NYT: ‘Ancestral Climates May Have Shaped Your Nose’

If ancestral climates shaped your nose, could they have shaped other parts of you, including your brain? That’s only logical.

New York Times:

Ask anyone what the nose does, and the reply will most likely be related to smell. We appreciate our noses because they help us experience flowers and fresh-baked cookies.

In fact, our honkers have another, more important function: They warm and humidify the air we breathe, helping prevent illness and damage in our airways and lungs. Because of this, scientists have long suspected that nose shape evolved partly in response to local climate conditions. In cold, dry climates, natural selection may have favored noses that were better at heating and moisturizing air.

A team led by scientists at Pennsylvania State University has found more evidence of the relationship between the noses we have now and the climates where our ancestors lived.

In a study published in PLOS Genetics on Thursday, the researchers found that nostril width differed significantly between populations from different regions around the world. Moreover, the higher the temperature and absolute humidity of the region, the wider the nostril, the researchers found, suggesting that climate very well may have played a part in shaping our sniffers.

Physical traits that are in direct contact with the environment often undergo natural selection and evolve faster, said Arslan Zaidi, a postdoctoral scholar in genetics at Penn State and an author of the paper. “This is one of the reasons why we looked at nose shape.”

…Between the groups in this study, only nostril width and skin pigmentation showed greater differences than would be expected because of chance accumulations of genetic mutations.

Over all, people whose parents and ancestors came from warm, humid climates tended to have wider nostrils, whereas those from cold, dry climates tended to have narrower ones. Correlations between nostril width and climate were strongest for Northern Europeans, the researchers found, suggesting that cold, dry climates in particular may have favored people with narrower nostrils…

Studying how certain traits evolved as environmental adaptations that may no longer be relevant could also help us understand disease risk today, Dr. Zaidi said.

“We know there are variable risks of respiratory diseases across different populations in the U.S.,” he said. “Can we find an explanation for that in morphology?”

Posted in Evolution | Comments Off on NYT: ‘Ancestral Climates May Have Shaped Your Nose’

Denial (2016)

I enjoyed this movie. “Acclaimed writer and historian Deborah E. Lipstadt must battle for historical truth to prove the Holocaust actually occurred when David Irving, a renowned denier, sues her for libel.”

Deborah Lipstadt is portrayed by a beautiful actress (Rachel Weisz) while David Irving is portrayed by a creepy-looking actor (Timothy Spall). The real life David Irving looks similar to actor Tom Wilkinson who is in the movie but curiously given the role of the barrister attacking Irving.

Rachel Weisz, Deborah Lipstadt

Deborah Lipstadt

David Irving

Tom Wilkinson

NEW YORK, NY – JANUARY 06: Actor Timothy Spall attends the 2014 National Board of Review Gala at Cipriani 42nd Street on January 6, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Gilbert Carrasquillo/FilmMagic)

The film makes clear that Lipstadt had unlimited funds and legal help at her disposal while Irving represented himself. Lipstadt’s team poured through Irving’s diaries to find a few passages to discredit him. Who has written an honest diary who would not be embarrassed to have parts of it read aloud in court?

Wikipedia: “Lipstadt hired the British solicitor Anthony Julius to present her case, while Penguin Books hired Kevin Bays and Mark Bateman, libel specialist from media firm Davenport Lyons. They briefed the libel barrister Richard Rampton QC and Penguin also briefed junior barrister Heather Rogers. The defendants (with Penguin’s insurers paying the fee) also retained Professor Richard J. Evans, historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, as an expert witness. Also working as expert witnesses were the American Holocaust historian Christopher Browning, the German historian Peter Longerich and the Dutch architectural expert Robert Jan van Pelt. The latter wrote a report attesting to the fact that the death camps were designed, built and used for the purpose of mass murder, while Browning testified for the reality of the Holocaust.”

In his book, The Holocaust in American Life, Peter Novick has some sharp observations on Lipstadt’s work:

Deborah Lipstadt is more moderate than others when she describes Allied policy as merely “bordering on complicity” in the Final Solution. What prevented Auschwitz from being bombed, says Lipstadt, was the “deep antipathy” toward “contemptible” Jews held by key figures in Washington and London. David Wyman, perhaps the most cited member of the prosecution team, is at one with Lipstadt in seeing anti-Semitism at the core of the “abandonment.”

Forward Editor Jane Eisner writes:

The role of memory, and its fraught relationship to fact and truth, is threaded through Lipstadt’s legal battle with Irving, and so through “Denial,” the new film dramatizing that epic British courtroom struggle. The film debuted at the Toronto Film Festival and will open in select cities in the United States on September 30. Starring Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt, it’s based on Lipstadt’s book recounting her ordeal, “History on Trial: My Day in Court With a Holocaust Denier.”

Though in the end victorious, Lipstadt faced a legal saga that was filled with uncertainty and marked by intense loneliness. In the United Kingdom, the burden of proof in a libel case is on the accused, so it was up to Lipstadt and her British legal team to prove that Irving was wrong; that the Holocaust had, indeed, occurred, and that Jews were its intended victims. Lipstadt, then and today still a professor at Emory University, had put everything on the line to defend herself against the claims of a man who was driven by prejudice and anti-Semitism but also knew how to construct a cunning and cynical argument.

“History on Trial” was published in 2005, and it eerily resonates today. The rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and the surge of derogatory Holocaust-related tropes on social media perpetrated by extremists in this country raise a similar quandary: How do you deal with those who deny history, who disregard factual evidence, who seem to care little for the truth? And can this one film — a solid, interesting, at times gripping film, but one not destined for blockbuster status — help counter an ugly narrative?

The contemporary echoes were one reason that Weisz, whose parents fled from the Nazis, wanted the part. “Obviously, the Holocaust being on trial is just a very outlandish notion to me,” the British-born actress said during an interview in a Manhattan hotel. “But the idea that there are objective truths, and there is a difference between opinion and fact — in the current climate of relativism, people just spout opinions as if they are facts! There doesn’t seem to be much respect for the difference of the two things. So I thought it was fascinating to put something on trial and prove it was irrefutably a fact and that someone’s opinion didn’t stand up.”

David Irving is a complicated chap. There’s an excellent five-part British miniseries “Selling Hitler” about the Hitler Diaries. Apparently, Irving lead the way in denouncing the diaries as fraudulent after first calling them genuine.

From Wikipedia:

In 1983, Stern, a weekly German news magazine, purchased for 9 million marks the Hitler Diaries of 61 volumes and published excerpts from them. Irving played the major role in uncovering the Hitler Diaries as a hoax. In October 1982 Irving purchased, from the same source as Stern’s 1983 purchase, 800 pages of documents relating to Hitler, only to discover that many of the documents were forgeries.[52] Irving was amongst the first to identify the diaries as forgeries, and to draw media attention. He went so far as to crash the press conference held by Hugh Trevor-Roper at the Hamburg offices of Stern magazine on 25 April 1983 to denounce the diaries as a forgery and Trevor-Roper for endorsing the diaries as genuine.[53] Irving’s performance at the Stern press conference where he violently harangued Trevor-Roper until ejected by security led him to be featured prominently on the news; the next day, Irving appeared on the Today television show as a featured guest.[54] Irving had concluded that the alleged Hitler diaries were a forgery because they had come from the same dealer in Nazi memorabilia from whom Irving had purchased his collection in 1982.[52] At the press conference in Hamburg, Irving announced, “I know the collection from which these diaries come. It is an old collection, full of forgeries. I have some here”.[52] Irving was proud to have detected and announced the hoax material and of the “trail of chaos” he had created at the Hamburg press conference and the attendant publicity it had brought him, and took pride in his humiliation of Trevor-Roper, whom Irving strongly disliked for his sloppy work (not detecting the hoax) and criticism of Irving’s methods and conclusions.[55] Irving also noted internal inconsistencies in the supposed Hitler diaries, such as a diary entry for 20 July 1944, which would have been unlikely given that Hitler’s right hand had been badly burned by the bomb planted in his headquarters by Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg earlier that day.[56]

A week later on 2 May, Irving asserted that many of the diary documents appear to be genuine; at the same press conference, Irving took the opportunity to promote his translation of the memoirs of Hitler’s physician Dr. Theodor Morell.[55] Robert Harris, in his book Selling Hitler, suggested that an additional reason for Irving’s change of mind over the authenticity of the alleged Hitler diaries was that the fake diaries contain no reference to the Holocaust, thereby buttressing Irving’s claim in Hitler’s War that Hitler had no knowledge of it.[57] Subsequently Irving conformed when the diaries were declared as a forgery by consensus. At a press conference held to withdraw his endorsement of the diaries, Irving proudly claimed that he was the first to call them a forgery, to which a reporter replied that he was also the last to call them genuine.

David Irving is the subject of a great Wikipedia profile. He lost his libel lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt. Here is David’s side.

Jack the Jew* emails:

David Duke of course came to his views on race through the KKK. It is easy to think of David Duke as a clown, but his views on Jews largely parallel Kevin MacDonald’s.

David Irving is a different case. He was a respected amateur historian and popular author about military matters. He is educated guy and a really talented writer. Because he speaks and reads German fluently, he has used original source material for his works. He is more responsible than anyone, other than Kurt Vonnegut, for publicizing British firebomb raid on Dresden (for fans of Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow, it plays a significant part in that book as well). What happened with Irving is that in all of his original research, he was unable to come up with anything linking Hitler with direct orders to exterminate the Jews. He also minimized the number of Jews who were deliberately killed. (The numbers, even from established historians of the Holocaust, are all over the map. Arno Mayer, who wrote, Why did the Heavens not darken, in that book said that more Jews died of disease and other causes than were put to death in gas chambers in Auschwitz.)

Deborah Lipstadt wrote a book in which she called Irving a Holocaust Denier, lumping him with people who were explicit Holocaust deniers. Irving sued her in England for libel and lost. In the process Irving’s historical research was shredded by Richard Evans, another British historian of WWII and the Nazis, because Evans said that Irving had deliberately shaped his books and opinions by ignoring some facts and stressing others to reach a desired result.

This result of the trial pretty much ruined Irving’s reputation among serious historians. However, there are a number of points that really have to be made in Irving’s defense: Irving foolishly represented himself at trial whereas Libstadt’s team consisted of the best barristers in England paid millions of pounds by wealthy Jews including Spielberg. Evans was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to testify as an expert witness, and in subsequent events, has been criticized by neutral sources as someone who has made serious errors in his own works. Irving made all of his source materials available to the defense and Lipstadt refused to turn over much of what she had that she based her claim in the book on.

Irving is probably the English speaking historian who knows the most about the Nazi leadership having read and translated Goebbels diaries, written a book on Goebels and on Himmler as well as on other aspects. Irving has also changed his views on the extent of the Holocaust. He still doesn’t think it can be attributed to Hitler, but does think that others in the leadership were involved, and he now concedes that there were extermination camps and that at least hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed.

Christopher Hitchens strongly supported Irving’s right to his opinions and his books. The question is always one of whether histories should be refuted by calling its author a racist or an anti-Semite or refuted with facts. Irving was not some crank pounding out tracts. He may have had an agenda as Evans testified, but if that is the case, identify the agenda as Evans did and show how Irving distorted the facts. However, that may be true for some of the parts of Irving’s works, its certainly not true for most of them.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Holocaust | Comments Off on Denial (2016)

Was Hitler Inspired by Racist American Laws?

Haaretz: ‘Hitler’s American Model,’ by James Q. Whitman, contends that America’s racist legislation served as a model for at least portions of Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg Laws.

“Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law,” by James Q. Whitman, Princeton University Press, 208 pp., $24.95
It’s not widely realized that Adolf Hitler wrote a sequel to “Mein Kampf.” Published only in 1961, “Hitler’s Second Book,” as it was titled, rehashed many of the themes from his earlier work but also included some significant additional material, including some fascinating praise of America’s immigration system in the 1920s.
“The American nation appears as a young, racially select people,” Hitler wrote. “By making an immigrant’s ability to set foot on American soil dependent on specific racial requirements on the one hand as well as a certain level of physical health of the individual himself, the bleeding of Europe of its best people has become regulated in a manner that is almost bound by law.”
Yale law professor James Q. Whitman, in his intriguing new book, “Hitler’s American Model,” contends that the Nazi leader’s praise of America was not merely some propaganda rant but reflected the Nazis’ genuine admiration for the laws governing race relations in America in those years.
More than that: Whitman contends that Nazi legal theorists not only extolled America’s racist legislation, but actually used it as a model for at least portions of the Nuremberg Laws. The centerpiece of Whitman’s case is a June 1934 gathering of senior Nazi attorneys and Justice Ministry officials to draft sweeping new legislation that would define the status of German Jews and their relations to non-Jewish Germans.
In preparation for the conference, the attendees examined legal systems around the world, in search of precedents for government-imposed legal restrictions based on race. They were not looking for ammunition to publicly justify the laws they were creating; in fact, there was no public aspect at that point, since the 1934 meeting was held entirely behind closed doors. Rather, Whitman shows, they were trying to determine how best to turn Nazi racial ideology into German federal law.
“This pivotal meeting on the road to the Nuremberg Laws involved repeated and detailed discussion of the American example,” Whitman writes. The Germans were not interested so much in U.S. segregation laws; their goals were to disqualify Jews from citizenship and to criminalize marriage and sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews, in order to “protect German blood and honor.”
For this, they looked to a number of American legal innovations. One was the way in which the U.S. immigration quotas, adopted by Congress in 1921 and tightened in 1924, were structured to heavily favor what were considered “racially desirable” people in northern and western Europe, and severely reduce the number admitted from eastern and southern Europe (primarily Jews and Catholics) and from Asia. Although the U.S. was by no means the only country to decide immigration based on racist ideas, Whitman notes, it had become “the leader in developing explicitly racist policies of nationality and immigration.”
The Nazi jurists were also keenly interested in America’s development of a type of second-class citizenship for residents of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, the territories that the U.S. captured and occupied in the Spanish-American War of 1898. The Supreme Court upheld the conquered peoples’ status as “non-citizen nationals.” German legal scholars created an extensive body of literature on the subject, which the Nazis utilized. “America, in the eyes of this German literature, was a laboratory for experimentation in diminished citizenship rights,” Whitman notes.
Finally, the Nazis looked closely at the laws in 30 states prohibiting marriage between whites and blacks, the last of which (Virginia) was abolished only in 1967. In defining who could marry and who could not, these American precedents included helpful (to the Nazis) ways for deciding the status of persons of mixed-race. The issue of “mongrelization,” which entered the American legal system originally because of relations between white masters and black slaves, was important to the Nazis in addressing the question of Germans who were of partly Jewish descent.

As an example of the prominence of sentiment in America against race-mixing, Whitman quotes U.S. Senator Theodore Bilbo (Democrat of Mississippi) railing, in 1938, about how “mongrelization” could “destroy white civilization.” Bilbo worried that “even one drop of Negro blood placed in the veins of the purest Caucasian destroys the inventive genius of his mind and palsies his creative faculty.” 
Many states—primarily, but not exclusively, in the south—defined a Negro as someone who had any Negro ancestors; hence the term “one drop.” Ironically, the Nazis considered the one-drop rule too harsh, and instead adopted the one-grandparent rule to define Jewishness.
Whitman should have mentioned that such views were held not only by crude southern demagogues, but by the president of the United States himself. In a document from 1939 (first published by this author more than 10 years ago), President Franklin D. Roosevelt was reliably quoted by a friendly senator as boasting, “We know that we do not have any Jewish blood in our veins.” Prof. Greg Robinson’s study of FDR’s writings in the 1920s uncovered statements warning that “the mingling of white with oriental blood on an extensive scale is harmful to our future citizenship.” And there can be no doubt (since it was a matter of public controversy) that the president approved his administration’s policy of segregating Negro blood donations during World War II.
Did America’s racist legislation directly influence any aspects of Nazi racial laws? Whitman concludes that although the Nazi statute criminalizing mixed marriage “was not directly copied” from the U.S. legal code, the German jurists’ thinking clearly was “influenced” by the American example, as demonstrated by their frequent reference to U.S. law during that crucial 1934 conference, and the inclusion of extensive American material in major Nazi law texts. While “it is perfectly possible” that the Nazis “would have succeeded in criminalizing mixed marriages even if they had not had an American example to cite,” Whitman writes, there is “no justification for ignoring the evidence of Nazi engagement with American models that litters the sources.”

Posted in Adolf Hitler, America | Comments Off on Was Hitler Inspired by Racist American Laws?

What are strengths and weaknesses of Jewish people?

I find that the more Orthodox Jew, the more comfortable he is with this kind of discussion. The Orthodox Jew knows who he is and he usually has no problem noticing that different peoples have different gifts.

The assimilated Jew, on the other hand, is often hyper-sensitive about this discussion and will likely reject any stereotype of Jews, be the stereotype positive or negative.

From a discussion on Quora:

Joshua Mason-Barkin, MA, MA Jewish Education & Nonprofit Management, Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion (2007):

I think the question is, at its core, problematic. (I don’t think it’s intentionally anti-Semitic. But it’s leaning in that general direction.)

Some Jews are smart. Some Jews are stupid. Some Jews are wealthy. Some are poor. Some are good athletes. Some are not. Some are funny. Some are not. To suggest that Jews, as a group, share certain common traits reflects an ignorance about Jews and Judaism — and maybe also about ethnicity, religion, and people.

Imagine asking: “What are strengths and weaknesses of black people?”

The problem is that the very fact that you’re asking the question suggests that you’re comfortable with (potentially racist) generalizations based on stereotypes, such as, “Blacks are good at basketball.”

Furthermore, such generalizations are logically falacious. (No, not fellatio — get your mind out of the gutter.)

When taken as a percentage of the total number of people currently listed on NBA rosters, it is probably accurate to say that there are many blacks who are very good at basketball. But based on that information, I actually know nothing about the chances of finding a good basketball player if I were to walk up to a random 25 year old African American on the street. (And statiscally speaking, the chances of that person being any better at basketball than a randomly chosen white person are actually pretty slim.)

Many Jews work in financial industries. This does not mean that Jews are good with money, that Jews are good at counting, that Jews are excellent bankers, or that Jews know some secret about the stock market. (I can introduce you to hundreds of Jews — if not many thousands — who are not good with money.)

Jews are strong and weak at the same things as white people, Arabs, left-handed people, Pacific Islanders, and Roman Catholics. In other words: like any group of people, individual Jews vary greatly from each other.

* Joel V Benjamin, I’m a secular Jew who admires Israel for its high ethical standards and technological achievements.

Their main strength is their strongly held ethical values which include a respect for:
– civil liberties for all people
– learning
– law
– ideas
– truth
– history
– tradition
– generosity

They have a strong determination to:
– persist in times of trouble
– help others when they are in need.

Some individual Jews or Jewish groups have the same weaknesses as the members of any other large selection of humanity.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on What are strengths and weaknesses of Jewish people?

Dr. Space: The Life of Wernher von Braun

Bob Ward writes: “The Germans were ideal alien residents. Maj. Joseph Sestito, U.S. Army…later observed: “They seemed to have a group spirit, based on the idea that on each one’s model behavior rested the glory of the Reich.”

Steve Sailer wrote in 2014:

I had lunch yesterday with a donor who is an Englishman who has lived all over the world. He brought up the topic of how a lot of aspects of American life strike him as more German than English, such as American newspapers, which have traditionally aspired to be serious, informative, and responsible, while British newspapers like being outrageous and fun.

He then went off to meet with some German friends and writes:
Good brainstorm over a beer with my buddies on the Germanness of America, some of which I already mentioned:
1. TV advertising (slapstick, not subtle)
2. The Army (are there more German generals than German politicians in the US — which states does army recruit from?)

Pershing, Eisenhower, Schwartzkopf
3. Attitude to self improvement

The German poet Rilke’s mantra “You must change your life” caught on a lot faster in America, especially California, than Britain. For example, my Swiss German paternal grandfather was a health food nut who moved to Southern California 85 years ago to grow his own food in his yard.
4. Easy to scare (see Hollywood), lack of natural scepticism
5. Taking things serious (the brit needs to be seen not to be trying)
6. Lack of irony
7. American English — tendency to use longer words eg. Transportation rather than Transport, tendency to use “The” ie. “The Congress” rather than just “Congress”
8. Law abidingness eg. attitude to jaywalking
9. Food

A lot of quintessentially American food items, such as the hot dog (which FDR famously served to the King of England in 1939), were popularized at the quite German 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis.

Posted in Germany | Comments Off on Dr. Space: The Life of Wernher von Braun

I’m As Happy As A Mexican On Cesar Chavez Day

Mexican: “You Jews get ten days of holidays a year, we get one.”
Luke: “You are humble people.”
Mexican: “Shut up.”

Mexican on Cesar Chavez Day: “I’m so bored!”
Luke: “Maybe you could read on Google about Cesar Chavez.”
Mexican: “You’re such an ass.”

Mexican: “You’re falling from the pedestal I have you on as a smart white man.”
Luke: “Well, when I make a mistake, my fellow white man bails me out. White privilege.”

Posted in Mexicans | Comments Off on I’m As Happy As A Mexican On Cesar Chavez Day

Lesley Gore – Sunshine Lollipops And Rainbows Ski Party

When Americans felt safe and confident, they looked like this. Compared to today, life for in 1960s America was sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.

If they shot this scene today, they’d have interracial couples and twerking.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Lesley Gore – Sunshine Lollipops And Rainbows Ski Party

Deconstructing A Ridiculous George Steiner Interview

From a new book, excerpted at Forward.com:

Editor’s note: George Steiner is generally regarded as one of the most significant Jewish thinkers of the 20th century. He has taught at Oxford University, Cambridge, Harvard and Yale, among others, and his books include the classic of criticism, “Tolstoy Or Dostoevsky,” “The Death Of Tragedy” and “In Bluebeard’s Castle: Some Notes Towards The Redefinition Of Culture.” “A Long Saturday,” a book of conversations Steiner had with the French journalist Laure Adler, is being published this month by the University Of Chicago Press. Writing for The Washington Post in 1984, Robert Alter declared, “No one now writing on literature can match him as polymath and polyglot, and few can equal the verve and eloquence of his writing.”

GS: “For several thousand years, approximately from the time of the fall of the First Temple in Jerusalem, Jews did not have the wherewithal to mistreat, or torture, or expropriate anyone or anything in the world.

That would be news to groups with conflicting interests from Jews. For instance, in a free country, Ashkenazi Jews, due to their high verbal IQs, naturally rise to prominence and dominate certain professions such as law, media, medicine, accounting, finance, etc. By excluding Jews for centuries, many European countries such as Spain developed their own indigenous middle class rather than outsource those positions to Jews.

The idea that Jews could never mistreat anyone before the state of Israel would be news, for example, to people who’ve been rooked in a business deal by a Jew or by those slaughtered by Stalin’s Willing Jewish Executioners.

All groups are competing with other groups for scarce resources and in many of these competitions, one group wins and other groups lose. What is good for the Jews is often bad for other groups. For example, white solidarity and Jewish power have rarely grown together. Instead, they’ve usually developed on opposite trajectories.

Jews do best in individualist aka WASP countries such as the USA, England, Canada, and Australia. As these countries become less WASPy and individualist, Jewish success and safety will be increasingly threatened.

When a Jew does bad, WASPs tend to look at that person as an individual, while Catholics and Muslims and other tribes tend to see that Jew as first a member and representative of a group.

Group strategies will usually out-compete individualist strategies, which is one reason why WASPs no longer rule America and the West, but instead, in many places, Jews have out-competed them.

For me, it was the single greatest aristocracy that ever existed. When I’m introduced to an English duke, I say to myself, “The highest nobility is to have belonged to a people that has never humiliated another people.” Or tortured another.

One is entitled to one’s opinions, i.e. that Jews are the greatest aristocracy that ever existed, but the idea that Jews have never humiliated or tortured another people prior to the state of Israel is ridiculous. For example, many of the biggest mass murderers of the 20th Century were Stalin’s Willing Jewish Executioners. It was precisely because they were Jews that these hard men felt little sympathy for the kulaks and other groups they liquidated (because of bad history between Jews and these peoples).

Hugh notes: “You could flip that around and say that communism was the result of pogroming and exclusion from rank while being more capable, and being forced into dirty jobs while simultaneously demeaned for it. (Of course, they didn’t need to be in Europe in the first place.)”

GS: “I’m a confirmed ethical snob, I’m completely arrogant ethically.”

On what metric would Steiner claim that Jews are head and shoulders over other groups in ethics? Jews, like almost all groups, practice a dual morality that goes back to Torah — there’s one morality for how you treat your in-group and there’s another morality for how you treat outsiders. This approach is not likely to ethically excel WASPs who practice a universal morality — one standard for how you treat everyone. Which group, for example, has a better reputation for honesty in business? WASPs or Jews? For much of the world, the word “Jew” is synonymous with dishonesty in business (not that Jews are less honest in business than other Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples, ethics are usually the result of genes and environment). Incidentally, there seems to be a cline in the Northern Hemisphere running from Finland to the equator where predisposition towards monogamy, universalism and honesty in business decrease as you go south.

Most people will naturally think the best of their own group and easily slip into negative views of out-groups. Jews are no exception to this social identity theory.

GS: “I can only explain what I perceive as the Jew’s mission: to be the guest of humanity.”

Wanting to be a permanent guest is a childish want. Adults take responsibility and create a home for themselves. If Jews had had an Israel in 1939, there would not have been a Holocaust. But what is six million Jewish lives compared to the sweet feeling of moral superiority and helplessness?

No group, no individual, has a right to exist. No country has a right to exist, not even Israel. Every person, group, country, must work to protect its interests if it wants to keep on existing.

GS: “What must a guest do? He must live among people, wherever they may be. And a good guest, a worthy guest, leaves the place where he has been staying a bit cleaner, a bit more beautiful, a bit more interesting than he found it.”

Those are very nice thoughts but I doubt Jews collectively or any group can be said to live up to this charge. It is not pleasant to be a minority.

GS: “Judaism goes far beyond Israel. The 500 years in Spain were one of the greatest periods in Jewish culture.”

These were often rotten stinking years for ordinary Jews. I don’t think many Jews would want to go back to those conditions. Jews are usually going to do better in a Jewish state than in a Catholic or Muslim state.

GS: “American Jews dominate a large portion of the sciences and the economy of the planet. Not to mention their importance in the media, literature and so on.”

Yes, they do, and as Joe Biden said, it is all for the good. We wouldn’t have had same-sex marriage without this.

GS: “This is my daily task as a teacher and a thinker; that is why God put me in the world. I haven’t the slightest doubt that Judaism would survive.”

Yes, Judaism would survive, but there would probably be half as many Jews in the word (as more Jews would choose to assimilate). And thousands of Jews would die in the destruction of Israel.

GS: “I see wandering as a wonderful destiny. To wander among people is to visit them.”

Sometimes wandering is wonderful, particularly when you have a high IQ and abundant resources, but most people want a secure home.

GS: “…to abhor chauvinism, nationalism — which has been the guiding principle in Israel for a long time and is still dominant.”

Chauvinism and nationalism are the most natural things in the world, and generally speaking, they are healthy predispositions. If you don’t prefer your own kind to out-groups, you are weird.

But really, what fascinates me most is the mystery of Jewish intellectual excellence. I’m not being a hypocrite: In the sciences, the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is stunning. There are areas in which there is almost a Jewish monopoly. Take the creation of the modern American novel by Philip Roth, Joseph Heller, Saul Bellow and so many others. The sciences, mathematics, the media, as well; Pravda was run by Jews. Is that the fruit of the terrible pressure of danger? Is danger the father of invention and creation? I dare to believe that is true, quite often. Judaism is the only religion, the only one on the planet, that has a special prayer for families whose children are scholars. That fills me with great joy and huge pride. I now have (and I don’t believe in miracles) a son who is the dean of a very fine college in New York, a daughter who directs the department of antiquity at Columbia, a son-in-law who teaches ancient literature at Princeton. That was my dream. Do we Jews, perhaps, have something of a gift for the life of the mind, for abstract thought? We seem destined to love knowledge, thinking, the arts. All men and women share this to some degree, I know, but this people, so small in number, so very small, that has been on the verge of disappearing several times throughout history, and yet survives — in short, this people, so hated, so feared, so persecuted, is still here. No one can explain why. Anti-Semitic jokes often contain a grain of truth. Hegel told this one: “God arrives, and in his right hand he is holding the holy texts of the revelation and the promise of heaven; in his left hand, the Berlin newspaper, Die Berliner Gazette. The Jew chooses the newspaper.” Hegel’s anti-Semitic joke contains a profound truth: Jews are passionate about the ductus, the internal current of history and time. And it was perhaps no accident that Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Einstein (with the major exception of Darwin, of course) were all born in the same century.

And what about the legacy of Jewish intellectual craziness (communism, feminism, Freudianism, messianism, etc)?

Yes, they do, and as Joe Biden said, it is all for the good. We wouldn’t have had same-sex marriage without this.

GS: “American Jews, nonbelieving, nonpracticing Jews — like me — are in danger of slowly disappearing.”

Yes, only Orthodox Judaism consistently preserves Jewish identity.

In any event, when I arrived in the U.S., there were still quotas at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. If you had told me that in a few years the presidents of all those universities would be Jews, and that Jews would occupy chairs in literature — from which they were formerly excluded — I wouldn’t have believed you. There was a prevailing elitism that made Jews understand they were outsiders. Such thinking no longer exists. The last time I had the privilege of attending a session of the permanent members of the Institute for Advanced Thinking at Princeton, it involved the replacement of a brilliant mathematician, a world-renowned logician. Various names were suggested. Oppenheimer knocked on the table with his pipe — something he did when he’d had enough, when he was getting impatient — and said, “Gentlemen, I beg you, for the sake of good politics, try to suggest a name that isn’t Jewish.” But there weren’t any at that level of global eminence. Today I think there would be some Japanese, and tomorrow there will be Indians (including women, I’d like to stress). In the past few years, at all the universities I’ve visited, things have been changing a lot: the Jewish student is no longer necessarily the first or the second in his or her class; now it is the Chinese or Indian student who ranks highest in traditional disciplines such as pure logic, mathematics, theoretical physics and so on.

Baruch HaShem!

I don’t understand anything about this race business; it’s a bad joke. To be a Jew is to belong to that multimillennial tradition of respect for the life of the mind, of infinite respect for the Book, for the text, and it means telling oneself that one’s bags must always be packed, that the bags must always be ready to go. Without complaining, without shouting about cosmic injustice. No, it’s actually a great privilege. Don’t forget (people forget this all the time): In ancient Greek the word for “guest” is the same as the word for “foreigner”: xenos. And if you were to ask me to define our tragic condition, it’s that the word “xenophobia” survives, and is commonly used, everyone understands it; but the word “xenophilia” has disappeared. That’s how I define the crisis of our condition.

To not understand anything about this race business is not to understand life.

In three instances Judaism has held mankind hostage in the most tormenting manner. First, with the Mosaic Law. Monotheism is the least natural thing in the world. When the ancient Greeks say there are 10,000 gods, it’s natural, logical, delightful; they inhabit the world with beauty, reconciliation. The Jew responds: ”Unimaginable! You can’t have an image of God, you can’t have a conception of him other than an ethical, moral one. He is an all-powerful God; he avenges himself to the third generation, etc.” The Mosaic Law, the morality of monotheism, is terrible: That was the first act of blackmail. The second instance: Christianity. You have Jesus, the Jew, who enjoins people: “You will give everything you have to the poor. You will sacrifice for others. Altruism isn’t a virtue, it’s the very duty of mankind. You will live humbly.” This is a fundamentally Judaic message: The Sermon on the Mount is made up of quotes, you know, from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos. And the third time you have Marx, who proclaims, “If you have a fine house with three empty rooms and there are people all around you who have no home, you are the basest swine.” There is no possible defense for human egotism, greed, the lust for money, success. What did the revolutionary Saint-Just say? Happiness is a new idea in Europe. What did Marx say? Justice, a new idea in Europe. Enough of these terrible inequalities. Beggars are increasing on the sidewalks of our capitals — in Paris and in London. Three times, Jews have demanded, “Become a person. Become human.” It’s frightening. And then as a side note, Freud comes and takes away our dreams. He doesn’t even let us dream in peace. As for the great prophets, Isaiah declared himself the one who wakes us in the night, the one whose cries will awaken the city. Jeremiah pleads, “Wake up! Stop sleeping!” But it’s really mean to deprive us of our petty bourgeois sleep. Sleeping well is the luxury of the bourgeoisie, the middle classes. People who are starving never enjoy a good sleep. And Freud comes along and takes away even that. No, really, when Hitler declared in his Table Talk (Tischgespräche) that “the Jew invented conscience,” he was right. Absolutely. It was actually a profound statement from that evil man. When Solzhenitsyn, whom I consider a great man, though detestable, says that “the virus of communism, of Bolshevism, is totally Jewish and has infected the holy Virgin of Kazan and Russian theocracy,” he happens to be quite correct from a historical perspective. We can be proud of this, or we can deplore it. But anti-Semitism is a kind of human cry, “Leave me alone!” It’s a cry against the moral pestering Judaism represents. And I don’t think it can be eliminated. The crisis in the Middle East is only getting more severe. On the one hand there is an anti-Semitic left in the so-called liberal countries, and on the other you have the Baptists, the most fascist-leaning neo-conservatives in the United States — there are 50 million of them in the southeastern U.S. — who were sending money and arms to Sharon when he was prime minister: “Yes! Bravo! You have to keep the infidel away from the Nazarene Country.” Yes, they call Israel the Nazarene Country. These are cruel, sadistic absurdities, disgusting alliances. Once again, history is going to be very dangerous. Every person lives his life while delving into his inner world. When I get up in the morning, I tell myself this story, so I can make it through the day: God announces that he’s sick of us. Really. “I’m fed up!” In 10 days, the flood. The real one. No Noah this time. That was a mistake. The Holy Father tells the Catholics, “Very well. It’s God’s will. You will pray. You will forgive each other. You will gather your families and wait for the end.” The Protestants say, “You will settle your financial affairs. Your affairs must be completely settled. You will gather your families and you will pray.” The rabbi says, “Ten days? But that’s more than enough time to learn how to breathe under water!” And every day that magnificent story gives me the strength and happiness to live my life. And I believe it, deeply: Ten days is indeed a long time.

The other possibility is that anti-Jewish sentiments spring from the same source as other negative views of peoples — from conflicts of interest.

When you are brilliant and articulate, you can come up with the most wonderful reasons totally divorced from reality. Paul Johnson called it Judaic irrationality (kaballah, communism, etc).

Letting go of the victimhood narrative is a sign of growing up. That applies equally to Jews as to non-Jews.

I had hoped that at the end of my life (that is, now) the legacy of the Shoah would be calmed, that a certain reconciliation would have occurred naturally in Europe, but that hasn’t been the case; today the waves of anti-Semitism, hatred of Jews, are cresting around us everywhere. You wouldn’t have thought that possible only a few years ago. In Hungary, Romania, Poland, there are hardly any Jews anymore, but anti-Semitism has endured. And in my beloved England, I hate to tell you, the signs, indications of anti-Semitism, are increasing; there are academic boycotts against Jewish scientists, even in England. And a very profound sense of unease is developing in the face of this. And the incredible irony is that in Ukraine now it’s Putin who is denouncing anti-Semitism. It’s a scenario worthy of Kafka! Everywhere, the great wave is growing again, except, perhaps, in the U.S. I’m not talking about revisionism (which has followers in France); I’m talking about those who think of themselves as open-minded but feel increasingly ill at ease in the presence of Jews.

What has been the legacy of the other genocides? Natural reconciliation? I don’t think so. Why would the legacy of the Jewish genocide be any different? Genocides are a natural a way of settling group differences, they are politics by different means. There’s no natural reconciliation after a genocide. It would be against group interests to reconcile after a genocide, whether you are the perpetrator or the victim. If you are the perpetrator, you will be afraid to reconcile with the people who’ve survived your slaughter. If you were slaughtered, you will either burn for vengeance or you will be reconciled to being slaughtered and hence likely to depart quickly from the pages of history.

Steiner says there are people in France who are open-minded but ill at ease in the presence of Jews. Well, there are plenty of Jews who are ill at ease with goyim. That’s the way the world works. Most of us most of the time are ill at ease with people who are different when compared to how we feel around people who are similar to us.

GS: “And the nationalist movements, the movements of the right that openly proclaim their hatred of Jews.”

Yes, there is such hatred and it is rational because organized Jewry often casts itself as the enemy of gentile nationalisms. Gentile nationalisms by definition almost inevitably exclude Jews. Jews have reason to be wary of gentile nationalisms just as gentile nationalists have reason to be wary of Jews, the international people. Right now the most powerful political divide in the West is between globalists (whose leaders are often Jews) and nationalists (whose leaders are almost always goyim). Different groups have different interests.

GS: “There is a hatred of Jews wherever there are no longer any Jews, even where there have never been Jews.”

It would be more accurate to say that where there are no group conflicts between Jews and non-Jews, there is relatively little anti-Jewish sentiment. In Australia, for example, you’ll only find anti-Semitism where people are likely to meet Jews, such as Sydney and Melbourne.

GS: “At this moment there are more Jews on the planet than before the Shoah.”

Not true.

GS: “If you were told that your unborn children might confront a new Holocaust, an Auschwitz in another form, the threat, once again, of slavery and destruction, and if you had the choice either to have them convert, in any case to leave Judaism, or else not to have children, which would you choose?”

Jews are in a far better position than many other peoples. No people has a guaranteed right to survival. You have to earn your survival by making smart choices.

GS: “What is it that makes a Jew want to remain a Jew — God knows it’s a wretched destiny!”

By what metric? Which groups consistently have it better than Jews?

GS: “The mystery of this survival, the mystery of what draws the hatred of the non-Jew, a sense of the monstrous; I think it’s because Jews have signed a pact with life. Let me explain. For thousands of years there seem to have been negotiations between Jews and life itself, the mystery of human vitality. After spending 10 years in prison, often in solitary confinement, Natan Sharansky (the famous pro-Zionist dissident in Soviet Russia) was exchanged for a spy who had been imprisoned; the exchange took place on a small bridge. What does Sharansky do? He goes across the bridge dancing and shouting insults at his Russian guards! In the camp, in Kolyma, the Russian guards were apparently afraid of Sharansky. He danced. He danced like David in front of the ark. The dance of an inextinguishable pact with vitality.”

When somebody makes irrational claims, what can you say? Jews have survived because they are very smart and adaptable people. They are hated because their interests often clash with the interests of those around them.

GS: “Why are 70% of all Nobel Prize winners in the sciences Jews? Why are 90% of all chess masters Jews, whether in Argentina or Moscow? Why do Jews recognize each other on a level that is not just that of rational reflection?”

Because of the combination of genes and environment. It is the same answer for why the Japanese and blacks and Chinese and Russians and Finns are so special in their different ways. Which people are superior? It depends on the metrics you choose for measuring success.

GS: “Jews have always been able to say no to despotism, to inhumanity around them.”

Except for the millions of Jewish communists, including Stalin’s Willing Jewish Executioners.

GS: “For me, to be a Jew is to remain a student, to be someone who learns. It’s to reject superstition, the irrational. It’s to refuse to turn to astrologists to find out your destiny. It’s to have an intellectual, moral, spiritual vision; above all, it’s to refuse to humiliate or torture another human being; it’s to refuse to allow another to suffer from your existence.”

Jews are as likely to believe in superstition and the irrational as any other people. They’re as likely to consult astrologers. They’re as likely to have a vision as other people with a similar IQ. They’re as likely to humiliate and torture as other people with their IQ. They’re as likely to cause others to suffer as any other people with their IQ.

George Steiner has obviously never read my blog.

“On the contrary; the rest of the world is becoming more and more sadistic, more and more provincial, nationalistic, chauvinistic. In the West today there would seem to be three times as many astrologists as scientists. Superstition, the irrational, is gaining a great deal of ground again. We are living in a society of ever increasing kitsch, vulgarity and brutality.”

Jews are as likely to succumb to these things as non-Jews with a Jewish-level IQ.

“Up to now, we know of not one Jewish school where there has been an incident involving pedophilia. This is very important: Jews consider children to be sacred. If at least this fact is verified — but I’m cautious, because there are secrets that none of us know about. By contrast, there’s an increasing number of pedophilia cases throughout Christendom. And I don’t think there has ever been a Jewish teacher who has touched a child sexually. Nor a rabbi, for God’s sake! Whereas in Ireland, to mention a country that I know well, there isn’t one school that has escaped this. But in Britain, too, pedophilia cases are multiplying. So perhaps, for me, to be a Jew is to be someone who would never abuse a child, who would never torture anyone else.”

He’s never read my blog.

“This doesn’t mean there aren’t stingy, corrupt Jews (in high finance, those who buy up London, Russian gangsters who are in large part Jews and are taking over the luxury industry), but it does mean that Jews continue to contribute immeasurably to the glory of the sciences, philosophy and intellectual thought.”

Yes.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Deconstructing A Ridiculous George Steiner Interview

How Trump Adviser Stephen Miller Divided a Santa Monica Synagogue

Hollywood Reporter:

Members of the progressive temple, where Miller learned Hebrew, and L.A.’s Jewish community struggle to come to grips with a native son who forcefully champions the Muslim ban and the wall on the Mexican border. Says one Rabbi, “Miller is not the only Jew who is supportive of these policies, but he’s in a position of great influence.”
The Miller family belonged to the Santa Monica Synagogue only for two or three years — enough time for their eldest son, Stephen, to graduate Hebrew school in 2001. Miller’s young face, with a grin, peeks out from the corner of that year’s confirmation class photo, which hangs on a back wall of the temple, near a toilet and rec room. “We did our best here to teach Stephen the ethical standards of Judaism,” says Jeff Marx, the Reform synagogue’s longtime rabbi, who tutored Miller and appears with him in the class portrait.

Sixteen years later, Miller’s picture is all over the place, but the progressive Jewish community that helped raise him is struggling to fathom how a native son found an intellectual home with President Donald Trump and his allies. “He certainly grew up here having a knowledge base” of Judaism, says Marx, a bearded, kindly man who shrugs and lifts his hands in a gesture of helplessness, unwilling to say more.

As a senior White House adviser, Miller, 31, is one of Trump’s policy wonks and a regular surrogate for the leader of the free world on talk shows. He’s also a key architect of some of the administration’s most exclusionary initiatives, including the yet-to-be-implemented Muslim ban and the proposed border wall with Mexico. For a Jewish community already wary about anti-Semitic attacks and an uptick in hate speech, Miller’s positions have struck a nerve. Roughly two-thirds of Jews vote reliably Democratic, according to polls. And while millions of Jews went for Trump, Miller’s push to target specific ethnic or religious minorities has Jews in both parties nervous…

Although recent media reports have suggested that Miller’s parents were liberals typical of the progressive enclave of Santa Monica, members of the Jewish community insist otherwise. Steven Windmueller, a professor of Jewish Communal Service at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion who has known the Millers for many years (“a lovely couple”), says their political leanings align closely with their son’s. “They have been and are conservative Republicans,” he says. One person acquainted with the Millers says they departed the Santa Monica Synagogue when it became clear they “weren’t a good fit” with its reform-minded congregation.



The Santa Monica Synagogue on 18th Street.

Miller (far left) in his confirmation class photo. Marx is seen top center.

Posted in Reform Judaism, Stephen Miller | Comments Off on How Trump Adviser Stephen Miller Divided a Santa Monica Synagogue

Commentary: Why Was the Israeli Teen Threatening American Jewish Centers?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* His name, michael kaydar, is known by all the media, yet the nyt and other main stream showing respect to hate criminal by not giving name.

* Times of Israel reported:

… he delivered the threats over a period of two years. He is believed to have been behind at least two threats to Delta Airlines, resulting in the grounding of planes already in the air.

Israeli police only managed to zero in on the suspect after US President Donald Trump sent a team of 12 FBI agents to Israel in recent weeks, Haaretz reported.

Although the investigation has been ongoing for the past two years, the breakthrough that led to the Thursday arrests of the teen and his father was only reached after FBI investigators arrived in Israel several weeks ago, the daily said, citing police sources.

Trump’s intervention is significant, as he had been heavily criticized for not doing enough to end the threats to Jewish centers and for not emphatically condemning anti-Semitsm.

The report did not specify what the FBI agents managed to do that their local counterparts could not. ….

He reportedly grew careless and failed on at least one occasion to route his internet connection through a proxy, leaving behind a real IP address traced back to Israel.

* Police sources told Haaretz that the teen’s main goal appears to have been obtaining media coverage. He had been making bomb threats for at least two years, against a wide variety of targets in several different countries, and after every such threat, he would monitor the media. If the threat didn’t provoke much response, he would lose interest in that target and try again somewhere else. …

For most of the last two years–during which he threatened targets like shopping malls and airlines, as well as Jewish institutions in countries like Australia, New Zealand, and America–his threats produced little media coverage, so he didn’t repeat them. But after Trump’s election, he suddenly hit pay dirt. Threats against U.S. Jewish institutions fit right into the American Jewish community’s loudly proclaimed narrative that the election had empowered right-wing anti-Semites, epitomized by Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s ludicrous assertion that U.S. anti-Semitism was now at a level unseen since 1930s Germany. Moreover, such threats fit right into the broader left-wing narrative that Trump’s election had empowered white supremacists, racists and other right-wing hate groups.

* It is to the point where I reflexively doubt every single one of these reports, and wait for the inevitable follow up in alternative media about it being a hoax. The media keeps getting played by young obviously attention-seeking minority women who claim that some badwhite Chad in a Trump hat yanked off their headscarf and wrote mean things on their restaurant receipt. They report these things without a hint of skepticism no matter how outlandish the claim.

* Browse anonymously, use a VPN (private network) to do your web surfing through.
The trade off between privacy and convenience is always going to be with us. It takes a lot more work to retain and control your own information; the workload is not going to diminish.
Why should the people you hire to make your life easier and more convenient not be allowed to make money on that which you have so freely and willingly given away? As a “deplorable” you have the power in your keyboard and browser to make it much more difficult for your ISP to track where you go and what you read. Exert yourself or do not exert yourself to take control of what is yours. Whining about it while still enjoying the convenience is more an SJW way of thinking not really a Deplorable stand.

* Steve, bruh, what’s up with only around 20 comments? Every blog post has 3x that amount. You’re censoring again. Because Jews. We could never, ever hurt their pwecious wittle feewings pointing out things like Jewish nepotism or Jewish privilege. Even though the Jewish community on average spends its collective time slandering the goyim much worse than that. And you, great observer, damn well know it is true. You have twice the intellectual capacity that Kevin MacDonald has, so I know you know.

MORE COMMENTS:

* I don’t care about the black hats. They may smuggle some diamonds or cheat welfare, but so what? No, my problem is organized and elite Jewry. That’s the part of Jewry where the Culture of Critique, mass media indoctrination, race-replacement and open borders agenda, etc., are coming from.

It’s not difficult to have such overweening concern for one’s own people that one does harm to other groups while pursuing that interest, by way of total disregard for others. E.g., the recent business with the Israeli hate provocateur and Jewish cemeteries. Even here at iSteve you had Jews largely dismissing the harm he did to Whites. Never mind the media, where I expect ignoring the subject altogether will be the norm, with exceptions as rare as hen’s teeth.

I don’t see why it’s such a stretch to attribute importance to the unconscious behavior to ethnic groups. Heck, even the conscious rules and goals are quite different for Jews and Whites. Whites are supposed to constantly police themselves with regard to their behavior toward non-Whites and Jews. Jews do not reciprocate that vis-a-vis Whites. On the contrary, Jews are supposed to constantly police themselves with regard to their behavior toward non-Whites, and each other; the difference between “White Guilt” and “Jewish Guilt” is roughly 180 degrees.

The question then becomes, why aren’t Jews policing themselves? Why, in this age of White navel-gazing with regard to group relations, aren’t Jews reciprocating the sensitivity of Whites? The introspection?

As far as I can tell, this issue is completely off Jews’ radar. All the thinking and writing and talking that they do, and it’s completely off their radar.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Commentary: Why Was the Israeli Teen Threatening American Jewish Centers?