Forward: ‘This rhetorical shift may give opportunity for the majority to impose views on the minority’

Nathan Guttman writes:

Many of Trump’s supporters, especially Christian evangelicals, have responded well to his campaign promise of restoring Christmas’s role as an all-American major holiday, a concept seen as providing the religious element to Trump’s pledge of “making America great again.” For those members of the Jewish community, who had marveled in the incremental progress toward a more minority-sensitive approach in the past decade, Trump’s promise raises the possibility of a setback.

Trump is evoking the so-called “war on Christmas,” a notion that dates back to 2005, when religious pundits and right-wing commentators began taking issue with government officials, businesses and retailers that avoided the exclusive Christmas greeting in favor of a more general “Happy Holidays” and a generic references to the “holiday season.” The issue resurfaces each December, and it became a campaign matter during the 2016 election as Trump attempted both to push back again what he described as a culture of political correctness and to appeal to Christian voters displeased with Trump’s prior demonstrated indifference to religion.

“Mr. Trump is appealing to the voters who elected him, and these people don’t like the changes in America,” Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University said. “Naturally, Christmas becomes a way of ‘sticking it’ to those who are not part of the old majority.”

Sarna, who had written extensively on the role that Christmas plays in American Jewish life, warned against focusing on the “silliness” of Christmas greetings and symbols while avoiding the bigger issue at stake. “The question is, what country do we want,” he said. “Do we want to be a country that is welcoming and sensitive to minorities or a country where the majority imposes views on the minority?”

Israel is the Jewish state even though more than two million of its residents are not Jewish. Is that an example of the majority imposing its views on the minority?

If Israel is the Jewish state, why can’t America be a white Christian state? Or do only Jews get to enjoy the privileges of group solidarity and ethno-nationalism?

In the past 200 years, Jewish political activists in the West have often sided with the rights of minorities against the majority. So does this create a situation where the majority often has an incentive to be hostile to Jews?

Advancing one group’s interests usually comes at the expense of other groups. Advancing minority rights in America over the past 50 years has come at the expense of America’s white Christian majority. Why would the majority put up with that? It makes no sense for the majority to simply surrender their rights and privileges because clever left-wing activists say this is the moral thing to do. Why would a people, such as white Christians, go along with their own destruction?

It sucks to live as a minority. Why would white Christians want to become minorities in the lands they created?

What country do we want? A country where the angriest and most powerful minorities impose their views on the majority or a country where the majority imposes its views on minorities? Do black lives matter any more than other lives?

I love a strong Christianity in America, even when it makes me uncomfortable at times as an Orthodox Jew. I don’t think society should have to bend to my minority religion.

Dennis Prager writes:

Where Have All the Christmas Decorations Gone? A Meditation on Joyless Secularism

Where I live (near Los Angeles) you can drive for blocks without seeing a single home with Christmas lights, let alone a manger scene or some other religious decoration. And you can drive miles and see fewer than a dozen.
I grew up in Brooklyn, New York, in an area where most residents were either Italian or Jewish. So many homes had Christmas decorations that you could almost be sure that if the home wasn’t decorated, a Jewish family lived in it. And while I was — and remain — a committed Jew, I loved — and still love — those decorated homes. It makes December special.
But today, December is not special in large swathes of America. Secularism has taken its toll. And the lack of color this time of the year compared to decades ago perfectly exemplifies some of its consequences.
Secularism literally and figuratively knocks color out of life.
Without God and religion there is, of course, much to enjoy in life. You can enjoy Bach without believing in God (though Bach would not have composed anything if he didn’t believe in God); you can enjoy sports, books, travel and so much more.
But there is a monochromatic character to life without God and religion. And you can literally see it this month. When I compare blocks of homes without Christmas decorations to blocks filled with homes with Christmas decorations, I think of my trips to the Soviet Union and other communist countries. One of the first things that struck any visitor from the West was how gray everything looked. There was essentially no color — just as today’s decoration-free homes appear.
Secularism in the West has a deadening effect. It tends to suck the joy of life out of individuals and the larger society. It is particularly noticeable in young people. Secular kids are more likely to be jaded and cynical than kids raised in religious Christian and Jewish homes.
(Conversely, secularism has an enlivening effect in fundamentalist Muslim countries, which tend to suck the joy out of life even more so than secularism does in the West. That’s one reason one can root for secularism in Iran and against secularism in the West.)
What secular joys can compare to a family putting up Christmas decorations and a Christmas tree, going to church together, singing or listening to Christmas carols and engaging in the other rituals surrounding Christmas? None.
The same question can be posed to Jews. What secular joys compare to having Shabbat meals every week with family and friends, or building a sukkah (the holiday booth) with your children for Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles)? None — for adults or children.
A Christian caller on my radio show told me about his son-in-law who doesn’t celebrate Christmas but does celebrate “the first snow.” With all due respect, celebrating the first snow, or the winter solstice, does not bring the joy to an individual’s life or a family’s life that celebrating Christmas brings.
The indoctrinated — better-known as the well-educated — have been misled to believe that because secular government is good and theocracy is bad, secularism must be good. But it isn’t.
Secularism not only knocks out joy but also destroys ultimate meaning.
Without God and religion, life is ultimately no more than random coincidence. You and I have no more meaning or purpose than puffs of clouds. The only difference is that clouds don’t need to believe that they have meaning.
This lack of meaning in secular society is the reason for the development of the post-Christian isms and movements in the West. They give people meaning. Marxism, communism, fascism and Nazism — not to mention all the nonviolent but socially destructive left-wing movements of our day — are all secular substitutes for what religion once gave: meaning.
Secularism also destroys moral absolutes. Without God and moral revelation, morality is entirely subjective — “What you or your society says is good is good, and what I or my society says is good is good.” Is it any wonder that the most secular institution in the West, the university, is also the place of the greatest amount of moral idiocy?
Secularism also destroys art. Contemporary art museums are filled with nihilism and talent-free meaninglessness masquerading as art. And worse, they are increasingly filled with the scatological. One of the Guggenheim Museum’s latest featured works is a solid-gold toilet that’s usable by visitors. It’s titled “America” so that one can literally urinate and defecate on America — and feel sophisticated while doing so.
America is a society in decline because Americans have abandoned the religious foundations of their country. The colorless and joyless Christmas manifested in the increasing number of homes without Christmas decorations is a clear and dispiriting example.

Posted in America, Christianity, Christmas | Comments Off on Forward: ‘This rhetorical shift may give opportunity for the majority to impose views on the minority’

Jews In The Oil Industry

A Jewish friend says: “Jews have been involved in the oil industry since its inception. Hess oil (which was later known as Amarada Hess) was started and run by Jews. Shell Oil Company (Royal Dutch Shell) was owned by Jews, and I am sure that Jews control a significant part of Russia’s oil industry. On a non ownership level, many of the petroleum engineers who work for oil companies are Jews.”

Steve Sailer writes: There have been Jews who were very successful in the oil biz, like Armand Hammer who did well in Libya. Shell was founded by a Jewish Brit. The Rothschilds funded the Russian oil biz way back around the beginning of the 20th Century.

The top writer on oil industry history is Daniel Yergin from Beverly Hills (I think he’s doing something with Trump’s transition team). His book “The Prize” is very good.

But in general it’s just not that Jewish of a business.

* The Prize is one of the best business books I’ve ever read.

I’m sure Steve knows this, but that book was adapted into a multi-part PBS miniseries that is also simply outstanding.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Jews In The Oil Industry

Richard Spencer: The Attacks on My Mother

Sherry Spencer writes:

My name is Sherry Spencer, and I am Richard Spencer’s mom. I’m a resident of Whitefish, Montana, and am the proud owner of a beautiful mixed-use facility in town.
It was years ago now that I first broke ground on the building, which features vacation-rental apartments and office spaces. I hired a local architect and builder to bring my ideas to life — and both exceeded my expectations.
I am the sole owner of the facility. It was built, not just with my capital, but with my ideas and sensibility. The apartments even include my original artwork, and the rooftop garden features my ceramic mural, which celebrates the Whitefish Winter Carnival.
In other words, I poured my heart and soul into this project.
The building opened in late 2015, and received wide acclaim from the local press. And the vacation apartments have been enjoyed by people from around the world.
Richard does not own the building, nor has he ever used it for his writing or publishing. Put simply, the building has nothing to do with politics — and it has everything to do with tourism and local businesses.
I had no intention of selling . . . until I started receiving terrible threats in the last couple of weeks.
These threats came from Tanya Gersh, a local realtor with links to “human rights” organizations Love Lives Here and the Montana Human Rights Network.
On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied. Gersh’s other conditions included that I make a public denunciation of my son in a statement written by the Montana Human Rights Network and that I make a donation to this organization from the sale of the property. As Gersh announced on Facebook, she was “spear heading” the campaign.
Gersh followed up on her conditions in a number of emails, which I’ve just made public. She even shamelessly suggested that she act as my realtor! In other words, she and the local “human rights” organizations appeared to seek financial benefit from threats of protests and reputation damage. The same day Gersh first contacted me, I received a sales offer, even though I had not expressed any intention to sell, nor had anything been publicized.
One renter reported to me that Gersh threatened her business with boycotts unless she moved. This renter also alleged that Gersh called her “collateral damage.” As the manager of the property, I employ a number of local maids and other maintenance personnel, who would lose their jobs if I were to sell. More “collateral damage,” I guess.
I never wanted to go public with this story. However, the fact that so many news outlets have reported on it forces my hand.
Whatever you think about my son’s ideas — they are, after all, ideas — in what moral universe is it right for the “sins” of the son to be visited upon the mother?
All I wanted to do with the building was help Whitefish.
The people attacking me claim that “loves lives here.” Now it’s time for them to show it.

According to her official bio: “For 18 years, Tanya Gersh, our PureWest Resort & Second Home Property Specialist, ran a luxury wedding and event planning company. She gained national attention for magazine publications, as a presenter at leading National Conventions, and for consulting with architects, builders and design teams on event venue design. In this time Tanya built her own real estate portfolio, investing in dozens of local commercial and residential properties. Working as a team with her husband Judah Gersh (local Real Estate attorney), Tanya has made the professional switch to Real Estate full time and is proud to be on the PureWest team. Tanya is a past Whitefish Chamber of Commerce VP and is currently active in the Glacier Jewish Community, CASA for Kids, Whitefish PTA and Stumptown Ice Den.”

Here is some news coverage:

Slate: Neo-Nazi Website Calls for “Action” Against Jews in Richard Spencer’s Hometown

Washington Post: Jewish leaders in Richard Spencer’s home town targeted in posting on neo-Nazi website

IBT: Anti-Semitism In The US 2016: White Supremacists Urge ‘Action’ Against Jews Over ‘Alt-Right’ Leader Richard Spencer

NYDN: Richard Spencer’s parents selling Montana property

Forward: Is Richard Spencer’s Mom Paying Price for Sins of Her Racist Son?

Forward: Neo-Nazis Target Jews in White Supremacist Richard Spencer’s Montana Town

The Verge: Neo-Nazis are targeting Jewish people in small-town Montana

Daily Inter Lake: Alt-right shadow hangs over Whitefish

Yahoo: ‘Troll storm’ goes after Jewish residents of Richard Spencer’s Montana hometown

The Inquisitr: Richard Spencer: White Supremacists Threaten Jewish Residents Of Alt-Right Leader’s Hometown

Jewish Business News: Montana Jews Threatened Again — This Time By Richard Spencer Supporters

The Daily Dot: Neo-Nazis target Jews in town of leading alt-right figure

Haaretz: Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists Launch Online Attack Against Montana Jews

Snopes: Hate Screech: A call to action by the anti-Semitic ‘The Daily Stormer’ revealed the names and personal contact information of Jewish people they claimed had ‘harassed and extorted’ the parents of white supremacist Richard Spencer.

IBT: White supremacist website urges ‘action’ against Jews for ‘harassing Richard Spencer’s mother’

Newser: Neo-Nazi Site: ‘Take Action’ Against Jews in Mont. Town

Couldn’t you just as easily have framed this story as Jewish activists take action against family of white nationalist?

A Jewish friend says: “Whitefish is a small touristy faux western town – not dissimilar from Jackson, Wyoming. It is north of Kalispell (which has an airport served by national airlines) and is the gateway to Glacier National Park. It has a large lake (Whitefish Lake) and attracts many wealthy millionaires (including Phil Jackson.) No one visiting the town would be aware that it has any Jewish presence at all. Of course what the Gersh’s don’t say is that they moved to Kalispell because it is a whiteopia, but that is most likely the reason. Spencer’s mother is right. Frankly I don’t see the residents of Whitefish getting all riled up by Gersh since Montana (although I don’t know about Whitefish) overwhelmingly supported Trump, and any number of militia type movements and Christian conservative movements have set up shop in the Flathead region (just south of Kalispell.)”

Posted in Jews, Richard Spencer | Comments Off on Richard Spencer: The Attacks on My Mother

Rogue One & The Alt Right

Comment: Saw “Rogue One” tonight. Capsule summary — second half was great; first half, not so much.

What I really thought was hilarious was the way a movie so obviously constructed by SJWs (the cast is painfully “diverse”) accidentally pushes a pro-Trump narrative. Nearly every element neatly lines up with the 2016 presidential election:

– A united Empire (the globalist Left) has just finished construction of its ultimate superweapon (militant identity politics) which they imagine will allow them to completely dominate the galaxy.

– A ragtag group of rebels (the establishment right) is in the middle of launching a desperate but mostly failing effort to resist. Many voices within the rebellion have given up hope and counsel surrender.

– There is also a crazy rebel faction (the Glenn Beck/Ted Cruz wing) that seems more interested in futile, suicidal symbolic gestures than actual victory. They are extraordinarily brave, and die extraordinarily brave deaths, but accomplish little.

– Into this mess steps a group of rebels (the alt-right) who tend to disagree violently on a lot of fundamental issues, but who are strongly united on the necessity of defeating the Empire, and are willing to take extreme risks in pursuit of victory.

– The iconoclastic rebel faction decides to launch a very high risk, very high reward operation in pursuit of victory. The rebel rank and file (average GOP voters), after some hesitation, elects to throw its lot in with the iconoclasts. If they are to die, they figure, best to die in service of something which at least hints at eventual victory, rather than a symbolic sacrifice which accomplishes nothing.

– The rebels receive fortuitous assistance from the fact that the Empire has stupidly gambled on the wisdom of a particular leader (Hillary Clinton) who looks like a bull dyke lesbian and whose judgement is heavily clouded by hubris and ambition.

– The rebel iconoclasts secure a shocking victory, paving the way for a Savior with a bad haircut (Donald Trump) to use the Imperial superweapon’s power against itself to land a killing blow.

Do I have that about right?

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Rogue One & The Alt Right

New York Times is now talking about the double standard between Zionism and White Nationalism.

Omri Boehm writes for the New York Times:

For weeks now, Jewish communities across America have been troubled by an awkward phenomenon. Donald J. Trump, a ruthless politician trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes, has been elected to become the next president, and he has appointed as his chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, a prominent figure of the “alt-right,” a movement that promotes white nationalism, anti-Semitism, racism and misogyny. Though Bannon himself has expressed “zero tolerance” for such views, his past actions suggest otherwise; as the executive chairman of Breitbart News for the past four years, he provided the country’s most powerful media platform for the movement and its ideologies.

Still, neither the United States’ most powerful Jewish organizations nor Israeli leaders have taken a clear stance against the appointment. In fact, they have embraced it.

Immediately after Trump appointed Bannon, the Zionist Organization of America prepared to welcome him at its annual gala dinner, where he was to meet Naftali Bennett, Israel’s minister of education, and Danny Danon, the country’s ambassador to the United Nations. (Bannon didn’t show up.) Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador in Washington, publicly announced that he was looking forward to working with the entire Trump administration, including Bannon. And Alan Dershowitz, the outspoken Harvard emeritus professor of law who regularly denounces non-Zionists as anti-Semitic, preferred in this case to turn not against Bannon, but against his critics. “It is not legitimate to call somebody an anti-Semite because you might disagree with their politics,” he pointed out.

The alliance that’s beginning to form between Zionist leadership and politicians with anti-Semitic tendencies has the power to transform Jewish-American consciousness for years to come. In the last few decades, many of America’s Jewish communities have grown accustomed to living in a political contradiction. On one hand, a large majority of these communities could rightly take pride in a powerful liberal tradition, stretching back to such models as Louis Brandeis — a defender of social justice and the first Jew to become a Supreme Court justice — or Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who marched in Selma alongside the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. On the other hand, the same communities have often identified themselves with Zionism, a political agenda rooted in the denial of liberal politics.

To appreciate this inherent tension, consider Hillary Clinton’s words from the second presidential debate: “It is important for us as a policy not to say, as Donald has said, we’re going to ban people based on a religion. How do you do that? We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty.” Here Clinton establishes a minimum standard of liberal decency that few American Jews would be inclined to deny. But she is not the incoming president. Trump’s willingness to reject this standard is now a cause for alarm among Jewish communities, along with those of other American minorities.

Yet insofar as Israel is concerned, every liberal Zionist has not just tolerated the denial of this minimum liberal standard, but avowed this denial as core to their innermost convictions. Whereas liberalism depends on the idea that states must remain neutral on matters of religion and race, Zionism consists in the idea that the State of Israel is not Israeli, but Jewish. As such, the country belongs first and foremost not to its citizens, but to the Jewish people — a group that’s defined by ethnic affiliation or religious conversion.

As long as liberalism was secure back in America and the rejection of liberalism confined to the Israeli scene, this tension could be mitigated. But as it spills out into the open in the rapidly changing landscape of American politics, the double standard is becoming difficult to defend.

That difficulty was apparent earlier this month at an event at Texas A&M University when Richard Spencer, one of the ideological leaders of the alt-right’s white nationalist agenda — which he has called “a sort of white Zionism” — was publicly challenged by the university’s Hillel Rabbi Matt Rosenberg, to study with him the Jewish religion’s “radical inclusion” and love. “Do you really want radical inclusion into the state of Israel?” Spencer replied. “Maybe all of the Middle East can go move into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would you really want that?” Spencer went on to argue that Israel’s ethnic-based politics was the reason Jews had a strong, cohesive identity, and that Spencer himself admired them for it.

The rabbi could not find words to answer, and his silence reverberates still. It made clear that an argument that does not embrace a double standard is difficult to come by.

Posted in Israel, Nationalism | Comments Off on New York Times is now talking about the double standard between Zionism and White Nationalism.

Forward: Anti-Semitic ‘Alt-Right’ and Misogynist Pick-Up Artists Join Forces

Forward: On Jezebel, classics scholar Donna Zuckerberg (who happens to be Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s sister) raises an important question:

“[W]hy have so many white, male leaders of communities and websites that used to focus on sex and gender shifted in recent months to anti-Semitism, white nationalism, and complaining about “(((the media)))”? In part, of course, because these men were always grossly bigoted and racist. The outspokenness of the alt-right empowered other men to share anti-Semitic views that they might otherwise have been quiet about. But in addition, the alt-right was getting a lot of attention. And attention, more than anything else, is what these men crave.”

And in a New York magazine piece, Claire Landsbaum further unpacks the relationship between the major players and ideas of, on the one hand, men’s-rights activists and pick-up artists, and on the other, the “alt-right” (that is, the rebranded white supremacists one hears so much about these days). The longtime anti-feminists are embracing anti-Semitism, the newly mainstream anti-Semites, anti-feminism:

“When Trump won, RooshV saw it as a victory for the PUA movement. ‘I’m in a state of exuberance that we now have a President who rates women on a 1-10 scale in the same way that we do and evaluates women by their appearance and feminine attitude,’ he wrote. [….] In the same way that RooshV began to adopt alt-right ideology, the alt-right began to publish stories grounded in the principles of pickup artists and the men’s-rights movement.”

Posted in Alt Right, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Forward: Anti-Semitic ‘Alt-Right’ and Misogynist Pick-Up Artists Join Forces

The Alt-Right & The Classics

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I’d argue that the more traditionalist sect of the alt-Right stems from the works of the Catholic French Counter-Enlightenment philosophers like Maistre and Bonald, and more recently, G.K. Chesterton while the atheist and neo-Paganist sects stem from the philosophy of Nietzsche (specifically, the idea that “God is dead” and it is up to man to create morality). Both are united in an honesty and clarity of purpose as well as a common enemy. Furthermore, both views are far more consistent than the Enlightenment doctrines asserting certain “truths to be self-evident” which are clearly not self-evident; the alt-Right rejects Rationalism (though not rationality nor science) and utilitarianism.

The greatest difference between the alt-Right and the Enlightenment philosophies is in the idea of “self-evident truths.” The traditionalist sect asserts morality derives only from God. The atheist/neo-Paganist view is that morality is man’s power over man. The philosophies stemming from the Enlightenment state that morality is “self-evident.” The alt-Right is concrete, the Enlightenment is not.

* Another possibility is that Dr. Zuckerberg finds herself unaccountably attracted to Aryan Richard Spencer-type men, just as her brother is attracted to feminine East Asian girls.

* The basic substance of her missive is that only scholars like her can interpret the classics for the masses. Because she was taught the “sophisticated” way to understand and apply the writings of our ancients, she retains the sole ability to accurately assess their historical significance. She may even be of the school that feels one should only read the classics in their original language.

Essentially she is arguing from a pre-Reformation clergy position on interpreting the Bible. The bible should be printed in Latin only and taught only by priests. It is only those men, the clergy, who can be a portal to God because they were taught by the sophisticated academics of their time.

I imagine she is incapable of this type of self-reflection.

* The alt-right is not a tightly led organization, it’s rather a loose conglomeration of several different strains of thought. Something like the Dark Enlightenment, which usually includes cultural absolutism (i.e. some cultures are worth more than others), Darwinism and HBD (the sexes are innately different for biological reasons, same thing for races, ethnic groups, social classes), some corrections of liberal retconning of history (e.g. how far to the right people like Lincoln or Churchill would be, were they still alive), discoveries or rediscoveries of some more esoteric earlier authors as well as some more esoteric or rightist contemporary authors (like Evola or Ezra Pound or Alain de Benoist), and only some of these reject the Enlightenment.

It’s also possible to reject some parts of the Enlightenment without rejecting the whole thing (the Enlightenment itself was just a loose conglomeration of several different strains of thought, some of whom were at each others’ throats all the time), and that’s precisely what many people are doing, so I’m not sure what your complaint is here.

Besides, of course race was seen by people before Darwin – racism is certainly possible without Darwinism or IQ studies. You can simply acknowledge that different races exist (based on your lying eyes), and then start from there. And some people are loosely sympathetic to the alt-right without much thinking about genetics research or modern science.

* Methinks Dr. Zuckerberg doth protest too much.

It seems to me that liberal academics have a guilty conscience. They are intellectual elitists par excellence who nevertheless increasingly find themselves leading a coalition of relatively downscale constituent blocs. Indeed, they don’t just lead those downscale constituencies; they ostentatiously venerate them. People with IQs well into the triple-digit range will hold up a Michael Brown as a victim-hero of our age.

There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance to this kind of faculty lounge elitism, and this psychic tension is resolved by attacking the Middlebrow Menace of generic white guys. As always, it’s about the Blue Tribe defending its cultural hegemony against the Red Tribe, with the minorities Dr. Z celebrates being essentially beside the point. They’re props to be used for bashing uppity young white men with higher-than-normal agency and intellect who are curious about their people’s heritage.

In the case of Dr. Zuckerberg, there may also be the old ethnic angle at play here. I recall Steve writing before about the awkward relationship Jewish intellectuals have to European (and particularly German) traditions. Jewish success in the arts and sciences is an outgrowth of the European Enlightenment. It’s not something that arose spontaneously on the shtetl or in the Holy Land.

So a Jewish classicist like Dr. Z obviously loves European civilization and its cultural patrimony, but at the same time has at least a vestigial sense of being victimized by that civilization. Again, there is psychic tension, and, again, it is taken out on middle-class Middle America.

* I’ve moved past the argument stage with these people. I want a divorce. We simply have incompatible views of the world. No amount of discussion will solve that.

Americans are stuck in a horrible marriage because we can’t get out of the mortgage and move to separate homes, so we grumble through the days with the occasional full-on screaming match. It can’t last. At some point, one side would rather burn the house down than spend another hour in this nightmare, especially if they feel as though they’re going to lose the house anyway.

* At first I bristled at the usual anti-white-male stuff, but by the end of the article I actually came to like this Zuckerburg sister. I sort of feel bad for her, I feel like at some level she gets it. She has moments of being fair to her enemies and sees merit in some of their arguments.

She’s cute too, and apparently a good cook.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Alt-Right & The Classics

Genes & Intelligence

Comments at Unz.com:

* If intelligence doesn’t have some genetic component, then why do infertile couples pay money to acquire sperm from Ivy League men for artificial insemination? Why don’t women with infertile husbands just have sex with any willing local bum at no charge?

Also, why are sperm banks paying Ivy League men for donations? Why don’t they just go to Skid Row or group homes for the mentally challenged and get the sperm there?

The same goes for donating eggs — for which college women get big bucks. Here is an article from Slate titled “Couples want donors to be smart, athletic, and good-looking.” Notice the first word in that headline.

And yet I’ll bet if you asked any of these couples (or any Slate reader) about IQ and genetics when they were among friends at a party, they’d deny any connection.

Posted in IQ | Comments Off on Genes & Intelligence

If America Is An Idea…

Comment: People on the Right reject the idea that ‘America’ is an idea… but I think I will dissent.

I now believe ‘America’ is an idea.

And because it is an idea, people around the world no longer need to come to America to have ‘America’ as an idea.

It’s like democracy as an idea. To have democracy, you don’t have to come to the US to practice democracy. You can implement the idea of democracy in your own country.

Ideas are portable and transferable. Ideas are not fixed in one place. It’s like some mountain in Tibet is fixed in that place, but Buddhism is an idea, and you don’t have to go to Tibet to be a Buddhist. You can be a Buddhist anywhere. You can even take that idea into outer-space.

So, let us say there is the United States as a fixed nation with its distinct history, heritage, and culture. It is about power and history within a fixed territory.

In contrast, there is ‘America’ as an idea, and it is universal and can be transported or transposed to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

So, our message to all the people around the world is that they don’t have to come to the United States to partake in the idea of America.

They can have it at home. And what is this big idea of ‘America’ they can have in their own home nation?

The American Idear is as follows: pig out on junk food, obsess over video games, twerk, listen to rap, worship black athletes, indulge in hedonism, promote slut culture, celebrate militarism, drink soda and burp, get tattoos on ass, push interracism, hail Zionism, watch trash TV, break down barrier between mainstream culture(even for kids) and pornography, praise homos and trannies, enforce PC, destabilize national borders, allow mass invasion, cook up hate hoaxes about KKK and neo-nazis, flip uit over micro-aggressions, spread fears of blonde rapists, promote cuck attitudes among the men, declare your folks to be ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’, and blame ‘Russia’ for everything.

Yes, that is ‘America’ as an Idear in the Current Year. And any people in any nation can practice those ‘idears’ and be ‘American’ without coming to America.

So, save your money on that plane ticket.

Just stay in your country and embrace the IDEAR of ‘America’.

We should devise a American Idear Kit as universal formula for the world and sell it all over. Or even hand it out for free. It’d be like a Chemistry Kit. Ameristry Kit.

Posted in America | Comments Off on If America Is An Idea…

Breitbart: ‘After Getting Everything Wrong in 2016, Stephen Hayes Elevated to Editor-in-Chief at the Weekly Standard’

Breitbart: The news that the Weekly Standard has appointed Stephen Hayes editor-in-chief has caused some to wonder if former editor and consistent Trump critic Bill Kristol all but made himself toxic for the publication’s masthead.

Whether that’s true, or not, may depend upon one’s view of all things Washington — and Trump; however, it’s difficult to see how Hayes represents much of a change in that regard given his long list of failed prognostications and analysis during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign. Take for example this gem of a Weekly Standard headline atop a Hayes’ item from July of 2016: Donald Trump Is Crazy, and So Is the GOP for Embracing Him. Wrote Hayes of Trump, “(T)his isn’t the behavior of a rational, stable individual. It should embarrass those who have endorsed him and disgrace those who have attempted to normalize him.”

As some will recall, it was the Weekly Standard that sought to undermine Trump right on through the Fall by embracing wannabe candidate Evan McMullin, who still continues to attack both Trump and the Republican Party as a whole as basically racist and corrupt.

It’s unclear how the lingering memory of exchanges like this one with Sean Hannity back in January of 2016, who called Hayes out directly for being “so consistently wrong” on Trump, will impact any potential relationship between Hayes in his role as editor and the incoming administration.

Sean Hannity calls out Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard for being consistently wrong about Donald Trump’s demise. The two argue Trump’s electability against Hillary Clinton on a special edition of FOX News’ Hannity after the FOX Business debate in Charleston, South Carolina. While Hayes concedes he has been wrong, he calls out other FOX News contributors who have been “Trump boosters.”

As late as September of this year Hayes almost looked as if he was rooting for Hillary Clinton during the presidential debate on September 26. From the article “Hayes Explains How Trump Walked Right Into Hillary’s Tax Return ‘Trap”:

“She set him up, and Trump walked right into her trap by saying that he was smart for not paying any taxes,” Hayes said.

He explained that Trump followed that admission with a series of internally contradictory responses, claiming that he couldn’t release his tax returns while he was being audited and that he would release them when Clinton released her 30,000 deleted emails.

“It was sort of this mish-mash of excuses,” Hayes said. “And rather than turning and pivoting and making an attack on her, he engaged that debate on her terms and I thought lost it badly.”

Earlier in May of 2016, Hayes appeared on Fox News pushing the notion that Trump would ban Islam and Muslims from the United States and all but withdraw the United States from world markets, while engaging in name calling of the now president-elect. Said Hayes, “If you have principles and believe we shouldn’t ban a religion? Don’t ban a religion? A country founded on freedom of religion—it’s not good idea to ban a religion. Republicans can’t just cast aside their principles, free trade, because Donald Trump comes around and this orange guy suggests that free trade is bad. We’re going to throw away 300 years of Adam Smith.”

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on Breitbart: ‘After Getting Everything Wrong in 2016, Stephen Hayes Elevated to Editor-in-Chief at the Weekly Standard’