TabletMag: HOW JEWS SHOULD DEAL WITH GENTILES – According to this week’s ‘Daf Yomi’ Talmud study, as little as possible

Adam Kirsch writes:

The nominal subject of Tractate Avoda Zara is idol worship, one of the worst sins in Judaism. But as Daf Yomi readers complete our third week of studying this tractate, it is becoming clear that the real concerns of the rabbis are much broader than idolatry. In effect, they are aiming to regulate all of Jews’ relationships with non-Jews. Nowhere, perhaps, is the gulf between the Talmudic worldview and the experience of modern American Jews more evident than here. American Jews live in a world that, while certainly not free of anti-Semitism, is marked by a historically unprecedented openness and trust between Jews and non-Jews. After all, this is a country where President Barack Obama, a Christian, hosted an annual Passover Seder in the White House…

Such stories tend to suggest that the safest course for Jews was to avoid gentiles altogether, and Tractate Avoda Zara clearly uses idol worship as an excuse to separate the Jews from the pagan world that surrounded them. It is not just heresy the rabbis want to stamp out—indeed, actual idol worship seems to be the least of their worries—but excessive intimacy of any kind. We saw earlier that Jews could not do business with gentiles near their festival days, nor sell them items that might be used in pagan rituals. The mishna in Avoda Zara 14b goes further: a Jew should not sell gentiles large livestock because they will be used to violate the Shabbat prohibition on labor.

More troublingly, Jews should not leave small animals alone with gentiles, or entrust their sheep to gentile shepherds, because they are likely to use them to commit bestiality—a law that speaks volumes about the rabbis’ estimation of pagan morals. In addition, a Jew should not entrust his child to a gentile teacher “to teach him to read books or to teach him a craft.” It is not entirely clear whether this prohibition, too, stems from sexual fears, or whether it has more to do with the chance that the teacher will lead the child into apostasy. Broadly speaking, “one may not seclude oneself with gentiles,” since the assumption is that they will try to do a Jew harm.

Other prohibitions are meant to discourage social intercourse with gentiles. Jews may not go to places of amusement, such as circuses, theaters, and stadiums, for two reasons: not only are pagan sacrifices performed there, but they are what the Bible calls “the seat of the scornful,” homes of levity and frivolity. Any time spent there is time lost to Torah study. Moreover, Jews should not praise gentiles, especially women; according to Rav, “it is prohibited for a person to say: How beautiful is this gentile woman!”

Posted in Jews, Talmud | Comments Off on TabletMag: HOW JEWS SHOULD DEAL WITH GENTILES – According to this week’s ‘Daf Yomi’ Talmud study, as little as possible

The JQ in the GOP

David Cole is not able to point out where Paul Nehlen is wrong so he just calls him “obsessed”.

Whenever I encounter that word flung as an accusation, I suspect the accuser has no factual or logical basis to attack someone, so they go for a cheap psychological put down.

People have called me obsessed for decades. I think I’m diligent about topics that interest me. Who’s to decide between obsession and diligence?

I’ve been following Nehlen with interests the past few weeks. I don’t see any anti-Jewish animus from him. I simply see a guy who notices patterns and calls a spade a spade. He hasn’t done anything to reduce my admiration and my friends on the Jewish Alt Right feel similarly.

David Cole writes: “Nehlen is obsessed with Jews. Everyone who criticizes him gets attacked for being a Jew or a lackey of Jews. Just a few days ago, Nehlen tweeted out an “enemies list” to prove that “the Jews” are out to get him (he included the email addresses and, in some cases, phone numbers of the people on the list). He’s also tweeted photos of Jews with the Star of David stamped above their foreheads.”

I didn’t find any useful insights in this Cole column. YMMV.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on The JQ in the GOP

NYT: What Trump’s Speech Says About His Mental Fitness

John McWhorter writes:

However, the distinction between public and private speech is key here, so I am unconvinced that his current speech patterns can be analyzed as evidence of dementia. Instead, they’re characteristics of casual speech as it has always existed.

It is easy to forget how much casual speech in general differs from writing. We tend to imagine our speech is tidier than it often is. The complete sentences and logical throughlines of writing are a stylization of speech, rather than a mirror image…

The younger Mr. Trump, albeit as self-obsessed as now, was not yet a rock star, and he had a businessman’s normal inclination to present himself in as polished a manner as possible in public settings. Especially as someone who grew up in the 1950s, when old-school standards of oratory were still part of the warp and woof of American linguistic culture, Mr. Trump instinctually talked “up” when the cameras were rolling. To him, cloaking his speech in its Sunday best would have been part of, as it were, being a gentleman.

However, for him this would always have been more stunt than essence. Since he is someone who neither reads nor reflects, his linguistic comfort zone has always been the unadorned.

At a certain point, Mr. Trump became the man who felt – and was comfortable saying publicly – that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and retain his supporters’ allegiance. Someone with that mind-set, especially a sybaritic person unaccustomed to sustained effort, has no impetus to speak in a way unnatural to him in public.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on NYT: What Trump’s Speech Says About His Mental Fitness

White Nationalism Is Spreading In The Orthodox Community

Listen.

Anti-Trump activist Elad Nahori writes for the Forward:

Something disturbing has been happening in the Orthodox world. White Nationalist language is infiltrating our public spaces. It’s happening in our shuls, in our communities, in our schools, and of course, online. And those of us who see it are looking on in increasing horror.

There was always some racism in our communities, of course; we’d begun to address it around the time Barack Obama was elected president, when calling black people “shvartze” — a derogatory term for a black person in Yiddish — finally started to become taboo.

But what we’re seeing now is new. It’s different. It’s not just plain racism, or hatred and judgment of a group of people because of their skin pigment. Rather, what I and others have been noticing in our communities is the emergence of a philosophy, one that the Trump era is increasingly bringing into stark relief.

It’s the philosophy of white nationalism that justifies racism, and it’s spreading like a virus among many Orthodox Jews.

Fifteen years ago, you might hear the word “schvartze” in shul. But you wouldn’t hear justifications for deporting black people to Africa. Today, you probably won’t hear a racial slur, at least, not without some sheepishness. But you will hear talking points that you could find on David Duke’s Twitter feed.

In other words, a significant group of Jews have moved from casual racism to an embrace of all-but-the-anti-Semitic aspects of modern white nationalist philosophy, with many of the assumptions and talking points that go with it.

A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump reportedly called Haiti and other countries in Africa “shithole” countries. The white nationalists crowed. “I must come to the defense of #Haiti!” tweeted Richard Spencer, a leader of the nativist “alt-right.” “It’s a potentially beautiful and productive country. The problem is that it’s filled with shithole people. If the French dominated, they could make it great again.” David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan was also thrilled. “Trump spoke Blunt, hard truth that makes PERFECT TRUTH!” he tweeted.

But they were far from alone. When I posted my dismay about Trump’s “shithole” comment on my Facebook page, I was amazed at how similar many of the pro-Trump Orthodox Jews I knew sounded compared to Spencer, Duke, and Trump himself.
As one argued, “Option A: El Salvador isn’t a ‘shithole,’ so they don’t need 17 years of Temporary Protected Status, and migrants from there should be sent home immediately. Option B: El Salvador is, in fact, a ‘shithole.’”

Another Orthodox friend, who had left South Africa for Israel, remarked, “I’m so glad I emigrated from a shithole.”

And another frum Jew wrote, “So, how many snowflakes would like to move to Haiti?”

When I facetiously wondered if that commenter also believed in “white genocide” (a term popular in the white nationalist community), the person responded: “I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t know any white supremacists, so I don’t know what they ‘sound like’. By “genocide” do you mean blacks murdering white farmers in South Africa?”

And it wasn’t just in my own orbit, either. Soon I heard from friends, liberal Orthodox Jews like me, who listened in horror as online comments were repeated in synagogue on Shabbat.

And it always boiled down to the same rationalizations, those used by Spencer and Duke: Haiti and Africa are indeed shitholes, and Trump was right not to want people from those countries.

What I learned from Trump’s “shithole” comment was that the President’s dog whistles aren’t only being heard by the “alt-right” anymore. That countries dominated by blacks are shitholes was the broad consensus, it seemed to me that weekend. Despite the concerns about Trump’s “crass” wording, far too many Orthodox Jews agreed with the content.

Was it the majority of the Orthodox world? Doubtful. But was it a portion large enough to be concerned about? Absolutely.

And those who didn’t openly agree with the racist rhetoric remained silent, choosing to celebrate the naming of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, or the release of Sholom Rubashkin, rather than call out the racism in their midst.

Similarly, our leaders maintained a stiff silence. While the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Reform movement spoke out stridently and bravely against Trump’s words, there has not been one word from the Orthodox Union or any Orthodox groups. They are no doubt afraid of the backlash of these extremists, as when Alex Rapoport’s Masbia, a soup kitchen run by an anti-Trump Hasidic Jew, lost donors when he protested the Muslim ban.

And this isn’t the first time. Since a majority of Orthodox Jews voted for Trump, they are the only group in the U.S. reporting growing approval ratings of Trump — up to 71%, according to the AJC. So approving are they that immediately following the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia and Trump’s subsequent defense of white supremacists with the claim that some neo-Nazis are “fine people”, there was the same deafening silence from Orthodox leadership, at least at first, the same defenses, and the same parroting of white nationalist talking points.

Remember the article entitled “I’m an Orthodox Jew in Israel but liberals have become so deranged with hypocrisy, I’m actually standing with the KKK on Charlottesville”?

While an outlier in its framing, this author put into words what many in his community were feeling: Ultimately, even the KKK may not be as bad as the liberal world.

Posted in Nationalism, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on White Nationalism Is Spreading In The Orthodox Community

NYT: How an Alt-Right Leader Used a Lie to Climb the Ranks

NYT: “Elliott Kline is a rising white supremacist leader. But our investigation found that his personal narrative — like much of these groups’ messaging — is built on deception.”

That Elliott Kline would so extensively cooperate with this profile while knowing his claims about service in Iraq were a lie is interesting.

New York Times:

Covering white supremacists poses difficult challenges for Times journalists. Are we simply providing a platform for them to recruit followers and spread hate? Are we casting a sympathetic light on people who should only be condemned?

We believe that reporting on racism, anti-Semitism, and the people and groups who espouse them is a crucial responsibility for journalists today.

By investigating an emerging leader in a growing extremist movement, we hope to offer Times readers and viewers a deeper understanding of the people and forces behind these groups.

I had pictured the phone call going a lot of different ways, but I hadn’t quite prepared for this.

I thought he might swear at me and then hang up. Maybe he would try to turn the conversation around, attacking me and the credibility of The New York Times. Or maybe he would become contrite and emotional, and finally answer some real questions. But I never thought he would just deny it.

As a reporter and video producer, I had been following Elliott Kline, a.k.a. Eli Mosley, for almost five months at this point. He played a key role in organizing the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., where a 32-year-old woman, Heather Heyer, was killed and about 20 others were wounded when a white nationalist drove his car through a crowd of counterprotesters.

Eli was in his mid-20s, from a middle-class suburban home, and he had led an unremarkable life, up until the Charlottesville rally launched him forward within the ranks of the loosely organized white-nationalist movement. He rose from a self-described “anonymous Twitter troll” to head of one of the largest groups in the so-called alt-right….

Like many of his peers, Eli was already using an invented name (Eli Mosley was inspired by the British fascist leader Oswald Mosley). So why not make up a few autobiographical details, especially ones to boost his reputation?

The movement itself also relies on falsehoods. It includes Holocaust deniers and pseudo-intellectuals who spout unsubstantiated theories about the science behind racial difference. In order to reach mainstream Americans, white supremacists have learned to cloak their racism in disorienting terms like “white identity politics.”

Deception is baked into the alt-right, so Eli Mosley is a perfect match for the movement.

In other words, with exceptions, the New York Times will only cover the Alt Right in ways that make it look bad.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on NYT: How an Alt-Right Leader Used a Lie to Climb the Ranks

What Makes Someone Jewish?

I just did a podcast with Jim Goad.

Posted in Jews, Personal | Comments Off on What Makes Someone Jewish?

Staying Free Of Crippling Pain Requires The Maintenance Of My Spiritual/Physical/Psychological Condition

I wrote about this six months ago.

Posted in Health | Comments Off on Staying Free Of Crippling Pain Requires The Maintenance Of My Spiritual/Physical/Psychological Condition

Israel slams ‘shameful’ former minister who endorses German far-right party

From Times of Israel:

Rafi Eitan, a former Israeli minister and the legendary spy who captured Adolf Eichmann, caused surprise and shock in Israel when he publicly endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

In a video message posted Friday on the party’s Facebook page, Eitan praised the faction, saying: “Please understand that all of us in Israel appreciate your attitude toward Judaism.”

“In any case, I’m sure that if you work wisely strongly and most important realistically… I’m sure that instead of ‘Alternative for Germany,’ you might become an alternative for all of Europe,” he said.

He also urged AfD members to close their borders “as soon as possible to prevent Muslim immigration,” in a letter that accompanied the video.

Eitan, who commanded the 1960 intelligence operation that captured Nazi war criminal, Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann in Argentina, was also the chairman of the now defunct Gil Pensioners party and pensioner affairs minister from 2006 to 2009.

Posted in Germany, Israel | Comments Off on Israel slams ‘shameful’ former minister who endorses German far-right party

Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History

Yoel Finkelman writes: 0094-0098

On rare occasions, academics manage to cross over and speak to those who live outside the ivory tower, and nobody in the contemporary Modern Orthodox intellectual scene does that better than Marc B. Shapiro. On even rarer occasions, forthcoming academic monographs elicit wide-eyed anticipation on the part of non-academic readers. Shapiro’s new book, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History, has done just that, garnering hundreds of pre-orders and a barrage of online pre-publication speculation. Shapiro has earned this well-deserved
reputation not only through impressive erudition, but also through a serious investment in teaching and writing for lay audiences, through “well attended” online courses, by leading tours of Jewish Europe, and with continual publication on the well read Seforim blog.

From the Amazon reviews:

* Interesting reading for those who want to know the politics of who controls whom.

* Paul Shaviv writes: I just spent the recent holiday weekend reading this important and fascinating (if somewhat depressing) book from cover to cover. Marc Shapiro has given us another excellent work. With meticulous documentation he shows a series of different examples of how Orthodox rabbinic works have been altered, censored and mutilated to hide what the original authors wrote or thought (or wore – it includes a few examples of doctored photos), in order to conform with later, and, inevitably, narrower opinions. By removing evidence, the effect is to delegitimize and narrow the range of opinions, beliefs, views and behaviors within the Orthodox Jewish world. Two chapters are devoted to the overall treatment of two major Orthodox thinkers – S.R. Hirsch and Rav Kook – at the hands of subsequent editors. As he points out, his examples – which are many – are, however, only a representative selection. He also discusses the Orthodox view of the “function” of history, and the notion of historical or other truth in Jewish tradition. Although this serves as an explanation of the thought-processes behind the revisionist activity, it also strongly suggest that there is an unbridgeable gap between “history” and “Orthodox ‘history'”. Marc Shapiro has the gift of being an excellent, clear and easy-to-read writer. An excellent book for anyone interested in Jewish history and trends and currents in the Orthodox world.

* Having been a reader of Marc Shapiro’s writings for about twenty years, I’ve often been made to wonder about what motivates and animates Jewish thinkers to do and say the things that they do. His current book on Jewish censorship and revisionism places the question of motivation and psychology front and center.

Shapiro is, as always, encyclopedic in the scope of the sources he brings down. His observations on some outlandish forms of Jewish censorship and revisionism are often wry and witty, with minimal personal editorial and without being either cynical or unsympathetic to the subject matter. The one possible slant to which his book lends itself, of which Shapiro himself is aware, is that in accumulating every possible example of Jewish religious censorship and revisionism one could walk away with the impression that there are no Jewish authorities that defend being sincere and transparent, which of course is not the case.

There is a certain charm to Shapiro’s writings, as in how in the midst of a much broader discussion, Shapiro will share an embarrassingly true but conveniently forgotten insight, such as the fact that over hundred years ago the majority of Jews started (and ended) Shabbos later than they do nowadays, a practice that at present is rare and is deemed scandalous.

While modern scholarship would not condone any form of censorship, when reading Shapiro one can nevertheless distinguish between more excusable forms of hiding the truth versus completely inexcusable ones. At the excusable end of the spectrum are: censoring passages from non-Jews that, if revealed, could endanger the Jewish community; hiding awkward revelations about the personal failings or peccadilloes of a religious sage, especially sexual ones; genuinely believing a falsehood, without any ulterior motive and then propagating it; censoring gratuitously abusive language between respected scholars; the altering of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook’s writings by his handlers, for fear that some of his ideas would alienate his intended readership. In all these cases we can sense the imperfect choices being presented between on the one hand being completely transparent but on the other hand wanting to either exercise common sense or display good taste.

What appears, however, to be altogether inexcusable is the constant theological posturing that goes on in the Haredi world, to give the impression of a form of religious orthodoxy that is consistent throughout all time and space. Examples where historical photos are altered to either make Orthodox women from the past appear to be dressed more modestly than they actually were or to color a skull cap onto a rabbi’s bare head are only a small sampling of it. Much larger and more damning are the chapters devoted to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and the aforementioned Rabbi Kook. While Hirsch’s philosophy and the community he advocated were forcibly made to appear more palatable to Haredi sensibilities, Kook, once the darling of the Orthodox world, had been rendered a persona non grata. This persistent practice of disfiguring history by making it more homogenous is absolute cultural vandalism. The censors in these cases have found it expedient to lie and cover up numerous facts, all in order to control the religious experience of the masses, to ensure uniform thought and practice. As Shapiro himself points out, people in power, by lying and hiding the truth, have predetermined how Judaism should have looked historically (evidence to the contrary be damned) and in the process they have chosen to be the judges over the great luminaries that preceded them.

And in no way do the Haredim have a monopoly over this sort of censorship, though they are the most persistent practitioners of it. Shapiro gives examples of censorship in other branches of Judaism. And it’s clear to any reader that rewriting the past is a standard practice in any sort of orthodoxy, whether it be political or ideological in nature, whenever the facts as they are do not conveniently corroborate what people “need” to believe at present.

Shapiro’s last chapter, which deals with the Jewish literature on when it is permissible to lie and to deceive is the most painful to read through. Shapiro frames the discussion in terms of the overarching problem: the Torah is replete with statements to the effect that it is important to be truthful and that lying is evil. Many rabbinical sermons are in fact delivered in which Judaism is couched as an unrelenting search for truth. How then to defend the frequent practice by religious publishers of deceiving their readership? The answers on the whole are of an extremely legal, technical nature, arbitrary in their application and completely inelegant. And even worse than the inorganic loopholes that various religious figures relied upon to allow themselves to be untruthful is a statement by Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler. In line with the thinking of certain secular philosophers, Dessler redefines the truth to be whatever is most expedient, whichever statement most practically achieves a desired outcome, i.e., extracting greater religious observance and devotion from the masses. The intellectual acrobatics Dessler uses to justify being deceptive come off as flippant, not too clever and disingenuous.

The notion that the greatest truth is whatever achieves a desired outcome begs the question: Isn’t there a greater truth to strive for than achieving mass obedience? Especially in an age in which orthodoxies of all sorts are on their way out, what exactly are we sacrificing in order to achieve uniform behavior? People en masse are leaving organized religion, especially Western organized religion –Judaism is being hit especially hard – and are pursuing more experiential/less dogmatic strains of spirituality such as Easter religion. There’s a good reason that Jews as a whole are over-represented among the numbers of Westerners who flock to either trendy new age spiritual movements or to Buddhism and Hinduism. Instead of addressing the spiritual poverty engendered by un-self aware orthodox dogmatism, we’re expending precious mental energy on hosting a beauty pageant of sorts, on upholding appearances of piety. In the end, Orthodox Judaism can end up becoming self selecting – retaining the traditionalists who would have naturally gravitated towards it anyway, while losing all of the sincere seekers who are genuinely curious and trying to understand.

Shapiro had me considering the subject matter from different vantage points. What, for instance, drives people to want to believe something to be true? I remember meeting a religious man a few years back, whose father was among the Jews who was saved during World War II by Sugihara, the courageous Japanese diplomat who defiantly gave out numerous visas to save Jewish lives. With complete conviction, the man related to me how later in life Sugihara converted to Judaism. Of course, nothing of the sort happened and I politely kept quiet. I sensed how the man very much wanted to believe that Sugihara was Jewish, as if a goy altruistically saving thousands of Jewish lives weren’t good enough. As with other urban legends, people find comfort in believing that certain things are true.

Urban legends, for course, are a universal phenomenon, not at all unique to Orthodox Jews, and people tend towards being suggestible. And it is sometimes hard to get at what is really true versus what we wish to be true. With the internet, however, becoming more ubiquitous and especially with the advent of web sites such as Snopes that devote themselves to debunking false legends the likelihood of people continuing to believe a bubbe meise are smaller. The question is whether this trend towards greater transparency will have the same sort of impact in the Haredi world. If so will the censors in Haredi world continue to be able to spin their personal story to their own liking or will they need to adjust their spin for an evermore skeptical public?

And what can we say about the cynical mindset that encourages censorship? In a world that is moving towards greater transparency and towards empowering individuals more and more, censors are elitists who continue to believe that people “can’t handle the truth.” It is possible that there are facts that are too damning and too overwhelming for people to process, but when people are constantly infantilized and lied to, it can become a self fulfilling prophecy by which the public can no longer stand to hear anything remotely threatening to their beliefs.

I highly encourage anyone interested in the subject of Judaism and its relationship to the truth to read Shapiro’s well written book.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History

Many Whites Fear Hating The Blacks Who Beat Them

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* 1) Jews have a vestigial fear of the white goy masses.

2) Since the white goy masses did occasionally persecute Jews, this fear is more or less reasonable.

3) This old ethnic animus causes safe, well-fed and relatively powerful American Jews to advocate for policies which would harm or dilute the power, security, wealth or simply numbers of white goy Americans.

4) But, if you mention Jewish paranoia about the goys — or if you mention the fact that American Jews have more to fear physically from non-whites than from white — the American Jews react by calling you an anti-Semite and declaring the conversation over.

* Smug self-important Hipsters like Yglesias are beaten and sometimes murdered by angry blacks. Yglesias never once admitted that blacks had targetted him just because of his white skin.

* All over urban America blacks are sneaking up on whites walking by themselves and beating them. Yglesias is smart enough to know this, and also smart enough to know if Yglesias mentions it he will be fired from his job. Yglesias has a family to support so I can’t blame him for being a coward. But in his own heart he has to know he is a worm. In St Paul a man similar to Yglesias was beaten in to a coma.

* The issue is also that explicitly hating white people and calling for their extermination somehow does not count as a racial animus (because you are actually hating the structure of privilege, or whatever), but when Zimmerman’s head is being slammed into concrete his only possible motive for shooting must have been skin color. See also “No, there is no white genocide” juxtaposed with “white people are going extinct and it’s beautiful” a million times.

* The Billionaire Gerald Levin, an exemplary man in every way, allowed his white son to try to volunteer to help brown people. the brown people murdered the son. Amy Biehl’s parents are wonderful people but they allowed her white daughter to go to africa where blacks brutally murdered her. The finest and most generous among us are sending their white children to serve brown people who murder them. In Germany a high government official commanded his teenaged daughter to volunteer to help afgan refugees. The Afgan refugees raped then murdered her. Yglesias is smart enough to see this suicide cult that infects white SWPLS, And he is smart enough to know that if he talks about what is going on, the SWPLs will utterly destroy Yglesias the same way they destroyed Richwine. Yglesias is keeping his mouth shut.

* Animus might explain elite black opposition to immigration deals, since immigrants push their unskilled relatives out of the job and suck up minority set-asides from middle and upper class blacks receive. It may also explain some Jewish opposition, however ethnocentric Orthodox Jews now actually support Trump at a higher rate than white evangelicals, and a large majority of secular Jews marry into, live among, and adopt many of the customs of upper middle to upper class white gentile population.

Evangelicals voted for Trump at a higher rate and initially also approved of him more, but he has fallen in that group and risen for Orthodox Jews. I can’t find the white evangelical number, but right now O-Jew approval is at 71%, and I see another poll the next highest group is Mormon at 61%. I can’t find the white evangelical subgroup, but Morning Consult shows overall evangelical approval is 54%.

I think the better explanation is the rich run America, and the rich get richer when their land and capital becomes relatively more scarce through the importation of more labor.

Also more important than anti-White animus is simple ignorance of the data on the relative cost and benefits to immigrants. I don’t think the average moderate or apolitical pro-immigration American realizes when they see a hard-working immigrant maid, janitor, unskilled outdoor laborer, etc realizes that such person likely pays maybe $2,000 a year in taxes (primarily payroll, sales taxes, and indirectly property taxes), may receive all of those taxes back and more through the EITC, and may have a lifetime cost to Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security of $1 million.

Many Americans, aware that middle-american Catholic schools cost about $4000 a year, assume that these are premium products and the taxpayer cost of public schools must be lower, when in fact they range from $6,000 a year in the cheapest states to $15,000-$20,000 a student in high cost urban areas, and that the special ed classes full of inbred Africans and Arabs are over $25,000 a year.

* It really is driven by race. I’ve seen guys on the restriction side, like NumbersUSA, go out of their way to make good arguments based upon numbers which show how all Americans are being affected and how there are just too many people in the world to absorb.

Yet almost every person or group on the other side, white or nonwhite, will always let us know that immigration is about changing the USA into a non-white nation. They almost take a certain glee in boasting how our days are numbered. It seems immigration to them is either about making their own ethnic groups more powerful, .e.g hispanics, or diluting whites to insignificance, e.g self-hating whites and others.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on Many Whites Fear Hating The Blacks Who Beat Them