* In other words, while “Black Activists Don’t Ignore Crime,” the national media, the Justice Department, and the Soros Foundation do ignore black activists who don’t ignore black on black crime the way their beloved Black Lives Matter ignores it.
* “They protest violence, testify at city council hearings, press for gun-control reform and collaborate with politicians, faith-based organizations and, yes, even the police.”
Everything but get married and raise kids to respect the police.
* This is how you know Black Lies Matter was built on a hatred of White people more so than stopping police brutality, this organization has not expanded to racially homogeneous Black nations like Nigeria and Senegal for example.
I have an extremely hard time believing that police brutality does not occur in racially homogeneous Negro nations.
Where is the Sub Saharan African chapter of Black Lives Matter?
Blacks just don’t get as angry and don’t feel the need to riot at the sight of Black police officers gunning down Black civilians.
* “White crime victims are generally victimized by whites.”
* Depends on the crime. Petty theft? Yes. Armed robbery? No.
* True, but Black on White crime is nothing to sneeze at either. It is by far the most common type of interracial crime in America.
Just do a Google search on Black on White crime and you will see a shitload of examples pop up on legitimate local news sites. You don’t have to go to fringe sites like Stormfront to find such examples.
Youtube also has plenty of examples of Black on White crime.
* Not in the largest American cities outside of simple assault/battery. I have never met someone who has been robbed by a white guy in Chicago. Or shot by a white guy. Or stabbed by a white guy. Or…
Then again, I am youngish and it seems that many of the bad whites were priced out of Chicago at least half a generation ago.
* I think it was Charles Barkley who said in his personal life he knows Black people who were murdered by other Blacks, but does not personally know a single Black who was murdered by a White person.
* Another interesting new development with Black Lives Matter is that it has allied itself with Palestinians and against Israel — sort of like what happened with black activists in the late ’60s.
A couple of months ago, Mark Suster, a Jewish venture capitalist in Los Angeles, wrote an essay in support of Black Lives Matter.
* Corey Booker played college football, which may have had something to do with his choice to go to Stanford. I’d be surprised if he had applied to Harvard and gotten rejected. He is also a Rhodes Scholar and has a law degree from Yale. I wouldn’t be so sure he’s less intelligent than Obama.
Both are pretty conventional Democrats (neither has any original political ideas), and both have a “black preacher” rhetorical mode, though Obama carries his off a bit more confidently. The guy who runs the Richard Nixon account on Twitter quipped during the DNC that Booker talks like a black from the suburbs pretending to sound like an urban preacher, or something to that effect.
The two main differences between Booker and Obama are:
– Obama ran for president before his act got stale, 4 years after his big speech at the 2004 DNC, and 2 years after getting elected to the US Senate. In contrast, Booker was in Newark long enough for everyone to realize he had no magic (not that Obama would have done any better as mayor of Newark).
– Booker doesn’t have a chip on his shoulder like Obama has due to his Muslim/exotic background. Booker is a conventional, if extremely high-achieving, upper middle class African American (his parents were IBM execs).
* I’ve toyed with the idea of starting a local crime beat website/newspaper. Just run down the daily local crime stories and court decisions, but making sure to always note the name, race, age, and sex of the offender, and the name, age, race, and sex of the victim.
I’m sure that wouldn’t make this whiny professional black call me racist and evil, get me credible death threats, and make every Lefty march in protest against me.
* BLM’s juices get flowing when the violence is non-black law enforcement officer on black body.
Sure, a few BLM activist claim they don’t ignore garden variety black on black violence, but they certainly don’t get loud about it.
* It would have been a real coup for BLM if they could’ve gotten Omar Mateen’s dad to wear one of their t-shirts at the Hillary rally.
* grass-roots organizations — many of which were founded by bereaved black women — are doing remarkable work to prevent and reduce crime.
Isn’t the time to get excited about crime BEFORE your son is dead? Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is gone.
These organizations may gather up some government grants but they do nothing to actually reduce crime. A REAL grass roots organization would involve young black men and their (in reality almost always absent) fathers, not their grieving mamas who were powerless over their gentle giants in the first place.
* People at the grass roots organize themselves against crime and the results are what? There’s been endless anti-violence marches in Chicago that garner media time but which do nothing. Only the police are in a position to act on it. In the white areas it usually boils down to lobbying for more police being assigned there. The black groups, often led by reverends, usually try to hit the holy grail of organizing which hopefully will culminate in a government grant and money contributed by goodwhites; send mo’ money. Meanwhile, seven dead and eleven wounded just on Monday in Chicago. The organizers and activists don’t seem to have been very effective in preventing anything. Perhaps Miller could “study” that and get back to us on why they are so lame.
He was already on his way to murder someone, deputies said, but a fit of rage raised the death toll to two.
Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies arrested Pompano Beach’s Clarck Paul, 28, on Saturday and charged him with the murder of two men. Officials said the two shootings were 35 minutes apart.
The first shooting happened around 10:30 p.m. Friday night, deputies said. They arrived to find Carlos Javier Francisco Senluis, 25, bleeding in his red 2010 Nissan. His passenger was OK. Senluis died at Broward Health North that night.
Paul was provoked to shoot the stranger when the headlights of Senluis’ car, headed north along Southwest 11th Avenue near Southwest 14 Street, shone too brightly in his eyes. So, deputies said, he shot him.
While the crime scene was still fresh, deputies said, Paul made his way to his intended target, Lamont Smalls, 22. Smalls, a witness in an ongoing attempted murder investigation in which Paul is a person of interest, was sitting outside his home when he was shot.
* Fundamentally, we have to recognize BLM as a black supremacist, semi-terrorist organization. There really is no getting around this. Then, given the tacit and overt support given BLM by media and political elites, among others, we have to acknowledge that this country is simply not ours anymore. Where do we go from here?
* Back up and understand the context of the situation. Pointing out that the most dangerous thing to a black person isn’t the cops but fellow blacks isn’t done to cuck for blacks, but rather expose the phoniness of the black activists and white liberals who claim to care about black lives.
* The whole black view of crime and order, including BLM, is an act of veiled flattery towards whites. Only whites (and, occasionally, honorary whites) have agency. Blacks who kill other blacks are somehow acting out some aspect of a broken society under white supremacy – they’re forced by circumstance to engage in all manner of illegal behavior and gunplay. So black on black violence and murder (really, any black on anyone violence) is the fault of whites. The police are overwhelmingly white (and blacks, Hispanics, etc. on the police force are honorary whites, together with “white Hispanic” civilians like Zimmerman) and therefore have agency. Thus, cops killing blacks (justifiably or no) is the fault of whites.
It’s evident when the mother of a black victim gets license to make political pronouncements – the focus is always to address “root causes” like white people legally owning guns and to funnel government largesse to the Pastors or various government schemes liable to graft rather than calls for punishment of the perpetrator and/or calls for more aggressive policing and incarceration.
* Black Lives Matter can find time to make silly statements about Israel/Palestine, but for some reason it can’t find time to talk about the pervasiveness of black criminality.
* What’s amazing is that seemingly no BLM activists have anything to say about high black intraracial violence. All they would have to do is make some token boilerplate statements about how high crime rates are the unfortunate legacy of slavery and what we need is more g̶i̶b̶s̶m̶e̶d̶a̶t̶ investment in education and job training programs, and they’d protect their rhetorical right flank from people like Giuliani much better. Instead, they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the existence, even in highly coded terms, of black crime.
* Male authority figures matter. Additionally, if a kid’s dad is in jail, that’s that kid’s authority figure. It’s difficult if not impossible to fulfill that role from behind plexiglass, and in empathy to the incarcerated father, it’s also difficult to muster the will to even try after being reamed in the behind by your cell mates. It’s hard to have a “heart-to-heart” talk with your visiting son if your buttocks is oozing blood, or worse, from a forced homosexual encounter from the day before.
Furthermore, boys being under their mother’s thumb exclusively tends to produce “man-girls” as they go forward past puberty. Self-indulgent, narcissistic, lack of empathy: essentially “mean girls” with additional testosterone adding to their confusion.
Think of an obstinate 14 year old girl. Think of her intellectual and emotional life. Now think of that 14 year old girly brain transferred into a 20-something year old’s black man’s body, and black male pathology not only makes sense, it’s extremely predictable.
A significant number of black men are really “Mean Girls.”
* While certainly it would be cowardly to refuse to point out the reality that, proportionately, blacks are far more likely to be the perpetrators of interracial violence than the victims, when BLM is predicated on the implicit notion that the greatest threat to black lives are nonblacks and cops, there is nothing “cuckish” about mentioning black on black crime. Mentioning black on white crime to a BLM activist might be “non-cucked” but it would also be ineffective since the vast majority of BLMers obviously don’t care about whites. Pointing out their hypocrisy is, in my view, the most effective solution, and that is best accomplished by pointing to intraracial black crime. Because anyone who truly cared about black lives would focus more energy on getting the cops to neutralize violent blacks than on protesting black lives lost at the hands of police, the vast majority of which are lost due primarily to the poor choices of the deceased.
* Media types sometimes whine about “dead pretty white girls” getting attention. Well, this only happens if the suspect looks like Scott Peterson or Joran Van der Sloot, or even Casey Anthony.
* This is true, but it’s also true that Lacy Peterson, Natalie Holloway and similar died doing lawful, peaceful, typically middle class things in seemingly safe, middle class places. They’re simply more relatable to a large section of core America and therefore viewer interest (and with it ad dollars) is maximized by covering these stories out of proportion to their frequency and significance compared with other newsworthy items. Plenty of bright, promising (at least in their parents’ esteem) middle class white girls go on Spring Break with their friends at a foreign tropical resort, and plenty of middle class white girls marry their dream man and get pregnant before discovering he’s a cheating cad with a dark side. These stories play on middle class anxieties and fears. A murdered black prostitute or 14 year old black boy out on the street at 1 a.m. on a Wednesday night caught in an exchange of gang-related gun fire just don’t resonate with middle class white news consumers. The relative lack of interest I think has a lot to do with the fact that they can’t really see their sons and daughters caught up in similar situations.
That said, I think this might also be due to an increasing divergence of media consumption and viewership patters between whites and blacks. Media is more decentralized and diffuse than ever before, and blacks now have their own media and news designed to appeal narrowly to blacks (and not whites) so it stands to reason that matters of concern to blacks would not get excessive coverage if blacks aren’t watching those shows anyway.
Posted inBlacks, BLM, Crime|Comments Off on “Blacks Activists Don’t Ignore Crime”
On July 26, two Muslims slit the throat of a French Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. Jacques Hamel, 85, while he was saying Mass in his church.
Five days later, during his flight returning to Rome from World Youth Day in Krakow, Poland, Pope Francis gave a press conference. He was asked about the French priest and Islam by Antoine-Marie Izoard, a journalist with I.Media, a French Catholic news agency. Izoard said:
“Catholics are in a state of shock — and not only in France — following the barbaric assassination of Father Jacques Hamel in his church while he was celebrating Holy Mass. Four days ago … you told us once again that all religions want peace. But this holy priest, eighty-six years old, was clearly killed in the name of Islam. So I have two brief questions, Holy Father. When you speak of these violent acts, why do you always speak of terrorists but not of Islam? … And then, … what concrete initiative can you launch or perhaps suggest in order to combat Islamic violence?”
Pope Francis responded:
“I don’t like to speak of Islamic violence because every day when I open the newspapers I see acts of violence, here in Italy: someone kills his girlfriend, someone else his mother-in-law…and these violent people are baptized Catholics! They are violent Catholics…If I spoke about Islamic violence, I would also have to speak about Catholic violence.”
The pope of the Roman Catholic Church, when asked about Islamic terror and the slitting of the throat of a Roman Catholic priest by Islamic terrorists, responds that there is also Catholic terror — that a man who was baptized Catholic who “kills his girlfriend” is the moral and religious equivalent of Muslims who engage in mass murder in the name of Islam.
How can anyone compare:
–A person who happens to have been baptized Catholic as a child — and may have no Catholic identity as an adult — with an adult who affirms a religious identity?
–The murder of a girlfriend (most likely a crime of passion) with the ritual murder of a Catholic priest because he was a priest?
–Individual murders that have nothing to do with any ideology with mass murders committed in the name of an ideology?
Pope Francis then added:
“Terrorism is everywhere! … Terrorism … increases whenever there is no other option, when the global economy is centred on the god of money and not the human person, men and women. This is already a first form of terrorism. You’ve driven out the marvel of creation, man and woman, and put money in their place. This is a basic act of terrorism against all humanity. We should think about it.”
Terrorism grows “when there is no other option”?
The implication that Islamic terrorism is a desperate act arising from poverty is widely held on the left. But it is false. Most Islamic terrorists come from the middle class or above. In the recent case of the Bangladeshi terrorists, for example, nearly every one of them came from some of the wealthiest families in Bangladesh. And, as is well-known, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from middle- and upper middle-class families.
Islamic terrorism doesn’t come from economics; it comes from its theology.
Terrorism grows “when the global economy is centred on the god of money”?
The pursuit of money and terror have nothing to do with each other. Terrorism grows only when some ideology preaches it. All this statement does is provide an excuse for Islamist terror by blaming the “global economy” and the “god of money” instead of the terrorists and their god of death.
A “first form of terrorism” is when “the global economy is centred on the god of money”?
It is a bad thing when money becomes a god, but there is no comparison between the “god of money” and the horrors of Islamic terror. Yazidi women weren’t gang raped and burned alive because of the “global economy” and its “god of money.”
The only explanation for these statements is that Pope Francis has inherited his theology from Catholicism, but unlike his immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, he has inherited much of his moral outlook from leftism.
Posted inChristianity|Comments Off on CHRISTIANS FOR HILLARY
Richard Spencer writes about the futility of conservative outreach: The question people like Rick never ask is whether non-Whites actually want or like “conservatism,” and whether voting for Democrats is not a rational choice to increase their quotient of money and happiness, since the the Left is clearly more eager to give them stuff.[1]
Culturally and socially, why would minorities be attracted to the GOP at all? It is the party of gun-loving rednecks and snobby country-club WASPs. It reeks of Whiteness, and no self-respecting Black or Hispanic would want to be a part of it. Better to find a place among the Star Wars canteen of the DNC.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Why Would Minorities Want To Vote Republican?
REPORT: NewsChannel 5 asked Mateen what he was thinking about when Clinton spoke about the Orlando incident.
“We’ve been cooperating with the federal government, and that’s about it,” he said. “Thank you.” Mateen didn’t want to answer any other questions, but just hours later, we ran into him by chance at a rest stop on the way back to West Palm Beach. He wanted to do an interview and show us a sign he made for Clinton.
“Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,” he said.
We asked what went into his decision to go to the event right near Orlando, where the Pulse Nightclub shooting happened.
“I spoke a lot about that and wish that my son joined the Army and fought ISIS. That would be much better,” he said.
When questioned whether Clinton’s campaign knew he was going to the event and sitting directly behind the presidential candidate, Mateen said, ” It’s a Democratic party, so everyone can join.”
Finally we asked if he thought some people would be surprised to see him there, especially given the proximity to Orlando.
“Why should they be surprised? I love the United States, and I’ve been living here a long time,” Mateen said.
Posted inHillary Clinton|Comments Off on Orlando shooter’s father attends Hillary Clinton rally in Kissimmee – Seddique Mateen seen sitting right behind Clinton
The Washington Post nails it: “Every Republican who has bucked Trump can be pretty easily categorized. A clear pattern emerges: The less directly and immediately accountable to Republican base voters an elected official is, the more likely he or she is to break with Trump.”
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Which Republicans Are Breaking Up With Trump?
BBC: A Chinese tourist spent nearly two weeks in a German migrant hostel after mistakenly applying for asylum when he actually wanted to report a theft.
German media say the 31-year-old backpacker, who spoke neither German nor English, underwent a medical check and his fingerprints were taken.
A Red Cross worker later found out that the man’s wallet had been stolen in Stuttgart. But instead of going to the police the man registered as a migrant.
A Mandarin speaker solved the puzzle.
The translator was found at a Chinese restaurant near the migrant hostel where the tourist was staying, in Duelmen, near the west German city of Dortmund.
‘Very helpless’
In early July the tourist arrived at the hostel on a bus with migrants, from Dortmund.
“He was so different from the others. Very, very helpless,” said Red Cross worker Christoph Schluetermann.
A translation app confirmed Mr Schluetermann’s suspicions that the tourist had got entangled in the asylum system by mistake.
“It came up with phrases like ‘I want to go on a trip abroad’,” he said. It emerged that the tourist had plans to visit Italy and France.
The man, from northern China, had calmly allowed the authorities to take away his passport and visa, and take his fingerprints…
According to German broadcaster WDR, the man did not get angry but left Germany saying simply that he had imagined Europe to be quite different.
Posted inChina, Germany|Comments Off on Error puts Chinese tourist in German migrant hostel
The MSM’s onslaught against whites is relentless. I bet Israel does not bemoan Israeli TV series with Jewish leads. I bet Japan does not bemoan TV series with Japanese leads.
Los Angeles Times: “Few of its fall programs in the past decade have featured a minority actor in a starring role. In its current lineup, the network has the lowest number of minority leads among broadcast networks — three — and is the only broadcast network to not have a series built around a family of color.
In contrast, ABC, NBC and Fox are each launching at least one series this fall with a person of color as the lead, further expanding their already more diverse gallery of stars.
Acknowledging CBS’ shortfall of nonwhite leads in the new shows that will kick off its fall season, CBS Entertainment President Glenn Geller maintained that diversity has been and remains a priority.”
Posted inAmerica, Hollywood|Comments Off on LAT: Six new CBS series, six white male leads. With prime-time diversity growing, how did the network fall behind?
No living journalist has ever seen a major party nominee put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies, openly fight with the family of a fallen American soldier, or entice Russia to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking his opponent…
Gosh, I really feel for journalists. Must be tough. Poor things. Maybe they should quit and get other jobs? How awful they have to cover an exciting and unprecedented political season.
So what exactly is so horrible about covering a politician who puts financial conditions on the US defense of NATO allies? Why should journalists be emotionally involved on that score? Why do they feel the need to defend NATO against all questioning? What makes NATO sacred to journalists? Why is no questioning of NATO allowed in the MSM?
No politician has ever tangled with the family of a fallen American soldier? What makes a family with a dead soldier out of bounds for tangling? Just because a family lost a soldier does not make them great. On what basis would it? Because they have suffered? Suffering does not necessarily make people any better or wiser. It does not necessarily bestow anything but suffering. People who survived the Holocaust or any genocide are not automatically moral exemplars.
Donald Trump did not entice Russia to hack his opponent. Hillary’s email server is no more. It was destroyed a long time. How could anyone hack it?
“And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new — two words: Southern strategy — overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.”
So what? Covering something new is emotionally uncomfortable for journalists? Well, maybe they should become insurance adjusters. I am amused that Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times considers it hazardous duty for an American journalist to cover something new.
The role of the MSM in Jim Rutenberg’s view is to enforce political correctness and to enforce the worldview of the globalist elite by punishing and blacklisting those who question globalist assumptions.
If Jim Rutenberg and American journalists have so decisively chosen a side (the globalist side) and then devote all their resources to pushing one particular point of view, then they become legitimate targets for those with differing opinions. The MSM is our enemy.
“If you have a nominee who expresses warmth toward one of our most mischievous and menacing adversaries, a nominee who shatters all the norms about how our leaders treat families whose sons died for our country, a nominee proposing to rethink the alliances that have guided our foreign policy for 60 years, that demands coverage — copious coverage and aggressive coverage,” said Carolyn Ryan, The New York Times’s senior editor for politics.
What was Barack Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world? In particular to Iran? Was that not outreach to an adversary? Who exactly can you reach out to but adversaries. There’s no need to reach out to friends.
Obama’s Iran deal received praise and fawning coverage in the MSM. In their view, the Muslim adversary deserves outreach.
What families with dead soldier were shattered by Donald Trump? The Khan family attached Donald Trump and he responded. He should not respond to their criticism? He should ignore it. What exactly is so horrible about rethinking America’s alliances to make sure that they still serve America? You can tell that what is in America’s interest is not the concern of the MSM. They find it offensive to put America first. So who exactly do they want Americans to put first?
I wonder if the New York Times has a dog in these fights? From today’s nytimes.com:
Are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year?
My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.
This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.
To take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked the Russians to commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from the fact that Trump was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so how would revealing them endanger “national security”? Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically. A New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that “the Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to conclude from this description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary?
The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats. Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to silence NBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role in the primaries. The emails have headings like “This must stop.” Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd agreed to act as a go-between, even arranging a call between Wasserman Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises the question: Why was a major media figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign?
The DNC emails also show that Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sent his copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to the DNC’s national press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to publication. Politico has since apologized, but Vogel has his defenders. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple said Vogel’s “prepublication generosity” was meant to give “the people you’re writing about … the opportunity to rebut all relevant claims in a story.” One wonders if the Washington Post does this for the Trump campaign. Somehow I doubt it.
Since last summer, Politico has been vehemently anti-Trump, and it’s only getting more extreme. It’s run several stories linking Trump to Vladimir Putin: “Why Russia is Rejoicing Over Trump,” “GOP Gobsmacked by Trump’s Warm Embrace of Putin,” “Donald Trump Heaps More Praise on Vladimir Putin” — and dozens of similar articles. The gist of these pieces is that Trump’s stated desire to “get along with Putin,” and his comments on the costs imposed by our membership in NATO, mean that Trump is essentially an agent of a foreign power. A recent article by Katie Glueck on Trump’s hacking joke said that Trump “appeared to align himself with Russia over his Democratic opponent” — as if he were a kind of Manchurian candidate.
Of course, Politico is not alone in what was once called red-baiting. The Atlantic also weighed in with Jeffrey Goldberg’s “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” and a Franklin Foer story in Slate was headlined “The Real Winner of the RNC: Vladimir Putin.” This coverage smacks of the sort of McCarthyism that we haven’t seen in this country since the most frigid years of the Cold War.
Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.
Posted inJournalism|Comments Off on NYT: Balance, Fairness and a Proudly Provocative Presidential Candidate
Steve Sailer writes: “…Indians are enamored of some aspects of their British colonial heritage, such as P.G. Wodehouse comic novels, but not Britain’s sporting tradition. In the past, you’d see a few rich Indian sportsmen, like Vijay Amritraj, who was one of the world’s better tennis players in the early 1970s, or diaspora Indians like golfer Vijay Singh, who briefly deposed Tiger Woods as the world’s #1 golfer in 2004.”
“Sports are more or less pretend war, and India is the probably the least warlike place on earth.
It would be interesting to explore whether India’s lack of enthusiasm for violence helps explain its problems banging up against the Malthusian ceiling.”
Comments:
* South Asians (Indians, Paks, Banglas) do very poorly in sports in the UK too.
For example, “football” (soccer) is the most popular sport in the UK. Yet there are hardly any professional soccer players of South Asian descent in the UK.
* Make cricket an olympic sport and they will at least make an effort.
* Here’s a study done on a multiethnic group of college students in Texas.
Of all races, Indians had the highest fat % and lowest lean mass. Athletes need to have low fat % and high lean mass.
* Here’s a study that measured aerobic fitness among British children.
The study found that Indians, Paks, and Banglas had a lower mean (less aerobically fit) than White youths. Blacks had a higher mean (more aerobically fit).
* ‘Valuing education’ doesn’t seem to stop the East Asians or middle-class whites from high achievement in sports.
Other commenters have already mentioned the two most important factors:
1. The only sport they care about is cricket (although given their population they still underperform in that. Ps I’m Australian).
2. Indians have the least fast-twitch muscle fibre of any ethnic group. Anyone who has spent time around them would not doubt this for a second.
* You’d think though that with almost a billion people-just by accident something might happen…
Posted inIndia|Comments Off on BBC: “Why Is India So Bad at Sport?”
* Fareed Zakaria was the son of the number 2 person behind only Indira Gandhi in the ruling Congress Party of India. A friend who worked with Fareed recalls him as a Princeling of Privilege in personal behavior. But, Zakaria is officially Asian in the U.S., so the concept of privilege can’t possibly apply to him.
* Fareed Zakaria has repeatedly gotten away with plagiarism. Zakaria and Brett Stevens were also dead wrong about Iraq, but their careers were never impacted. Some would say that’s privilege.
* “It’s basically increasingly a vision of the privileges of a white ethnic bloc who he is speaking to,” Stephens said of the Trump campaign. “If the Republican party essentially becomes the white party, it is going to be the death of it.”
Sean Hannity Bludgeons Wall Street Journal Editor Bret Stephens As ‘Arrogant Elitist’
Sean Hannity is ripping into Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens.
Iraq War artifact Stephens, who staunchly defends George W. Bush and Bill Kristol’s nation-building experiment, is a pillar of the exiled Republican Establishment.
“Fox News’ dumbest anchor had a message for y’all,” Stephens tweeted, slamming Hannity for saying he was “sick and tired” of Republicans for going on and on about how upset they are over Donald Trump’s feud with Saudi-connected DNC speaker Khizr Khan.
Hannity is punching back at Stephens and it’s one of his most scathing comebacks since he went after Alec Baldwin’s divorce on radio many years ago. But Hannity’s punches at Stephens are much more significant, because they represent something very real that is happening in the Republican Party right now.
“He is a typical arrogant elitist who is incapable of understanding the plight of millions upon millions of Americans in poverty, on food stamps and out of the labor force,” Hannity told Breitbart News, referring to Stephens.
“He is incapable of recognizing the danger of record debt and deficits and unfunded liabilities. He is incapable of recognizing the danger of open borders and refugees that are not properly vetted,” Hannity continued.
With Roger Ailes out at Fox News, and Megyn Kelly and the Murdoch kids still in, the situation over there kind of resembles the Battle of Gallipoli.
Hannity’s career transcended that of his onetime sparring partner Alan Colmes when he scored the 9 pm hour by himself in 2009. He was one of Ailes’ favorite dependable anchors. As Fox News went hard in the #NeverTrump direction this election cycle, Hannity kept the pro-Trump audience from completely abandoning Fox in primetime.
Now, Hannity is defining his place in the new Republican Party, where the Drudge Report, Breitbart News, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh were placed on Conservative Movement blacklists during the darkest days of the Great Trump-Cruz War.
The new Republican style has been called “populism through vulgarity.” Maybe that’s fitting in some cases, like the term “cucking,” which is now used casually and publicly by the likes of Edward Snowden over in Russia. But the vulgarity, while fun, masks the deeper importance of this stage of the GOP Civil War.
Some like Bill Kristol are hoping for a Hillary win so that those globalist special interests can come back and re-corrupt the party after November. Bill, son of Irving, was caught leaning up against a wall at the Cleveland Ritz-Carlton pretending to talk on his cell phone so he could spy on Matthew Boyle, Patrick Howley, and Milo Yiannopoulos at our convention.
Hannity is making it known that he stands with the Populist Nationalist Champions of the New and Better Republican Party Borne in Cleveland That Will Reign Supreme For Years To Come.
“He is incapable of understanding the danger of electing a president who refuses to say the words ‘radical Islam,’ who supports the Iranian deal that gives the number one state sponsor of terrorism $150 billion and the right to move forward with its nuclear program,” Hannity pressed on in conversation with Breitbart News, referring to Stephens.
“He is an elitist who refuses to recognize that weak, spineless, feckless, visionless Republicans who abandoned every promise they ever made, and every principle they ever espoused, helped facilitate the entire Obama agenda,” Hannity stated for the record.
“He deserves Hillary’s Supreme Court selections. He deserves the unvetted refugees living next door to him. He deserves the economy in decline that will continue, and he deserves the consequences of a foreign policy predicated on appeasement.”
* I have it on reasonably good authority that Stephens was recently heard to boast of an income of $800,ooo/year. That’s not elite, no!
I would bet that no more–and possibly even less–than $200,000 of that comes from the Journal. The rest, according to Stephens’ boast, is steered to him by various neocon financiers in the form of speaking engagements and such.
Stephens’ claim that he wishes he had been born into Trump’s wealth is nonsense. To maintain that wealth and build it up, as Trump did, he would have had to learn a real business and work very hard. Instead, for $800K, he writes a once/week column and gives speeches. I’d rather have that than get rich working hard in real estate. And so would Stephens.
* Stephens has engaged in a twitter conflict with Sean Hannity for the last week. And it’s kind of typical of the split between goodwhites and badwhites; a rich Manhattan prep school elitist looking down his nose at a middle class Irish kid from Long Island.
* Stephens said he wished he was born into a rich family entrenched in New York real estate and the privileges that comes along with that. Instead, he said, he “started at the bottom” and any achievements he has made were based on merit.
* Anyone who has been in a large successful business knows this is a specious claim. I’m sure many readers know of someone who inherited money and/or a successful business, and promptly lost it all. If Walt Disney had handed the keys to Disney to his nephew Roy, Disney Enterprises would be gone by now.
I’m just as certain that readers know of someone who “started from nothing,” who made their fortune while functioning as a sociopath.
Simply because you made your fortune from nothing doesn’t imply you’re a good or stable person. Often that person will have a very narrow field of talents related to his business. Also, simply because you inherit money doesn’t follow that maintaining, much less growing that fortune isn’t a major existential challenge for the inheritor in itself.
Particularly, any reader here with significant real estate holdings knows that if you don’t have your act together, you can lose that real estate very quickly. Simply maintaining and managing a large holding in real estate would be an ass-kicker for most people.
Most people could not function as the leader of the Trump organization, if you handed it to them. They would be under their desks in a fetal position in a week.
So, let’s put this aspect of the “privilege” argument away for good. It’s just stupid, and the life of that argument depends on the ignorance of the audience.
* When was The Republican Party ever not the White party? Mitt Romney did not win a single Black vote in cities like Cleveland and Philadelphia.
Never Trumpers act like the GOP used to be as racially diverse as that 1970s “I’d Like To Buy The World A Coke” commercial.
* Far from the death of the Republican party, a move to garner 70% + of the white vote spells victory after victory. Once the demographics can be stabilized and enhanced, there will be no need for a white party and we can get back to a situation where ideology or issues rather than identity rules the ballot box.
By privilege, Stephens means identity. I wish whites had the privilege of secure borders and freedom from race replacement, taken for granted by the vast majority of non-white countries.
* Didn’t Bret Stephens attend an exclusive international school for rich expat kids in Mexico City?
Also, doesn’t he claim membership in an exclusive clan that was gifted a very valuable piece of real estate on the eastern Mediterranean–on the backs of working Americans and flyover country White soldiers?
You really can’t make this stuff up. The chutzpah…
* “The white party.” Is that anything like the Goy party?
* When Stephens was editor of The Jerusalem Post, I wonder if he wrote editorials against Jewish privilege?
Actually, I don’t wonder. I know he didn’t.
* Stephens’ Wikipedia page says that “he was raised in Mexico City, where his father worked.” That, together with the fact that Stephens’ column (“Global View”) is so regularly focused on the national security of Israel, helps fill out the picture. Being raised among globetrotting elite in Mexico City, educated among the elite in New England, at U of C, at LSE, and working at Jerusalem Post and WSJ, all suggest a man who may be elite, but is certainly global in focus.
Stephens misleadingly implies that he came up hard, conveniently ducking the question of his real ‘global view’. He also changes the focus by implicitly accusing Trump supporters of class warfare and envy of Stephens’ hard-earned success.
Nonsense. Only Democrats care how much Bret Stephens makes; Trump voters are concerned with his vision for American citizens and government as expressed in his column and TV appearances, and the underlying reasons for that vision.
* I attended UofC at around the same time as Stephens and remember that he did a senior paper with historian Charles Gray, husband of UofC president Hanna Holborn Gray (I remember that because I was waiting in a hallway while Gray and Stephens were talking). Charles Gray, as far as I remember, probably had trouble getting five students to attend his courses, so he was not a natural choice of advisor. It occurred to me later that Hanna Gray had lots of connections (according to Wikipedia, she has been on the board of Harvard, Yale, the Smithsonian Institution, JP Morgan Chase, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Concord Coalition, the Mayo Clinic, and the Brookings Institution) and therefore was probably the most valuable contact he could have made in college. He was cultivating important connections from the beginning.
* How far into the elite bubble does one have to be to think one can be the son of a chemical company executive, and attend Middlesex School, and think it passes a laugh test to say that one isn’t an elite and has “started at the bottom”?
These people would die of shock if some force were to impose on them a single minute of genuine self awareness.
* I don’t necessarily begrudge wealthy and powerful people their wealth and power but I do get tired of them constantly publishing books and giving speeches about how they started from the bottom and worked hard(er than the rest of us) and deserve every penny of it. It reeks of insecurity when you aren’t content with your nice life but have to justify it to everyone.
At a lower level, I’ve noticed a Lake Woebegone effect among Silents/Boomers where almost all of them will claim that they grew up poor, but when you press them on what “poor” actually means, it turns out to be something like living on a tobacco farm with married parents, not being the bastard of a crack addicted single mother who can’t even hold down a job at the Taco Bell.
* Thing is, white trash–ie., lower-class whites if you want to be noninsulting–still has the right to representation in a democracy, and to having their interests represented in any case.
You have a situation where the left has completely turned its back on a group of poor people. And, well, what sort of left are they then?
* Giving speeches has become a very acceptable form of bribery.
It’s quite odd that no one seems to notice. Oh wait, it’s not that odd at all since anyone noticing would cut themselves off from the trough.
* They’re not so guilty as to invite anyone and everyone into their country. In Israel, there’s a limit to the stupidity. However, Jews are more than happy to give drinks to the drunk in the U.S. and Europe.
* Should white trash be allowed to vote?
Should any candidate be allowed to solicit their vote?
* But Stephen’s grandmother (or grandfather, I forget which) hung out with Leon Trotsky in Mexico. Why was I not surprised to read this?
* Considering that the first Trump to start piling up the cash was Frederick Trump the grandfather, it’s quite unusual for Donald to be much wealthier than his grandfather, much less his father. By the third generation, most dynasties have squandered their wealth unless the original cash generator was careful to tie it up inside trusts to prevent the capital from being spent.
Even with trusts, most descendants end up in philanthropist mode instead of wealth-generator mode, and trust payouts often end up supporting liberal political candidates like Hillary Clinton, or paying for the fat salaries of charity administrators who have to keep the priming the cash pump by hobnobbing, expensive dinners, and ego-massaging.
* The question is *WHY* is an explicitly White party bad? No one complains that say, Blacks are explicitly pro-Black, Hispanics pro-Hispanic, only, and that the Democratic Party is a “No White Men Allowed” party.
Heartiste noted that the Dems are Blacks pretty much, and the Republicans absent Trump are mostly weasely cucks like Paul Ryan who are not only anti-White but lacking any masculine presence. For better and worse, masculine White men like Ike, Reagan, LBJ, and Clinton are gone out of both parties.
IMHO the anti-White (male only, you don’t see it with anti-White women) attitude is deeply organic; and part and parcel of the elite class gender resentment, i.e. Upper Class White women deeply resent their male counterparts.
That’s why you see “White Privilege” stuff — it comes from Elite women those in Stephen’s life who bitterly resent the White lower classes and no doubt various men around them. The ugly thing of Affirmative Action is that it incentives Upper Class White women to defenestrate White men so they have a chance to move up.
* Any time you hear this word “privilege,” you should know that whoever is using it is appealing to the envy within human beings, ie the ugliest aspect of human nature, and they are therefore detestable slime. They get people all riled up, instead of inspiring them and uplifting them, they appeal to that little cretin inside them that says, “Why I don’t got what he got?” Grow the f*** up you little babies.
* Moribund Comedy Central has picked up a few skits by the infamous Sam Hyde, a decidedly un-PC/ unhinged comedian. He is the first HBD comedian.
Here is Sam Hyde’s stand-up in 2015 on the migrant crisis performed in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He ends on a funny Clock Boy bit.
* As a brown man, the only group I am allowed to make snarky comments about, insult and lampoon with no adverse consequences whatsoever is that of white men. I call that ‘brown privilege.’
* I support the man who won the primary for my party’s nomination – Donald Trump – regardless of what I think of him. Win or lose, I pledged to support the victor of the primary in the general election against the true political enemy, the Democrats. I am dismayed that many Republicans seem to be throwing a tantrum about Trump like little children who are miffed because their friend beat them at playing marbles or something. They are being petty, vindictive, and, worse, self-destructive.
* Reminds me of Gavin Newsome’s claim that he can relate to the peasantry because he too was raised by a single mother. He said this on the Adam Carolla show, but forgot to mention who his father was: Chief In-House Counsel for Getty Oil. These people are unbelievable.
Fareed passionately believes that the decline of working class Whites is inevitable and a result of their White Privilege. Furthermore, Fareed is certain that there is nothing that Trump can do to stop the decline. Nice message from our global overlords.
Why is this guy in our country again? Why is he featured on CNN? It certainly can’t be because of his looks. What is going on here?
One thing that Fareed is right about is that the decline of White Americans can only be compared to the demographic decline that occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union. Interesting that the social collapse of Russia after the passing of the USSR was overseen by the Council of Foreign Relations, and of course, Fareed is a CFR poster boy. It’s almost as if there is plan to these sorts of things.
Here is Putin discussing Trump with Fareed and putting the CFR lackey in his place.
Who will be America’s Putin?
* Last official count put Whites as 62% of the U.S. population. As Steve has mentioned, that number includes Middle Easterners and Indian/Pakis. Moreover, that number doesn’t take into account the vast number of illegal aliens that have slipped through the official cracks. We are lucky to be 55% of the U.S.A. God help us.
* Greg Cochran: I remember Bret Stephens and some friends explaining that “real Americans” were those that believed in the right propositions, and might come from anywhere – while if you had wrong thoughts, say not being enthusiastic about the Iraq War, coming from a family that had fought for this country for 200 years – in the Revolution, at Vicksburg, in Normandy, at Leyte Gulf – meant nothing, and less than nothing. Apparently he and his friends get to decide which propositions are currently mandatory.
I believe that he was mistaken, and would greatly enjoy having half an hour alone with him to to explain just why.
Michael Phelps may be the greatest Olympian the world has ever known but for CNN host W. Kamau Bell, he is just a “tall, successful, rich white guy” who clearly didn’t “need the honor” of being chosen by his athlete peers as America’s flag-bearer. Instead, Bell exclaims, Ibtihaj Muhammad, a woman, an African-American and a Muslim to boot, should have been chosen because “right now America has enough tall, successful, rich white guys hogging the spotlight trying to make America great.”
* In Newspeak, “privilege” does not mean what it used to mean. “Privilege” is a negative label that you try to stick on your enemies, like racist. You would never claim privilege for yourself. Privilege is a hereditary status that your enemies receive at birth by virtue of being a white male. They can’t get rid of it unless they cut off their man parts or at least declare themselves openly gay. Goodwhites like Timmy Kaine, if they dedicate their life to the advancement of non-whites, may overcome privilege but will always remain suspect. Another way to overcome privilege is to compete for victim status – yes you were born in great wealth but you came from a broken home, are now a recovered drug addict, etc.
Non-white immigrants like Zakaria, even if they are born in great wealth and high status in their native society, are never privileged, just as they can never be racist, by definition. Likewise, women, even white women, are not privileged even if they are wives of Presidents who have been chauffeured from place to place for decades so that they never have to do anything dirty like drive a car. If a woman becomes a man, she is still transgendered and as an LGBT retains her non-privileged status.
Once you understand the new meaning and framework for “privilege”, answering questions about relative privilege become easy to analyze. In future America, any 4th grader will be able to tell you instantly, just as they can conjugate verbs in their native language without having received formal grammar instruction. Only clueless old people will be confused, just like you can never get videos to play on your smartphone.
This works exactly the same way as being from the “landlord class” worked in Maoist China. This is nothing new. The only new thing is that Maoism has come to America.
* Bret Stephens and his ilk just make me sick. Lecturing, hectoring, yap, yap, yap, but nothing but parasites on the body of the nation. The nation doesn’t need his type–he adds nothing. But he nonetheless lives high on the hog because this is a white built\run nation–well ordered, prosperous–while he scratches away at the nation’s fabric and makes is worse.
Furthermore his ideology–and i get that for him there a “what’s good for the Jews” component–makes no long run sense. What exactly is this “conservatism” that he’s upholding?
“Conservatism” is supposed to mean *conserving* something. That inherently means the culture, the ways of doing things, which inherently means the people. Sure, i’m for constitutional limited government. I want good roads and honest courts of law, but i’m *viscerally* hostile to the government sicking its nose into every aspect of my business. Much less having one *national* government doing it. Much less having a Protestant church lady from hell like harpy Hillary with state power to make me behave as she wants. (That’s some circle of hell.)
But those notions of republican “limited government” and “federalism” are Anglo-Saxon in derivation. That visceral feeling of being an independent free man and not looking at the state as a big patronage machine doling out gimme-dats is essentially a *white* thing. It doesn’t pop out of thin air, it comes from the white people who conquered and settled America. When Bret has finally consigned us evil white folks to being a minority in our nation, what’s the actual constituency for these “conservative” principles? Uh …
And that’s not even getting to the notion, that his new America with it’s rambunctious Muslim minority might not be as congenial a spot for old Bret–Bret’s children and grandchildren–as the old “racist”, white guys with pickups, America. But, of course, if it’s no longer so comfy and prosperous, Brett’s kin will just hop on to some other place to loot. It’s my descendants that will be stuck in a crappy Brazillified America.
* The entirety of Trump’s recent poor showing in the polls is due to his support dropping among whites, in particular white women.
Much is made of the changing ethnic demographics causing the country to lean left but the reality is the country started drifting left when women were given the right to vote. Come this November they look to finish the job.
* A friend of mine is very good friends with Hannity. They were best friends in High School (a Long Island Catholic seminary high school. Yes, Hannity went to a seminary.) After college Hannity was working in California, I believe, doing exactly what you describe, hanging dry-wall. He used to listen to these local talk-radio bull-shitters while working and said, “I can do that shit as well as they can…”. The rest, as is said, is history. He just went around sending letters knocking on doors, trying to reach programming managers at radio stations. I think he got his break at a station in Atlanta.
* Middlesex is actually a very interesting school: founded only in 1901, its origins are secular, at a time when to proclaim oneself such was a very definite statement of intent. From the beginning it attracted the sons of the best Wasp families, but only those who were lukewarm about religion. (Amusingly the Wasp to end all Wasps, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr, graduated from Middlesex, but only after having first attended St Albans in Washington DC, at the time perhaps the most firmly Episcopalian boarding school of them all).
It also attracted Jews, at a time when only a vanishingly small number of Jews were to be found at any of the other great boarding schools. The building housing its books is the Warburg Library, named for its donor, alumnus Edward Warburg of the great merchant banking family
This last point may have something to do with Stevens’ family choosing it for their little brat of a son.
Am I the only one to notice how very un-semitic Steven’s features are? I remain convinced that a lot of these “Jews” aren’t really, or at least not exclusively.
Jewishness is the real privilege with clout these days: is it surprising that the occasional sly non-Jew would try to take advantage of that?
* Brett’s kin will just hop on to some other place to loot
If this is the plan of the evil Joos (and it ain’t) then it’s a lousy one. Calling leaving the only country you have ever known (and probably leaving all your property and some of your blood behind) a “hop” is like calling the American Civil War the “Recent Unpleasantness”. American Jews are first and foremost Americans and have no desire to live anywhere else (INCLUDING Israel) because if they did, they would already be living there. Would some small lucky % of American Jews land on their feet? Sure, just like Judah Benjamin became an English barrister after his side lost the Civil War, but most would pay a high price. Ask any of the Syrian refugees what’s it’s like to “hop” to a new country where your degree is no good and you don’t speak the language, etc.
* The newest pro-open borders Never Trump shill is a Mormon from Utah named Evan McMullin.
He is running for POTUS even though it is already too late for him to get on the ballot in most states.
The Never Trump Movement among Republicans are disproportionately made up of Mormons.
It makes sense that most Mormons are pro-open borders, because their religion is small and they are trying to grow their religuous base.
Mormons are huge on trying to convert people to their religion and they are known for knocking on people’s doors just like Jehovah’s Witnesses.
WASP Mormons see Asians and Latinos as natural potential future Mormons. They see these people as being open to accepting Joseph Smith into their hearts.
Joseph Smith was a scam artist just like L. Ron Hubbard.
* …for some Jews their visceral impulses dominate serious logical thinking about their actual long term interests. No outgroup has *ever* been treated better than the Jews by American Protestants. Yet there are Jews who can find just amazing stuff to whine about–for example that Protestants didn’t *immediately* turn over the universities that they had built to the Jews, but slapped on a quota to keep them as Protestant institutions. The horror! Entirely normal and reasonable and Jews whine about it. (They could of course have built their own damn universities like the Catholics, but they’d rather bitch and moan about how unfair whitey is.) But i freely admit, i don’t have deep insight into the psychology of Jews here.
As a gentile i’m much more tuned in to the motivations behind the pathology of my fellow gentiles. For instance, from being scoutmaster of my son’s troop, i know a couple white Christian families raising black kids–when they could have spent the time\money raising more of their own. Biologically … it’s nuts! But i understand their motivations. They are sincere Christians, doing their Christian duty. The motivation is an over-the-top Christian universalism. But Jews are not, let’s admit, adopting a bunch of black kids or out running missions in Africa. Jews are *not* actual universalists. Their identity is tribal–their religion a tribal religion. Jewish immigration love does not come from some impulse that we’re all one big happy family … because they explicitly reject that notion. Rather it seems to come more from hostility to majority white gentile populations preserving themselves and a desire to have more balkanized environment to operate in.
But i leave parsing through precise Jewish psychological motivations in pushing destructive–long run self-destruction–immigration policies to Jews. Jack, an *honest* thorough grappling with this from a smart Jewish guy like yourself would be actually interesting.
* I don’t know anything really about this Stephens guy but since he apparently comes from an upper middle class background (but likes to deny this), his class interests would seem to lead him into the milquetoast political discourse he prefers.
He might like the intellectual stimulation of political debate and the status of being paid to write about it on the WSJ op-ed page, but does he really have any incentive to go all in and argue the hardball side of politics on the national stage like Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan?
No matter how politics develops in the US over the next few decades, his family line is probably rather securely ensconced in the upper middle for at least two or three generations into the future.
Why would he choose to do the tightrope dance people like Coulter and Buchanan have to do 24/7 for flouting the PC rules and trying to describe the cut-throat tribal nature of politics that lurks just below the surface? Better to keep his easy friendly relations he no doubt has with various members of various groups who might be upset by any straying from PC politics and as for his deeper friendships which I’m sure overwhelmingly are with those who share his upper middle background, it isn’t like they’re going to give him any grief for keeping his politics well within the bland ranges.
* The dominant demographic in the Diaspora ,i.e. secular Ashkenazi New Class types, is just as Leftist in Israel.
You mean they welcome mass non-jewish immigration and are sanguine about–nay actively work toward–disintegrating Israel’s jewish majority?
* My impression from Yglesias’s twitter feed is that he’s pretty based these days, but, sensibly enough, isn’t going to risk his patriarchal obligations to make that explicit.
Posted inAmerica, Jews|Comments Off on Who Is More Privileged: Trump, Stephens, or Zakaria?
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
