremacists.” To me, marginalized people join marginalized movements.

Kevin MacDonald: “Andrew Marantz: Retract your libelous statement”

* Andrew Joyce – banned in the USA. I doubt this would have happened if James Alex Fields had not driven his car into the Antifa protesters in Charlottesville. Andrew is about to become a father for the fourth time. I wonder if he circumcises his sons? Andrew replies: “Lol fuck no. We’re European.”

* Mark Oppenheimer Writes For Tabletmag: ‘THE SPECIFICALLY JEWY PERVINESS OF HARVEY WEINSTEIN’

* Orthodox rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz has a PhD in Ethics from Columbia. He writes:

Were Adam and Eve Black transgender refugees?

It would be blasphemous for one to apply one’s chosen construction of what is “normal” or “natural” to marginalize another. Doing so would be nothing short of challenging the full Divine potential of the first human who subsequently encapsulates all future human natures. Denying that any unique permutation was fully created in the image of God is akin to denying God.

I fear that today, with the lingering effects of racism, xenophobia, and the stigmatization of gay and trans people, humanity is still needlessly looking for reasons to divide itself. While I may not understand or approve the underlying reasons why each person chooses their particular lifestyle, as a Modern Orthodox pluralistic rabbi guided by the Torah, I feel it is my obligation to seek out those who are most vulnerable and advocate on their behalf. It is not enough to tolerate differences, but to cherish and nurture individuals so that they have the fortitude to go out into the world to live an actualized life. The raison d’être of the Torah is to enhance human dignity and freedom and never, God forbid, to diminish it.

* James Kirchick: Can American Jews Be White Nationalists?”

I say yes because for many American Jews, their American identity is stronger than their Jewish identity. Also, for many Jews, their European genes outnumber their Middle Eastern genes. Also, many Jews are indistinguishable in appearance from whites. Many Jews identify more with the West than with Israel or Judaism. Many Jews understand that from an Arab and black perspective, the Jewish state of Israel is an outcrop of white supremacy in the midst of brown people. Many Jews and non-Jews see Zionism as a subset of white nationalism aka a distinct type of European nationalism.

Posted in Homosexuality, Nationalism, Torah | Comments Off on Parasha Noach (Genesis 6:9–11:32)

Why Aren’t There Great Jewish Minds Debunking The Alt Right?

Posted on October 11, 2017 by Luke Ford

The truth about Jews and non-Jews has to be somewhere in between the critics and the advocates. The Alt Right can’t be 100% correct. The Jewish establishment can’t be 100% correct either. I know Kevin MacDonald, Richard Spencer, Andrew Joyce, Greg Johnson and company are not 100% correct about Jews. On the other hand, I know that Jewish advocates can’t be 100% correct either.

There’s no way that the comforting conventional wisdom that each group tells itself is 100% correct.

So the truth has to be somewhere in between the critics and the apologists, right?

What troubles me is that there are no great Jewish minds debunking the Alt Right right now. Those Jews who do engage with the Alt Right throw slurs, but no formidable Jewish intellect is doing battle with the Alt Right solely on the fields of fact and logic. So why is that? Is it because there’s no battle that can be waged against Kevin MacDonald and company on purely factual and logical grounds? No way. Is it because there are no incentives (whether money or status) for Jewish/black/latino introspection? I think that’s it.

Look at what happened to poor Mark Oppenheimer this week. If he does this again, his career will be finished. Nobody messes with the Jews in America today and comes out ahead. All you’ll get is tsures for any publicly declared negative generalizations about protected groups.

In the 19th Century, Jews competed powerfully against Christianity in the realm of apologetics. Frankly, I think we won (after all, I grew up Christian and converted to Orthodox Judaism). We should muster our resources now and sally forth against the Alt Right using nothing but facts and logic. There is no other honorable form of argument.

Posted in Alt Right, Jews | Comments Off on Why Aren’t There Great Jewish Minds Debunking The Alt Right?

Moses Wouldn’t Expect ‘China’ to Change

Posted on October 11, 2017 by Luke Ford

Chris* writes: In fact, no rational observer since Hegel has doubted his incisive judgment that nothing fundamental has changed in China over a span of three-plus millennia (‘Lectures on the Philosophy of History,’ ca. 1830). Hegel didn’t make it perfectly clear whether it was “nature” (race) or “nurture” (culture), but reading between the lines shows he believed the former.

Therefore, scientifically, and also informally, the fundamental question about the intractability of “China” remains. Is it because “Chinese leaders” have never and do not now see any advantage to their own status and the situation of their countrymen, as writer Christopher Balding suggests? Is it merely their inscrutably obtuse pragmatism? (Baldwin ignores the vast sweep of Chinese history.)

No, the reason why the Asian (or Mongolid) mind won’t change is simply that it is incapable of fundamentally changing–that is how it is made or, in modern terms, is “wired.” Thus arises its notorious ANCESTOR WORSHIP and its well-documented, bloody disposition to kill anyone who steps spiritually or “corporeally” out of line. RESPECT THE ELDERS, it teaches every generation. Violation of the rules means ostracism or death.

All this implies that Caucasid and Negrid brains are also hard-wired differently, each from the other. In fact, modern science is on the verge of showing at last that this is CORRECT. Neuroscience can easily falsify this prediction simply by stepping out from behind its paralyzing “political correctness.” The answers it is likely to find will surprise it.

High-density EEG (“hdEEG”) and task-based response regimes can now establish precisely how the three races neurophysically use their brains in three different ways, with serious cognitive consequences. It is NOT A QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY but, rather, EACH RACE IS DEFECTIVE IN ITS OWN WAY. (We must pass by the supremely interesting question of precisely WHY the three races were each created DEFECTIVE.)

We also must pass by an adequate neuropsychological characterization of the Caucasids and the Negrids, except to assert that, in the deep theory of all three races, one can find the ultimate explanation for the palpable and quite obvious political-historical differences in their “achievements” over historical time. (Classic authors, such as Gobineau, and recent authors, such as John Baker, Nicholas Wade, and Kevin MacDonald, may be consulted, though each of them falls short of the fundament outlined here.)

Notwithstanding the obvious, it is still not likely that Bloomberg.com will appreciate this wonderfully deep problem rationally, given its uncritical Hebrew bias towards VICTIMHOOD and towards hiding behind race differences in order to disguise RELIGIOUS differences (specifically the 3,500-year-old Hebrew ethnic war against the goyim). We state our unbiased position: Hebrews are racially Caucasids and sons of Shem (see below).

This is the way it is, gentlemen: When one speaks of “China” one is really speaking of A RACE. When one speaks of RACE (if one refers to Hebrews) one really is speaking of a RELIGION and of a RELIGIOUS FEAR going back to Abraham. (To speak of these fears is not “racist.”)

Moses, however–blessed of God–was spiritually big enough to see through the smoke and did so in ‘Genesis’ with his story of Shem, Japeth, and Ham. One only has to understand him deeply enough.

Modern science indeed has the power to truly understand Moses and to isolate the biased (anti-mosaic), unreconstructed Hebrew position at last, while simultaneously UNBIASING modern science’s proclivity to avoid the highly important concept of the RACES and their actual neurocognitive differences. (To reconstruct the relentlessly faithless Hebrew mind and make it beloved of Moses again is a heavenly prospect.)

We can imagine what the arch-liberal Michael Bloomberg would think about these ideas. Hence, we can imagine what his employee-writer Christopher Balding will say in response–nothing. But perhaps we underestimate Balding’s love of reason and truth? Can Balding learn to read and comprehend Moses aright, and understand the scientific consequences of doing so? Happy day!

…The deep theory of the races, in addition to what has been suggested between us, is likely to demonstrate further that “race mixture” does not somehow make the defects of the pure-blooded races better. On the contrary: the result is worse.

Michael Levin suggested, as you may remember (on p. 57 of his book ‘Why Race Matters’) that definitive proofs could be obtained with modern neurophysiological and/or neurocognitive methods, which is absolutely true and MUST BE DONE sooner or later.

As for the general problem of presentation of the deep theory, given the hugely difficult problem of “political correctness” afflicting the entire world of politics as well as science as a whole, I would welcome your ideas and/or solutions.

Posted in China | Comments Off on Moses Wouldn’t Expect ‘China’ to Change

The NFL Controversy

Posted on October 11, 2017 by Luke Ford

Joe* says: I see no point in weighing in on the NFL controversy.

However, I observed when Trump first made his comments about firing players who took a knee that after decades of wrapping itself in the flag, and seeing the mostly negative response to Kaepernick’s protests last year, it was eminently foreseeable that to whatever extent the protests of the players are considered legitimate expression, the number of person who do not usually attend football games or watch them on television who might as a result of the protests, show up or tune in, would be significantly fewer than the number of NFL attendees and television watchers who would stop attending games or watching them on TV.

What we see in our society is that everything is political. Liberals/progressives/leftists try to quell conservative radio hosts by organizing advertising boycotts. They have done the same thing with Breitbart. And conservatives are not above this as well when looking at programming that ideologically they find offensive.

Here the NFL learned the hard way (although anyone really could have foreseen this even before the first Trump tweet) that it is best to steer clear of political controversy in that you will alienate some portion of your audience Even if the NFL fans who end up permanently deserting professional football is only 5% (and from the TV ratings appears to be much higher) that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in television revenue to the NFL. They may have long term contracts now, but if networks are forced to give back ad buys for failure to deliver the promised audience, that will quickly make its way down to the players.

That is the reason that Roger Goodell (the son of former liberal New York Senator Charles Goodell) put out the letter yesterday that everybody must stand. Ideologically Goodell is sympathetic to the protests of the black players, but as someone who works at the behest of the owners to maximize profits for the league, he was in an untenable position This is the only position he should have taken immediately, instead of now after the damage is done. Look for him to lose his job and look to the NFL to have a heart to heart with its players explaining that their principles (or posturing if you feel that way) simply must take a back seat to keeping the customers coming in for entertainment spectacles. The players will get the message, as this is not a life or death matter of principle, but rather something discretionary that they want to promote.

Again this is not taking sides on whether Trump properly tweeted, or whether Pence properly walked out, or whether the protesters (and coaches and owners) were acting out of deeply held principles protesting something that should have been protested. It is simply an application of (1) how the NFL has branded and marketed itself, (2) the general propensity of NFL fans to be more patriotic (in a traditional sense of honoring the flag and national anthem) than non fans, (3) that the NFL is a business depending on maintaining a high fan base and viewership.

Posted in Football | Comments Off on The NFL Controversy