Steve Sailer writes:
An op-ed in the NYT by a Brown U. student with the great name Benjamin Gladstone (referencing the arch-rival Victorian prime ministers Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone; Benjamin Gladstone is kind of like Alexander Jefferson or John Fitzgerald Nixon):
Anti-Semitism at My University, Hidden in Plain Sight
Benjamin Gladstone
ON CAMPUS OCT. 1, 2016
Providence, R.I. — Last semester, a group came to Providence to speak against admitting Syrian refugees to this country. As the president of the Brown Coalition for Syria, I jumped into action with my peers to stage a counterdemonstration.
Gladstone doesn’t mention that the organization questioning bringing more Muslim refugees in is Americans for Peace and Tolerance, which is led by Dr. Charles Jacobs, who was named by The Forward as one of America’s top 50 Jewish leaders.
Gladstone explained to the Brown Daily Herald why he was protesting Jacobs’ protest:
After a vigil held on campus in December honoring those who have died in the Syrian civil war, Ben Gladstone ’18, a member of the Brown/RISD Hillel Community, said the issue strikes a particular chord for him.
“It was just a couple of decades ago that the U.S. government was associating Jews with a political ideology — communism — and using that as justification to condemn us to death,” Gladstone said. “To see that same U.S. government blocking another group from entering is a reminder that this country as a whole has not learned from the Holocaust.”
I assume that’s a reference to the Rosenberg spies, who were sentenced to death for stealing atomic bomb secrets for Stalin by Judge Irving Kaufman over six decades ago. Or maybe he’s arguing that the U.S. government was responsible for Hitler’s Holocaust because FDR was so anti-Communist. Or something …
In the NYT, Gladstone goes on:
But I quickly found myself cut out of the planning for this event: Other student groups were not willing to work with me because of my leadership roles in campus Jewish organizations.
That was neither the first nor the last time that I would be ostracized this way. Also last semester, anti-Zionists at Brown circulated a petition against a lecture by the transgender rights advocate Janet Mock because one of the sponsors was the Jewish campus group Hillel, even though the event was entirely unrelated to Israel or Zionism. Ms. Mock, who planned to talk about racism and transphobia, ultimately canceled. Anti-Zionist students would rather have no one speak on these issues than allow a Jewish group to participate in that conversation. …
As I pointed out last year in Taki’s Magazine in a column on the BDS movement, the growth of diversity on campus Is Bad for the Jews, or at least for Jewish student political activists.
I noticed this trend when a kid I vaguely knew was involved in a UCLA student government incident in which the Diverse student politicians grilled a Jewish activist student politician over whether she could be un-biased in a judicial position. The NYT splashed it all over its front page, although furiously spinning it by focusing on an unrepresentative Swiss coed to keep readers from understanding that this was part of a larger trend, the Diverse battling pro-Israel Jews, that has started on college campuses and will inevitably spread to the real world.
American white gentiles are probably the most pro-Semitic people in the world, so of course a policy of importing massive numbers of the Diverse increases anti-Semitism in America. The arithmetic isn’t all that complicated, but whether enough American Jews will eventually figure out that, in the view of the Diverse, they are in the same basket of deplorables with their white gentile American neighbors is a major question for our time.
There are, however, a lot of debating stratagems so Jews can reassure themselves that they aren’t as white as the Diverse assume, such as Benjamin Gladstone’s Flight from White theory:
Many of my fellow activists also perpetuate anti-Semitism by dismissing Jews of color, especially the Mizrahi and Sephardi
Like, say, Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s favorite Prime Minister of Color …
majority of Israel’s Jewish population, descendants of refugees from Southwest Asia and North Africa. Ignoring the expulsion of 850,000 Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews from Arab and Muslim countries from 1948 to the early 1970s allows students to portray all Israelis as white and European and get away with making a “progressive” case for dismantling the Jewish state.
Even hummus has become politicized: Anti-Zionists at my school who demanded that cafeterias stop serving hummus produced by a company with Israeli ownership, also claimed that the product showed cultural appropriation even though Mizrahim and Sephardim have been eating Southwest Asian cuisine since long before the rise of organized Zionism.
In my experience, anti-Semites refuse to acknowledge Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews to minimize the history of oppression against Jews, and in doing so dismiss contemporary Jewish concerns.
Okay … My guess is that this hummus argument about why Jews shouldn’t be lumped in with whites as the Bad Guys is the kind of overly subtle argument that nice white gentiles will nod along to, but the Diverse not so much.
Is it really too much to ask American Jews to figure out that American white gentiles are your best friends in the whole world and that the Diverse don’t see you as special snowflakes, just as a particularly wealthy and powerful version of the white people they are instructed to dislike?
COMMENTS:
*They are so attached to this idea that they have to be on the ‘side of the oppressed’ that they insist on finding ways that they are oppressed (historically, yes; in modern America, hell no) and advocate for mass immigration (because 1939).
To be honest far-right anti-Semitism doesn’t help. (Though of course *they* see all the Jews involved with anti-whitism and draw the obvious conclusion.) And a few wander off the reservation and become Republicans at least, though as recent events show that’s no guarantee. I am willing to give guys like Ben Shapiro the benefit of the doubt for simply not liking Trump, but by and large guys like the Kristols and JPod are way too representative.
One of the weird ironies is that Jews do better with whites than minorities, but are strongly rejected by white nationalists. (I suspect a lot of the small fraction of Jews with pro-white sympathies have figured this out and find non-racial reasons to argue for immigration restriction, but that’s hard to prove–they’d never admit it.)
I’ve given this a lot of thought and I just don’t see any reconciliation happening–guys like Joshua Seidel who try to change sides get chased off, and the neocon takeover of the conservative movement gives not-that-antisemitic guys like Vox Day pause. The most you can hope for is support for Trump, which may be enough to save the country, granted.
I will say I have tried to work on my few remaining Jewish friends (moved away from NYC) about this, without much success. A couple of Russian Jews are pro-Trump, but it’s not due to my efforts. Being a halfie I don’t have enough J-points to speak credibly, and I’m already known as something of a right-winger.
One of the rarely-appreciated aspects of this (apart from Jewish nervousness around white identity, which is *also* a factor) is that if you remove any influence of Jewishness, most Jews are urban well-educated liberals, a demographic that finds Trump particularly distasteful. Ideology would turn a lot of them against him even if people weren’t calling themselves ‘fashy goys’. He also tends to favor intuition over intellect, the gut over the position paper, which as you can imagine is an unpopular preference with people who pride themselves on being smarter than everyone.
* And is it really too much to ask that Jews express gratitude toward White Gentiles for their generous financial, military, and diplomatic support of Israel?
Jews can start with a simple Thank you.
* This reminds me of blacks shooting each other in large numbers but still being convinced that their enemies are racist cops. Muslims have chased Jews out of European countries, but most Jewish leadership still sees frat boys, Pepe, and transphobia as their main enemies. Blacks are too stupid to see their interests, but the next generation of Jews will not be so liberal.
* Its crazy that they are complaining about ethnocentric and intolerant american gentiles while at the same referencing that the son belongs to 2 different advocacy groups on both sides of the political spectrum which unabashedly agitate for Jewish interests. It’s almost like left and right don’t matter to anyone anymore, all that matters in whose side you’re on.
* At this point the drive to diplace Whites is so deep-seated among Jews that it is taken for granted. Whites absolutely must be made a minority through mass immigration, no arguments allowed. This is a Jewish imperative. Anyone who disagrees is literally Hitler.
Sure, there are diversity related problems for Jews but that’s what control of of the megaphone is for. See, what the West needs is more repression and hate speech control. But question mass immigration and White displacement? Don’t even try to go there, you nazi…
* It’s always amusing to see jewish people railing against “white supremacy” when by any objective measure, jews in America are the only group, that are permitted to have, and have achieved almost universal wealth and power.
All this, while quite successfully playing the “victim” card.
It’s really something to behold.
* The “far-right anti-Semites” are a small albeit very outspoken fringe. Jared Taylor, among others, shows that one can be very pro-Jew and still lumped in with the 1488 crowd by the predominantly-tribe-run media. So some people might come to the logical conclusion that they have nothing to lose by being openly anti-Jew.
It would absolutely be Good For the Jews to stop demonizing the pro-white crowd so much. That would increase the likelihood that pro-white people
agnostic on the JQ would begin to lean pro-Jew. But as history shows, many Jews have very counterproductive ideas about what’s good for the tribe.
* Hitler’s rise did not make anti-Semitism disreputable in the US in the ’30s. What really made anti-Semitism disreputable was the Holocaust, which was not revealed until after the war was over. At that point, it became apparent that anti-Semitism was not just some casual thing where you don’t let Jews stay at your resort hotel or hire them for your company (even though in fact that was the form that it took in the US) but that it was a slippery slope that could end in genocide.
Even though blacks were the main intended beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it also had the collateral effect of making most anti-Jewish discrimination illegal as well. So “restricted” hotels and resorts, etc. were out. However, the last vestiges of the ancien regime – excluding Jews from private city and country clubs, etc. did not really die until the mid ’70s (and even that was 40 years ago).
* Haman is a sort of anti-Jewish bogeyman. When the scroll reciting the Purim story is read, every time Haman’s name is mentioned you are supposed to drown it out with boos and noisemakers. At the end of the story Haman loses before he can carry out his plot against the Jews and is executed so he is not as scary as Hitler who actually got to carry out his. Because of the happy ending, Purim is a fun holiday, sort of like Halloween.
* Aren’t you skipping over the part where the Jews cheerfully kill huge numbers of deplorable and irredeemable members of team Haman?
* Jews don’t want friends. The most frightening thing in the world to a farmer would be a cow happily explaining to him in perfect English that she understood how things worked and wanted to help out.
* The Jews need a come-to-Jesus moment. *groan*
* By 1870 the USA was majority pro-Semetic and had been for a long while. (And this is before the supermajority of today’s American Jews had immigrated.). Jewry was entrenched in the Democratic Party in the South since prior to the Civil war, and in the north.
No less than Mark Twain advocated for the immigration of the Eastern European Jews.
The paths of to increased Jewish power are written today in neutral terms: the labor movement, the anti-corruption overthrow of Boss Tweed and the NY machine, the socialist campaign for food safety standards, the anti-trust campaign against the robber barons… But each movement involved replacing a traditional power with a Jewish influenced one.
The Democrat Ascension of Woodrow Wilson, the coalition of the Jewish controlled Southern Democrats with the Jewish controlled Northern Democrats was the culmination of the rise to power.
When the Great Depression of the 1930s discretted the Republican Party for 60 years, the Northern Jews, who preferred separation expelled the Southern Democratic Party from the Ruling coalition (ruled by more assimilated Jews, men like today’s Nick Saban who adopted the Southern culture). This was a pure power play that continues today.
Jewish controlled Hollywood once feted Woodrow Wilson with “the birth of a nation,” but once the Solid South was no longer necessary for power, they got discarded quickly.
The path to greater power was instead by the takeover of the Rival Republican Party. Steve’s written before on the relations of, eg Armaund Hammer (convicted financier of CREEP) with Nixon, and the role of neoconservatives working with Buckley to silence rival conservatism is well covered on this website.
* Jews are legitimately smart and if we’re talking about nuclear bomb codes or software or medicine or Goldman Sachs scheming–sure that’s intellect.
But Jewish politics are pretty much 100% gut–entirely visceral. Sure, they’ll wrap some Talmudic argument around some attack on gentile traditions\republican governance to sell it to the Supreme Court or scribble out some policy papers to explain how offloading some Section 8 blacks to Dubuque is highly engineered brilliant progressive policy providing social uplift, if that’s their job. But Jewish politics at root isn’t the least bit intellectual, it’s completely visceral–”what’s good for the Jews” or put another way “the peasants have no business telling us what to do”.
If Jews were bringing their intellect into politics–really *at all*–then Sailer’s repeated point about diminishing marginal returns would really resonate. Jews would be asking “what’s the best case for us in America?” And then they’d kick through it and pretty soon figure out: well American white gentiles let us take over their institutions through “meritocracy”. Our best situation is being leaders and looters in a predominantly white–hence prosperous, productive and well run–nation that accepts us. Sorta USA in 1970. Getting more Latino, blacker or more Asian isn’t really helping. The dumb folks make the nation less prosperous. The smart Asians are competition. The ethnic divisions give us a bit of space, but also make ethnic division more raw–more of “a thing” that people are aware of. Maybe even lead to massive quotas and reservations like in India! And all these groups are less sympathetic, more anti-Semitic than the Holocaust addled white gentiles.
Needless to say that sort of thinking is not what you see from Jews, even “conservative” Jews. (It’s maybe vaguely reflective of a small–10% minority.) What you’re getting is the same old, same old–breakup cohesive gentile majorities, anti-nationalism, balkanize the nation so it’s penetrable by Jews. “The peasants are reaching for their pitchforks! … sound the alarm!” Pure gut.
* Jewish groups are perfectly capable of identifying with blacks, illegal immigrants, and muslim refugees (among others) without losing identity. Indeed, much of jewish identity depends upon wedging groups against the white majority (tikkun olam, baby). So in this sense, I’d agree that “Asking jews to identify with whites is in effect asking them not be jewish.”
* The rising anti-Semitism in the US and, especially university campuses, is the only bright spot I can see in the PC sewer that is American cultural life that Jews have led the way in creating. I have never met a Jew who didn’t hate conservatives, especially Christian ones. Every Jew I have known feels more positive towards Muslims than conservative Christians in spite of their being the most pro-Jew and Israel group of all.
I know that not every Jew is a supporter of cultural Marxism but is there every going to be a revolt against our Jewish overlords? Trump won’t lead it because in spite of Jews thinking the is Hitler, Trump is pro Jew and pro Israel. Conservative Christians are a sappy bunch and will stay staunch friends of Jews and Israel no matter how much they are derided.
Our replacements though are not plagued by white guilt and the alt-right is not on the pro-Jew and Israel train. Are Jews strong enough to always avoid consequences of their actions?
* I too have noticed that Jewish supporters of the alt-right have been told to get out by anti-Semitic comments.
My response is that the comments should be ignored. After all, as Steve has pointed out, it is very much in the interest of Jews to promote respect for racial self-identity (particularly white). If a policy is good for you, why would you allow negative comments from a fellow-supporter to chase you off?
I would distinguish anti-Semite from Nazi. The Nazis promote the idea of actually killing Jews. No self-respecter, of any creed, would be associated with Nazis. In a culture of respect for the right of association and distinct communities, an anti-Semitic opinion wouldn’t make all that much difference. In an environment where favors are handed out like candy by the government, and the freedom to choose your own associates is severely curtailed, particularly in the workplace, anti -Semitism, like other stereotypes, can have massive consequences.
* At what point are Jewish leaders going to realize that this push to crush whites has diminishing marginal utility for Jews in general?
Let’s say that helping push mass immigration may have reduced the odds of an Ohio pogrom by whites from 1 million to 1 to 100 million to 1. Alright, you improved a near impossibility to something that has astronomically low odds of happening. That’s great. You’ve basically eliminated that danger.
Now, you need to ask yourself, what do Jews as a group gain or lose by lowering those odds – through the continued psychological rout of whites as well importation of various 3rd worlders including Muslims – to 150 million to 1. As you can see, each new immigrant and law against whites doesn’t drop your odds of an Ohio pogrom by whites the way that they use to. Indeed, at some point, you may actually start to increase your odds of an Ohio pogrom by whites.
Also, what about the fact that your dramatically increasing your chances of getting harmed by Hispanics or, especially, Muslims?
Finally, at least for the time being, you live here, and most Jews are middle to upper-middle class, i.e. they can’t wall themselves off like rich Jews. They have to deal with changing neighborhoods and schools.
I guess my questions is this: How is turning the United States in Brazil and Europe into Syria good for the Jews?
* If increasing Diversity is what’s needed to dismantle Tribal Supremacy, count me as pro-Diversity.
* The central, overlooked fact of the history of Jewish conflict with Native populations is that Jews were guests, never assimilated, and never got past their own in-group morality. It wasn’t the Natives’ job to make the relationships work, it was the Jews’.
* Your post aside, I don’t think I’ve heard a single expression of thanks, private or public, my entire lifetime. Are you aware of a single public one?
* Campus activism seems to be a major vector whereby naive people encounter Jewish aggressive intensity for the first, and often only, time in their personal lives.
Kevin MacDonald has written extensively about how his time as a student activist at U Wisconsin exposed him to particularly Jewish modes of operating.
* If you want an honest assessment, you have to take into account that most people – even most Jews – are fairly low information voters and passive consumers of media. It simply takes a very long time to turn around the ship of entrenched opinion. Don’t insist on quick results.
Most Jews I know, and this includes a large number of highly educated professionals, have no idea that BDS is currently popular on college campuses. Nobody has told them that the KKK is completely defunct. They are not really aware that Arabs ethnically cleansed 1 million Jews from their countries much more recently than the Holocaust. On the latter point, which I try to expose as many people as possible to, I am often met with outright skepticism from American Jews, including from people who are engaged enough to subscribe to The Atlantic, etc. We’re talking about one of the 20th centuries worst atrocities, that occurred to Jews who are still alive, and yet this is completely news to many American Jews. Additionally, American Jews are often completely ignorant about society in Israel, and this includes people who have been to Israel! They sat on the beach, floated in the Dead Sea, and had a guided tour of the Old City, and came away not knowing basic facts about that country. All of these things are important to me so I bring them up a lot and often have occasion to sample the state of knowledge out there. It is pitiful.
People’s worldviews, even for people under 40, were shaped by events that seeped into consciousness 20 or 30 or however many years ago. They view the threats to Jews out there as a bunch of rednecks running around talking about the Zionist Occupation Government and pumping Limbaugh. It also doesn’t help that the only thing that American Jewry – religious and secular, conservative and liberal – can agree on is that the Holocaust was bad. Anything else is hot button which will offend someone.
Opinion will turn around – it just takes a long time with Jews as with anyone. Most people don’t engage with the world too deeply, so you just can’t expect quick results. One thing that would certainly help give things a nudge in the good direction is if the Right would stop playing the foil occasionally. Why fuck around with Rothschild nonsense? Closer to home, how about shunning the ridiculous idiotic disproven Khazar shit that pops up here, maybe for starters?
* Let’s summarize Mr. Gladstone’s positions:
1) Favors mass third world immigration, even from Muslim countries.
2) Concerned about rising antisemitism.
Mr. Gladstone doesn’t seem very smart. You would think he would put two and two together. I guess it’ll take a couple more hypercachers for him to realize what’s going on, and by then it’ll be too late. Even letting small numbers of Muslims increases the ratchet effect.
* The hilarious thing about the article about Jewish millennials traumatized by twitter is that it quotes a whole bunch of people who are proud members of ethnic activist organizations. It’s like they can’t see the irony of them lecturing us. These must be the most ethnocentric people in the world attacking the least ethnocentric people in the world for being too ethnocentric. It’s a bizarre relationship that is not going to last forever.
* “My little sister,” he adds, thinks that Trump “is the Haman of the Purim story.”
—
Is she thinking of a Purim style solution to the “deplorables and irredeemables” problem ?
* American Jews have been voting for secular, post-national, transnational policies for USA while also supporting Zionism. I wonder how much longer can American Jews eat their cake and have it to.
* One sign that things are going in this direction is the recent correct naming of “white nationalists”. In the 2000s the only Overton-recognized terminology was “white supremacist/neo-Nazi/KKK”. Since then the Overton window has shifted. Considering Jewish domination of the media, things are shifting somehow. I am not sure whether it is due to giving up due to pervasive internet usage performing an end-run around the media gatekeepers, laze, or some sort of genuine attempt to do the right thing (I think doubtful given performance of the media in response to Trump).
But regardless it’s a good first step. Of course, WNs are portrayed as low-information hateful bigots. But I think the recognition is there that pro-white people are not going away, and likely will only strengthen in numbers over time.
Looking at it from the Jewish perspective, working with WNs is ceding power as a practical matter. No one enjoys ceding power. It is almost always fought. The domination of the press from most if not all of the 20th century until the 2010s was a commanding accomplishment. It helped create the State of Israel, and assisted to fight/win the largest war of all time.
Having to now work with the ants you used to send scurrying hither and thither takes some getting used to. I am being partly facetious. The other aspect is the dawning of the Mischlinge as a force – 50% of their heritage as European generally, and that heritage is doubtlessly an impressive thing that is an easy thing to want to preserve.
I think a more realistic view is that Jewish success has been achieved on the back of the success of white civilization. To willingly destroy that or weaken it is a double edged sword, maybe even just a footgun. White weakness will be Jewish weakness. The drive to dilute and weaken whites appears to have found currency on the back of 1939 and past pogroms. In actual fact though, the Frankfurt School’s work predated 1939. The leaders of the FS were philosophers and sociologists. I would not trust philosopher/sociologists to run a lemonade stand let alone transform society into something that is objectively better, but it seems they had “success” with that, at least for a time.
Maybe instead of an unscientific, emotional, partially religious, broad-brush approach stemming from the Frankfurt School as a means of power retention and pogrom threat elimination, maybe a more modern risk management approach would work better? Look back in history and look at actions taken by Jews before pogroms and compare/contrast what took place in other countries without the histories of the pogroms. What was done differently? In this way you can have your cake and eat it too. Or at least, you can eat cake sustainably.
* He’s saying that the US gov’t knew what it didn’t know (the full details on the holocaust, which really only formed up into a Narrative in the seventies), and so deliberately condemned the Jews to death (by holocaust, by denying them an open-borders policy), because Jews were heavily communist (which is true, but can’t be, because the Nazis believed it). And that this means the US doesn’t get to deny open borders to anyone, ever. I suppose the rest of the world (with the exception of UK, and Russia) gets to deny open borders to the Jews because they didn’t haul Jews’ asses out of the fire in WWII.
* You could probably find a few in public events, though I don’t have speeches to search. Most of the histories of the Jews I’ve read are (appropriately) soft on the USA. Goldene medina, etc. Pick up the Encyclopedia of Antisemitism and turn to the USA, and the first thing you get are speculations about why it wasn’t as bad as in other places.
I think it’s less that Jews don’t like America–they seem pretty cool with the country as a whole, at least vis-a-vis Europe–as that they don’t like the parts of it that vote Republican–the conservative, more white, countryside. Always struck me as odd that Alabama was America but New York wasn’t–they both are, of course, and California and Iowa and Massachusetts and Montana too. I think the general feeling is that America is better than most other countries to the Jews but still needs to improve its relationship with other minorities such as blacks, Hispanics, etc., and they have an obligation as a historically oppressed group to stand with the oppressed.
You can draw your own conclusions, of course–I think there’s insufficient empathy for poor whites in that worldview, for example–but that’s what I always thought they were thinking. I was kind of on the outside there, not being purebred or having gone to Hebrew school, and there may be things I wasn’t aware of.
* I’d like to see a full, serious, non-histrionic treatment of this issue… e.g.,
“White-Protestant Attitudes Towards ‘Political Jewry’ in the USA, 1880-2020”
Questions to Investigate:
(1) How strong was political anti-Semitism in its heydey and when was that heyday? (perhaps the nationalistic 1910s-1920s Klan)
(2) When was the crossover point to majority pro-Semitism?
(3) When was the crossover point to supermajority pro-Semitism?
(4) When did political anti-Semitism drop away to the “David Duke ” political margins? (Respectable U.S commentators in recent decades, as the Sailer commentariat often points out, are terrified of the issue… Tom Wolfe, b.1931, was still willing to mention it throughout Bonfire, but men of similar stature born in 1951, 1961, and certainly 1971 and onward would not even mention it…a true American taboo.)
By what mechanism did the U.S. Core population go from (1) to (4)?
* Probably the big crossover was WW2–Mencken actually had them tone down his antisemitic statements in his works once Hitler got started. After that you have Buckley’s purges of the 50s and 60s, and possibly the 90s. Being anti-Jim Crow might have actually helped (outside the South, of course) since much of America had turned against it by that point.
* Compile a list of every tenured faculty member at, say … the top 50 U.S. schools who has ever made public statements that could plausibly be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Be fair: If a reasonable person could fairly interpret said statements as merely a reasonable criticism of Israeli policy, they don’t count.
Yeah, it would take awhile.
Next: Cross-reference with the race and/or ethnicity of said professors. Feel free to classify any ambiguous cases as “white.”
Last: Show the results to a Jewish friend and ask if they’re still angry because grandpa couldn’t get into that country club.
* Steve, you have said in the past that you assume and or wife found some evidence possibly that you are biologically half jewish. If you don’t want to post this, that’s fine. I’m not some Nazi rounding up jews, but I think it’s fair considering you mention people’s ethnicities and analyze them by pointing out their heritage all the time, often very unimportant people.
Perhaps you never mention this anymore because you’ve found evidence or more uncertainty to disprove this. Or perhaps you don’t mention this because a lot of your readers may not appreciate it. It’s fine, just don’t approve my comment. It just seems interesting that you would make points like this a bunch if you were half jewish.
* Steve Sailer: Among American writers, Mark Twain was pro-Jewish. He’s buried next to his Austrian Jewish son-in-law, the conductor of the Detroit Symphony. The regular Americans Twain went on his Innocents Abroad tour with were huge fans of the Old Testament.
F. Scott Fitzgerald was somewhat anti-Semitic at his “Great Gatsby” peak but he had to keep it so subtle that most readers today don’t notice.
Generally speaking, in American history, people who got on the bad side of Jews got in big trouble, like Ulysses S. Grant during the Civil War and John Singer Sargent around 1920.
I wouldn’t mind having it mentioned in Wikipedia that a survey of psychometricians listed me as the most reliable journalistic source on IQ issues.
* Thanks Steve for another gauzy soft peddling of the New Bolshevik Revolution that is being engineered here in the USA by the Jews against the white goyim.
* Mr. Gladstone, like many Jews it seems, has a penchant for rewriting history in an ethnically self-interested way. The Rosenbergs were executed because they were unrepentant soviet agents. There were other jewish spies, who were every bit as complicit as they were, who were not executed. It’s of a piece with the historical white-wash of the Hollywood Ten and other commie screen-writers; they were not taking a stand for the first amendment – they were agents of a foreign and hostile government and ideology.
* Potted history of Christian feelings towards Jews in the USA:
1787-1870: Generally quite quite good. Very little in the way of overt discrimination.
1870-1933: Overt anti-Jewish feeling emerges (discrimination in terms of housing and hotels, plus quotas at private unis). However, as Steve notes, even during this low period, Jews were not lacking in friends in high places (Mark Twain, etc)
1933-early ’60s: Hitler puts anti-Jewish sentiment in bad odor.
early ’6os-present: Judeo-philia as the norm….
RE: Great Gatsby and the Jews,
Well, at least at the university level, the novel’s anti-Jewish quotient is much discussed. The general feeling is that Fitzgerald’s anti-Jewish tendencies abated later in life. Cf how how he makes the Jewish Monroe Stahr the protagonist of The Last Tycoon.
* The campus liberal-left is turning into an increasingly unworkable alliance of lesbians, blacks, muslims and left-liberal Jews who psychologically stuck in the late 60s.
As a market dominant dominant minority the Jews would be better off moving in with the libertarians. Jews, gays and libertarians are natural bedfellows (politically speaking anyway).
* I don’t think Judeophilia was the norm by 1960; the world described by Charles Murray in the introduction to Coming Apart was still a long way off from the “Mandatory Standing Ovation at the Mention of Israel” U.S. political scene of the present day….
But overt political anti-Semitism had faded by 1960. It probably still had a large but silent following on the anti-communist right, and had certainly not faded in nationalistically-inclined American men’s minds (the extent of Nixon’s political anti-Semitism would shock the typical modern American). It had definitely not (yet) crossed over to the wild philo-Semitism that we see today…
In other words, 1960-2010, or so, saw what we can call the political deification of that ethnic group in the American mind.
* The early form of Christian Zionism in the late 19th century was anti-Semitic domestically, unlike its contemporary form: “Not since William Jennings Bryan in 1896 has a candidate united a coalition of American Zionists and a larger anti-Semitic constituency under the same umbrella, according to Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis. (Bryan interweaved his cross-of-gold populism with homilies of Jewish financial control—simultaneously supporting a Jewish homeland for biblical reasons.)” (Politico)
* I think we need ethnic terms for Jews based on their personalities. E.G. Neurotic Jew, Normal Jew, Projectionist Jew, Hitler-Accusing Jew, Anxiety-Disorder Jew, Displacement Jew, The-Cossacks-Are-Coming Jew, Atheist-But-Defends-Islam-Jew, Liberal-Except-Don’t-Want-Blacks-In-the-Neighborhood Jew, etc.
* Give it up, Steve. You are never going to concern troll the skypes into being pro-white, or even get them to tone down their anti-white policies or slow down their immigration invasion, in their own alleged self-interest.
As parasites, they simply cannot identify with their host. It is not in their own interest or their own self-conception to do so. They are quite prepared to destroy their host and then blithely move on to their next victim, and blame their host for everything bad that happens, while absolving themselves. They have been repeating this story over and over again for thousands of years. They are not going to change.
The only question is if we, the host, are finally going to get a clue and actually do something about it. We don’t have to go along with our own destruction; we have other options besides waiting for someone else to suddenly start acting against type.
It’s a Scorpion and Frog situation. Appeals to alleged self-interest are futile. Nature will out.
* The political right likes to claim the credit for winning the Cold War, and loves complaining that we don’t get credit for the defeat of Marxism. But look at how we won, it was through Military Keynesianism, entangling alliances, cultural degeneracy, Islamic terrorism and the ’65 Immigration Act.
The biggest gains that the right received were the weakening of labor unions and lower marginal tax rates.
There was no reversion to state sovereignty, no Victorianism, no Austrian economics, no religious solidarity, no hand of friendship to our former Russian foes. And no affirmative action for the most despised minority in higher education.
The right was the muscle behind the victory, but received not a single reward to its long-suffering base.
* Today I had lunch with the Jewish half of my family. The occasion was ‘roshahanana’ or something.
I had not been looking forward to the lunch, being an ‘alt-right,’ socially awkward millennial.
Anyway, midway into the lunch, the topic of Trump came up, as it always does.
Surrounded by fiery Jews, two of whom were professors (one of politics), I eagerly anticipated the exciting , albeit vehemently anti-trump, conversation that was about to ensue.
I felt like a kid on a cable news panel.
But a cable news panel it wasn’t. These two professors articulated the most uninteresting and unsophisticated commentary on Trump and politics that I had ever heard.
As a 22 year old who reads Sailer and various other alt-right sources, I had the ammunition to take everything that they were saying out, but being shy and a little intimidated,
I sat quietly. Everyone at the table was in awe at what the professors were saying. “The statistics of this are complicated. The distribution of the sample needs to be even”, explained one of the professors to a bemused audience of Jews.
“Jesus Christ,” I thought to myself, “he’s just saying that a sample needs to be representative of the population from which it’s drawn, otherwise it is invalid. That’s high school stuff.”
This ‘statistical mastery’ was offered by one of the professors as an explanation for why polls showed trump doing well.
The topic then turned to who is voting for trump. “It’s just white males,” scoffed one of the professors. “Trump is appealing to racists,” he followed up.
This made me so angry. Before the conversation turned to Trump, everyone at the table was talking about their fondness for Israel and about how excited they were for one of the young girls at the table who was making her ‘birthright’ trip to Israel later in the year. I wanted to explain to the table how Trump’s policies are no different to Israel’s — building a wall, having a religiously discriminatory immigration policy — but I couldn’t muster up the courage.
* First of all, you have to consider risks and benefits. If you live in a safe space–er, state, not much point in annoying relatives in order to make an ideological point. If you’re visiting your family in NC or OH, and you think you’re well-regarded enough to get away with it, go for it.
Also consider if there’s anyone persuadable in the audience. A professor of women’s studies, probably not. Your uncle, the doctor who turns on the TV once a year, maybe. It need not be the person you’re arguing with. There’s an old saying–you’re not arguing to convince the other guy, you’re arguing to convince the audience.
The first step is to point out things you have in common with the other person. If they’re liberal, you might want to point out Trump is for gay rights, not eager to rip up Medicare or Social Security, and is actually paying attention to blue-collar people’s concerns on trade.
If your Jewish target is an alt-lite wannabe, argue Trump is likely to be our best chance to get right-wing populism without anti-Semitism.
If your Jewish target is a neocon, point out that Trump is more likely to defend Israel. Point out Hillary’s friendliness with Suha Arafat back in the day and the growing influence of BDS in the Democratic Party. If you feel they’re up for it, you can try to ask what the upshot of so many Muslim immigrants into the USA is likely to be, both for American policy toward Israel and for Jewish communities themselves. Remember the next target of the French terrorists after they blew up the rock concert? Don’t forget to bring up law and order–illegal immigrants are breaking the law, after all.
(Remember, we’re talking rank-and-file neocons here–this is your uncle who reads Commentary and biographies of Ben-Gurion, not John Podhoretz.)
If your Jewish target is a center-left Zionist, you might simply raise the issue of BDS. They’re likely to be worried about alt-right Pepe fans–ask them if Trump’s really going to genocide his grandkids, his chief lawyer, and his intellectual architect. Point out that waves of immigration are always followed by periods of decreased immigration when the new arrivals assimilate (this is one of my favorite arguments). Emphasize that legal immigrants are not going to be discriminated against.
If your Jewish target is a hardcore SJW lefty, try to argue that Trump and Clinton are the same, Clinton screwed Bernie, and it’s time for some real change with Jill Stein. 😉 Hopefully they’re too young to remember Nader.
Any comments from people with more Jewish relatives?
* That pattern followed to its end will mean Jews slaughtered in numbers that make Hitler envious.
But trying to warn Jews of that will get you denounced as an anti-Semite.
* Disraeli, the British Prime Minister of color had one of the characters in his novels say,”All is race, there is no other truth.” Uttered by Sidonia the Semitic superman in Disraeli’s novel, Tancred, written in the spare time of Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish Prime Minister of England in the 1860s.
Disraeli was a huge philoSemite and in an age of full throated racism he touted the superiority of the Jewish race in his novels.
According to Paul Johnson on P.323 of a History of the Jews, Disraeli said he was descended ‘in a direct line from one of the oldest races in the world, from that rigidly separate and unmixed Bedouin race who had developed a high civilization at a time when the inhabitants of England were going half naked and eating acorns in the woods.’
So perhaps in the Sixties while the hippies were playing Euell Gibbons and munching on acorns in the woods like the wide eyed prey animals they are, the Semitic Supermen were concocting disparate impact laws and regs to facilitate the hippies racial replacement?
“All is race, there is no other truth.”
* Brown University is one of the most left-wing universities in the country, at least by the proxy measurement of donations to the Democrats by the administrators and staff.
As with most other Ivy League universities, Jews are strongly entrenched in its administrative structure – its current president, Christina Paxon is Jewish (wife of former Oppenheimer Funds EVP/General Counsel Ari Gabinet) – and a significant fraction (up to half) of the white students there are probably Jewish also. Although Jews and non-Jews alike may mouth anti-Israel/divestment pieties there, actual anti-Semitism – that is, real aggression toward Jews – is likely to lead to quick expulsion or severe sanction.
This is just beyond parody – Jews who dominate the institution, railing against the very same institution as “increasingly anti-Semitic” so as to whip up greater rationale for their dominance over it. It reminds me of communist countries in which there was constant and paranoid society-wide agitation against the allegedly ever present counter-revolutionaries, so as to justify further communist oppression and perpetual revolution.
To paraphrase a Bruce Lee movie (uttered by a black character toward the main villain), “Man, you are straight out of a comic book!”
* I know at least 6 Jews that are voting Trump. One, a woman at my office, born in Israel, went to Cornell, when I said something about him not being a racist like he’s portrayed in the media (or by people on social media) said “I don’t care if he is.” As we discussed it she added how much she hated the New York Times, and she’d love it if Trump won just to see all the anti-Trumpers recoil in horror. She added none of them are moving to Canada.
She doesn’t know anything about the alt-right. She laughed when I told her about the whole Pepe controversy. She just comes by it instinctually.
Her husband is anti-Trump. But I know another couple where both husband and wife are Jewish voting for him. It isn’t that uncommon.
In fact the person who told me I should read sailer is Jewish.
* The Frankfurt School should be recognized as following at least some of Marx’s methods, which despite their transmission into mainstream liberalism, are still distinct.
The Zionist movement in its origins was anticlerical, and mainly a product of bourgeois liberalism that became upset after the Dreyfus Affair in France. From the age of enlightened despotism to the beginnings of parliamentary rule in continental Europe, most Jews adopted the assimilationist paradigm. Notably this included some of John Kerry’s ancestors.
Now, it is mainstream liberalism that has been responsible for most of our travails, CultMarx has only reached its full flowering of SJWism quite recently. What we see over and over in liberalism is a stance of counter-majoritarianism against the dominant and “oppressive” ethnic-religious majority. We know Voltaire as a proponent of freedom of speech, but his main goal was to destroy the moral authority of the Church. As soon as liberals seize power, any concern for those “freedoms” goes out the window, and every elite college campus testifies to this effect.
What we criticize as the “Jewish power” is mainly the product of three sources: financial, cultural, moral/religious. Few of us seem interested in a distributist/Georgist framework that would kneecap the banking/securities system. We aren’t big fans of mass culture or highbrow culture, but we are a long way off from either a substitute or even subcultural autonomy. Now the moral card is to me the most interesting. After WWII, Western culture became deferential to Jewish moralism in both a mainstream liberal, and evangelical Protestant context. Perhaps its a parallel to the victimhood hierarchy, or genuine guilt tripping. Our current immigration problem is in part to our granting the Jewish community a moral veto over our interest in ethnic continuity. Mainline Protestant theology is also interesting to examine in this viewpoint.
I think it will need to be understood that our communities have a divergence that either requires separation or submission. The haze of postwar guilt is dying every day, a return to the equilibrium of the last millennia is sure to follow.
* The career of Rabbi Morris Raphall provides a good portrait of Jewish American life in the first half of the 19th century:
NEW YORK’S PRO-SLAVERY RABBI
But missing from this history is the congregation’s first prominent spiritual leader: Rabbi Morris Raphall. A celebrated biblical and rabbinic scholar, during the mid-1800s Raphall was the leading rabbi not only in New York—then the home of a quarter of the nation’s Jews—but in the country. He lectured extensively across the United States and was the only rabbi prior to the Civil War to be invited to make a congressional benediction. So, why has B’nai Jeshurun all but forgotten him?
Perhaps because Raphall was an outspoken proponent of slavery.
I encountered Raphall and his many sermons, lectures, and toasts—he seemed to appear at every religious and fraternal Jewish event—in researching the early history of New York Jewry for a new book. So, I was intrigued with his near disappearance from American Jewish history, and from the history of such an important synagogue. To understand this historical gap, we must return to Jan. 4, 1861, a bitterly cold day in New York City.
That evening, the chill outside only highlighted the contrast with the nation’s sizzling political temperature. South Carolina had already seceded, and six more states were poised to do so in the following weeks. President Buchanan’s efforts at preservation of the Union were weak and unavailing, while President-Elect Lincoln would not budge from his position against the extension of slavery into the American territories. The nation was beginning to unravel.
Into this breach stepped Raphall. Perhaps fearing what national disunion would do to America’s Jewish community, Raphall stood in his sanctuary on that blustery Friday evening and delivered a sermon that would resound throughout the United States. Addressing his congregants on the issue of the Bible and slavery, Raphall stated that while he was no “friend to slavery in the abstract” and even less “to the practical working of slavery,” his personal feelings were not germane. Slavery, he argued, was the oldest form of social relationship aside from family ties.
Raphall’s position on the subject wasn’t surprising in the context of his overall conservative bent. He opposed the nascent women’s rights movement, publicly encouraging women to “meekly rest content with [the] humble lot” that God chose for them. Though a follower of Moses Mendelssohn’s belief in the Jewish enlightenment—a doctrine that allowed Jews to participate in modern society within a traditional framework—he vehemently preached that the Reform movement, which in the early 1850s was headquartered in New York, posed a mortal threat to the survival of Judaism.
And his politics very likely reflected the views of his congregants. From its modest beginnings as a congregation of a few hundred Jews, the congregation grew larger and wealthier over time. By 1850 it had moved to Greene Street in the fashionable Washington Square neighborhood, where its members raised $50,000 (churches in that day generally cost less than $20,000 to build) to erect a sanctuary with a 56-foot-high dome featuring windows with ornamented paintings. By 1861, a community founded under the aura of Jewish Jeffersonian republicanism had been replaced by an affluent, conservative membership—one that was able to pay Raphall the princely salary of $2,000 per year.
It was in that domed sanctuary that Raphall delivered his notorious sermon. After his opening disclaimer, he turned to Jewish scripture, declaring that the biblical verse where God commands an owner to give Sabbath rest to “thy male slave and thy female slave,” clearly condoned slavery. He also stated that the Bible differentiated between Hebrew bondsmen, whose servitude was limited, and non-Hebrew slaves and their progeny, who were to remain bondsmen during the lives of their master, his children, and his children’s children. Non-Hebrew slaves, he argued, could be compared to black slaves in the American South. Hebraic law permitted masters to discipline their slaves, short of murder or disfigurement, and required that a slave absconding from South Carolina to New York must be a restored to his owner as would a slave who had fled from Dan to Beersheba. The Jewish law that forbade Hebrews from returning an escaped slave, by Raphall’s lights, only referred to slaves fleeing from foreign lands.
Responding to Reverend Henry Ward Beecher’s assertion that the Bible actually opposed slavery, Raphall proclaimed: “How dare you, in the face and sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments, how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin?” What right “do you have to insult and exasperate thousands of God-fearing, law-abiding citizens,” he said, equating a citizen of the South with the status of a murderer. While he cautioned southerners to guard their bondsman from sexual aggression, hunger, and excess demands of their labor, Raphall emphatically contended that the biblical sanction of slave property remained relevant in 1861.
His words created a sensation. Three New York newspapers printed the complete sermon, and the New York Times published lengthy excerpts. The Rev. Hugh Brown of East Salem, N.Y., observed, “the impressions on the minds of some is, that he must know the Hebrew of the Bible so profoundly that it is absolutely impossible for him to be mistaken on the subject of slavery; and that what he affirms respecting it is as true almost as the world of God itself.”
Two weeks later, Raphall gave his sermon as a speech before members of the Democratic Party and the pro-South American Society for Promotion of National Unity. In attendance were advocates of national reconciliation in harmony with southern demands, including the banker August Belmont, and prominent pro-slavery Jews from Richmond, Montgomery, and New Orleans. The artist and inventor Samuel B. Morse presided. Dr. Bernard Ilowy of Baltimore, highly respected for his biblical expertise, endorsed Raphall’s position. Rabbi Simon Tuska of Mobile, Ala., stated that his sermon contained “the most forceful arguments in justification of the slavery of the African race.” Southern sympathizers dispersed the discourse throughout the nation.
In his opinion on Lincoln and the issue of slavery, Raphall was not alone among Jewish leaders. Diplomat, playwright, and journalist Mordecai M. Noah, the “most important Jew in America” during the 1830s and 1840s, according to his biographer Jonathan D. Sarna, wrote that blacks were “anatomically and mentally inferior to the white” and could find contentment only in servile labor. Noah dreaded the thought of a slave revolt and viciously condemned abolitionists. Emmanuel Hart, the first Jewish congressman from New York in the 1850s, was a leader of the conservative “hunker” Democrats, a faction that opposed any agitation against slavery and worked to uphold the interests of the slaveholding states. Editor Robert Lyon of the Asmonean, a self-described progressive who hired Reform Judaism’s leading proponent, Isaac Mayer Wise, as his literary editor, endorsed James Buchanan in 1856 as a “progressionist,” defended the Fugitive Slave Act, and called abolitionists “the foul Fiend which stalks among us.” Lyon included among the abolitionists both “Frederick Douglass the ******,” and a “heterogeneous stew of fanatics and imposters.” The notion of black suffrage was, he said, “preposterous.”
Still, many in the North were outraged by Raphall’s view. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison published a poem that asked Raphall “Has thou forgot the sorrows of thy race.” Horace Greeley, publisher of the New York Tribune, recommended that Raphall endure “twenty-four hours of the Spanish inquisition” to “materially open his eyes” to the realities of slavery. And a significant minority of Republican Jews hazarded their careers to take on the Democratic establishment. Many, though not all, were centered at Manhattan’s Reform synagogue, Temple Emanu-El, whose beliefs no longer required either a literalist or rabbinic interpretation of Jewish scripture. Michael Heilprin of Brooklyn, a biblical scholar versed in the new biblical criticism central to the Reform movement, expressed regret that Raphall’s “sacrilegious” ideas had not vanished among the “scum.” Heilprin termed the morals of slavery’s defenders “depraved” and the minds of their “mammon–worshiping followers … debauched.” Citing German Jewish scholars, Heilprin challenged the literalist, ahistorical approach to Jewish texts behind Raphall’s reasoning. Raphall, he contended, misconstrued even the biblical word for servant. (The word Raphall translated as slave also designated court officers and royal ambassadors.) B’nai Jeshurun’s rabbi also overlooked Moses’ words to the Israelites: “Forget not that ye have been slaves in Egypt.”
But Heilprin represented a minority outlook. Raphall’s sermon reflected the interests of a majority of New York Jewry’s interests: New York’s booming economy, the cause of the recent wealth of many of the city’s most prominent Jewish citizens, including many members of B’nai Jeshurun, was tied to the southern trade; a civil war threatened personal catastrophe. Moreover, many Jews were in the garment industry, a trade directly attached to the South. Jews also resented the seemingly ever-present Protestant missionaries bent on converting the Jews. Strong-willed Protestantism and the Republican Party were seen as deeply conjoined. Furthermore, Jews feared that their political liberty, greater in America than any other part of the world, would be threatened if the Constitution, which they identified with the Union, were to fall. Compromise was the better solution, even if it meant giving in to Southern demands. Thus, along with the rest of New York City, Jews in 1860 voted more than two to one against Lincoln and the Republican Party.
After war broke out, Raphall strongly condemned rebellious southerners as committing “a sin before God.” He met personally with Lincoln, and his son enlisted and was badly wounded. However, as hostilities continued, month after month and then year after year, Raphall’s early patriotism turned to blame for both sides: “Demagogues, fanatics and a party press” of North and South had, he said, mired the republic in “the third year of a destructive but needless sectional war which has armed brother against brother and consigned hundreds of thousands to an untimely grave.”
