I think Donald Trump sees Jews and the Jewish state primarily in terms of what is good for him and his country. When Jews are useful, he uses them. When blacks are useful, he uses them. I don’t think Trump is sentimental about Jews or Israel. I expect Trump will act in his self-interest and I hope in America’s interest.
Trump knows that he does not need all Jews on his side, he just needs to keep some powerful Jews on his side, and if that means siding with Israel at times, he’ll do that.
Steve Sailer writes: “The path to mutual respect is to insist upon reciprocity. The most reasonable bargain would be for conservatives to demand of neoconservatives that in return for American support for Zionism, Zionists must publicly support America deploying the same immigration policies as Israel currently enjoys.”
Comments:
* A sensible suggestion, though ignoring the foreign policy costs the US pays for its support of Israel, including the ways it entangles the US in foreign wars and rivalries.
Interesting to note however the currently fourth newest comment beneath the article, from someone apparently subsequently removed (“guest”) by either Taki’s or by Disqus:
“So, apparently, linking to this typically informative piece by Mr. Sailer has gotten me banned from NRO and all my previous comments removed, down the Stalinist photoshop memory hole.”
As I’ve noted before, we face an onslaught against dissident opinion on all the fronts of “political correctness”, but the suppression of opinion seen as unpalatable by jewish nationalists and identity lobbyists seems to be the most ferociously and efficiently policed aspect of the assault on liberty. Something another of Sailer’s recent pieces touched upon:
Will Trump be Good for the Jewish People
* In my experience there’s almost nothing I can say about Israel, or even about Jews, that will not result in some nut, or crook, accusing me of anti-semitism. So I’m saying nowt.
* “It’s not my country.”
But in the US, esp if one is conservative, one gets nowhere without loving Israel more than one’s own country.
Just a reality.
So, it’s not a matter of passion for Israel. It’s about passion for independence FROM Israel-First-ism, which has turned into a right-wing version of minority-first-ism.
‘Rightist’ Jews tell gentile conservatives, “you must love Israel more than the US.”
‘Leftist’ Jews tell gentile liberals, “you must love non-white minority more than white majority.”
So, even if one has no feelings about Israel itself, American Politics is impossible without impassioned(or enraged) reactions to relation between US and Israel even if one is indifferent to issues INSIDE Israel.
It’s like this. Suppose Taiwan Lobby is the most powerful in America. Suppose Taiwanese-Americans have dominant control of media, academia, finance, and etc.
Now, suppose most of us don’t care about Taiwan itself or its relations with China.
But the fact is we still need to pay a lot of attention to the Taiwan Factor since the ruling elites would be Taiwanese-Americans who use all means, fair and foul, to compel us to support their agenda. We have no choice.
The problem with Israel is we don’t have to a choice. We must feign ‘passion’ even if we don’t have it if we are to get anywhere in America. That is the problem.
We don’t have to care about Armenia or Nepal to make it in the US. But try to move up the ladder, esp in politics or media, if one is indifferent or esp hostile to Israel.
* This might have gotten the sequence of events backwards: America’s immigration hawks have had to win first. Then, maybe, they’re in place to offer something to the Zionists for their ongoing support.
It’s early to say, but it’s possible that trends are pushing Zionism more and more towards being a movement of the right, or, conversely, leaving little comfortable ideological room for left-wing Zionists. I expect Trump to be even more unabashedly pro-Israel and pro-Likud than even the Bush Administration, both out of personal inclinations (his son-in-law is an Orthodox Jew; his proposed ambassador to Israel is Orthodox and also a supporter of the settler movement; and I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump generally sees the Palestinians as a bunch of losers); as well as political convenience. Support for Israel scrambles the whole “Trump is a Nazi” meme and squeezes the majority of American Jews – who are liberal, Reform, often secular, but still try to be Zionist – into an uncomfortable position. Obama, of course, has helped this by selling Israel out, the first time an American President has ever done so, at the UN. Israel is turning more and more right wing itself.
Again, it’s early to say, but this might be a positive development. Scrambling the allegiances and personal loyalties of and causing discomfort to a group that would produce many of Trump’s biggest potential political foes (liberal American Jews) isn’t a bad thing. I personally don’t see and have never seen why the US needs to engage in the kabuki of playing some sort of “honest broker” for “peace,” as opposed to supporting an ally outright, or for that matter what claim, after seven unbroken decades of defeats, the Palestinians have to nationhood, other than being propped up by broader international power politics. (Does anyone today mourn Biafra?) The irony that the majority of American Jews would lose control over the American-Israeli relationship, the meaning of Zionism, and part of their own identity to an aggressive and identitarian minority would be an ironic and fractally-shaped phenomenon.
Then again, the last Republican President who played footsie with American and Israeli neocons caused a lot of trouble and ran his own Administration and party into a ditch.
* I presume this means support for immigration policies that promote the maintenance or re-establishment of the United States as a European- or Northern European-majority country, explicitly end birthright citizenship, and allow for the deportation of all illegal infiltrators.
* Obama did not “sell Israel out.” The United States owes Israel nothing.
* I’m sick of the Middle Eastern wars. Thousands of Americans dead and trillions of dollars gone, and for what? Elevated testosterone levels in the blood of a few neocons and flush bank accounts for a few oil barons? We can toss the Israelis materiel and money (and their relatives can chip in privately), but they’re not worth the bones of one Alabama grenadier.
* “…Israel doesn’t arouse strong passions in me…”
I want you to close your eyes and think of Golda Meir for 30 seconds.
* Gotta hand it to Obama: Stirring up crap with Israel might turn out to be a clever way of tripping up Trump.
If I had to identify the biggest fault lines in the Trump coalition, Israel would be near the top. On one hand, you’ve got Trumpers who view Israel as a friend, ally, and potential model for a responsible resurgence of nationalism; they merely seek to rein in the Bush-era neocon nuttery and avoid straying too far from narrowly-defined US interests.
On the other hand, you’ve got the Trumpers who think (((echoes))) are funny and see right-wing Israeli Zionism and left-wing Jewish subversion of Western culture as two sides of the same evil coin.
The good thing is that, as of right now, both sides seem to realize that they need the other, so they’re keeping a lid on internal disagreements.
Trump himself appears to fall into the first camp, but he’s conscious that he has a lot of supporters in the second camp, so he tries to avoid antagonizing them. I’m hoping he’ll continue that approach, but it might be hard, especially if the Left tries to intentionally stoke the flames. I’m hoping Trump and his supporters — and the Israelis, for that matter — won’t fall for this transparent “let’s you and him fight” gambit.
* Israelis should purse their interests and their security as they see fit. And America should stop being the co-signer on their mortgage.
* Israel’s built-in immigration policy is Right of Return, which is a variation of family reunification in a sense.
It’s also in a sense similar to the White Australia policy, which seems very sensible in practice, though I would never say that out loud. Did I just say that out loud?
I got into iSteve mainly on the immigration issue (and movies): Tie it to labor demand, and have it reflect the founding population. Unfortunately, possession and the law and that, the ‘changing demographics’ kind of ruined the second part.
‘Citizenism’ is where it’s at, and it really should be used by Trump and everyone else to describe the general philosophy of this new movement or whatever it is.
Leftists get very stroppy when you even differentiate between citizens and non, esp. here in NYC. But citizens don’t. That’s why we should use it.
* Obama doesn’t like Israel. Netanyahu did endorse Mitt Romney after all. So on his way out he declines to use his veto to protect them from some UN resolution. Kerry says then goes and says apartheid is bad. Netanyahu complains. Trump, hoping to gain some points with the (non-alt-)right and possibly get to see his grandkids more often, goes after Obama and claims he’ll be nicer to Israel, annoying the alt-right.
Now did Obama do this to split the non-alt-right and alt-right? Maybe. Most of Trump’s working class base doesn’t give a pork bottom one way or the other about Israel, but the elite left is always on Twitter and is hoping to see the /pol/ crowd turn on Trump. Doesn’t really seem to be working so far–everyone’s more worked up over Baked Alaska versus Cernovich from what I can see.
* As an American rightie, my view on the Jewish Question is pretty simple: I play by the rules as I have found them. Since the end of World War II, one of the ironclad rules has been: No antisemitic (or anti-Jewish, or anti-Zionist, or anti-Israel, or whatever you want to call it) person from the right will ever be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. Ever. Period. End of discussion.
Don’t like it? Thank good ol’ A.H.
As with all rules, this one will probably be modified, eventually — but probably not for, I’d say another 100 years, at least: Around 2116 or thereabouts. Long enough for World War II to seem as far in the past as the War of Austrian Succession is today.
Now the left is a different kettle of fish. If hating on Israel or whatever is a nonnegotiable issue for you, then your place in this day and age is on the left. On the left, you can stand around all day singing the Horst Wessel Lied and reading aloud excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but as long as you’re wearing a Che Guevara shirt and dreadlocks, and throw in a sprinkling of quotes from Marx and Jay-Z, then a jaw-droppingly huge chunk of the left will be willing to look the other way and make excuses for you. Not ALL of them will — but enough will. You’ll be protected.
If that’s your thing, then go out and live your dreams, man.
But shave your head and start flashing Nazi salutes, and the entire culture, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, will wheel its artillery around and unload on your coordinates. Nukes will be authorized. There will be no survivors.
Fine. I can live with that. Jewish malevolence towards gentiles is way, way, waaaaay down the list of my concerns. It’s not a nonissue for me, but it’s way, waaaaaay down there. I am a Woody Allen fan, for crying out loud. If enthusiasm for Jews and Israel is the price I have to pay to be a respectable right-winger, I’ll be happy to pay it … up to a point. I’m an American and will always place American interests first: That’s nonnegotiable for me. But if I have to say “yay, Israel! Yay, Bibi!” every now and then to get there … hey, whatever, man.
I suspect Donald Trump would agree. The only reason we GOT Trump is because he reliably spouts the bipartisan consensus on Israel.
Like I said: Fine. Whatever. I have more pressing issues. Yay, Israel. Are you happy now?
As Steve said: It’s not my country. Let me have a sane, responsible government for MY country, and then Israel can go do whatever the hell it wants, as long as they keep me out of it.
* Obama did this for his own ego, nothing to do with Trump. He despised Bibi from day one, and the enmity was similar to that between him and Putin, palpable and uncomfortable. Obama was never good at mixing with strong alpha males like Putin or Bibi, preferring to kid around and take selfies with Trudeau, Merkel or Turnbull in Australia.
Support for Israel is pretty much 89% among Trump supporters, 10% don’t give a toss, and 1% are strongly anti-Israel (e.g. Richard Spencer etc). Trump supporting Bibi and inviting him to the White House will show two alpha males in good company, in agreement, and both demonstrating strength and resolve to Arabs, the UN, and the EU. Liberal Jews will be forced to accept Trump will probably be the most pro-Israel President in history, and will probably be the most well-loved US politician in Israel (the amount of support for Trump among the right wing Israelis over there is already ‘yuge’).
Trump, however, is not so dumb as to kowtow to another world leader, especially a world leader who is very similar to him (there will be a male rivalry between Bibi and the Don, in a good natured way). Trump will ‘stand with Israel’ but I doubt he will permit the exorbitant foreign aid to continue. He also has an uncanny way of charismatically going againt the Israel/Neocon narrative. Look at Iraq and the Mid East more generally – during the primary debates he frequently denounced Bush and Co as ‘knowing’ that Saddam had no WMDs yet invaded anyway. He denounced the ‘stupid’ decisions made by past administrations in going into the Mid East and not winning anything, spending trillions and costing thousands of lives. This goes against the Yinon Plan, which has been a staple of Israeli foreign policy since the 70s and 80s (i.e. intervene in the Mid East to destabilise Arab nations and splinter them into ethnic factions. Iraq was specifically targeted by Yinon as a country to destabilise as soon as practicable). Trump’s foreign policy, ergo, is completely antithetical to Bibi’s or Likud’s. Trump won’t fold on that either, if there’s one thing he is dead-set consistent on is his anti-interventionism.
In other words, Trump will control Bibi and ‘manage’ him, like he did with Paul Ryan or the GOP Congressional leaders. Trump is a master manipulator and PR genius. He isn’t so stupid as to be made a fool of by another alpha male. It’s all psychological for him, and for this reason, I’m extremely confident he will use Israel to his – and America’s – advantage.
* I owe Israel nothing. Nada. I don’t care whether it collapses tomorrow or endures for a thousand years. I feel nothing for it (or against it).
To me, Israel is little more than a vacuum cleaner sucking money out of the U.S. Treasury. If it weren’t for Mideast oil, I’d stand back and watch the Jews and the Arabs slaughter each other to their hearts’ content.
In that fight, I’d root for the Jews, if only because Islam is such a fearsome enemy. I might even bankroll them, but not to the extent that we’re bankrolling them now.
As an American, I seek to benefit myself and my country. Any benefits that might accrue to other countries through my actions are purely incidental. If other countries prosper as America jockeys for world leadership, wonderful; if not, too bad.
Something tells me that the Israelis don’t sit around agonizing over whether they’re getting an unfair amount of aid from Uncle Sam. “Oy, how can we ever repay the Americans for all they’ve done for us? We’re in their eternal debt!”
I don’t begrudge any man his single-minded devotion toward making his land and his kind reign supreme above all others. Jews, American or otherwise, are perfectly within their rights to try to convince me that I should give a hoot whether their supposed homeland withers or thrives. I’m perfectly within my rights to tell them that I don’t care one way or the other.
Of course, the sad truth is that many of my fellow goys are dumb and/or naive enough to swallow the BS: “Israel must get everything it wants, and more!” If I weren’t a free-speech absolutist, I would say that the neocons’ views should be censored to protect the feeble-minded. But I do honestly believe that, in the end, the downsides of too much freedom of expression are far more tolerable than those of too little.
* Steve Sailer: “Adelson’s behavior in 2016 was admirable.”
Washington Post:
For decades, the data on median household incomes have shown the same, persistent racial disparities: Asians beating out whites at the top, while Hispanics and blacks hover near the bottom.
Asian Americans seem to offer proof that minorities can prosper — and even leapfrog whites — if they work hard and jump through the right hoops. For that reason, Asian Americans have often been invoked as a way to excuse the income gaps between whites and blacks or whites and Hispanics.
But why do typical Asian American households outearn typical white households? Like many statistics showing an Asian American advantage, this fact proves illusory upon closer examination. A common explanation is that Asian Americans are better educated. While that’s true, there’s another factor that can completely account for the income gap between Asians and whites.
It has to do with where people reside.
Prices and rents vary wildly in different parts of the country. The cost of living near Jonesboro, Ark., for instance, is about 18 percent below the national average, while the cost of living near San Francisco is about 21 percent above the national average.
White and African Americans are more likely to live in cheaper locales, while Asian and Hispanic Americans are more likely to live in pricier ones. The contrast between whites and Asians is particularly stark. Nearly 1 in 5 white Americans reside in rural counties, where a dollar goes a lot further. But 97 percent of Asian Americans live in or near a major city, where the cost of living is higher.
This is silly. East Asians around the world on average are better educated, more affluent and have stronger families and longer life spans than whites just as around the world whites on average are better educated, more affluent and have stronger families and longer life spans than blacks.
South-East Asians do not out-excel whites on average in education and income. Different groups of whites do better than other groups of whites. For instance, whites of Northern European origin tend to be better educated, more intelligent and more prosperous than white non-Jews of Eastern European and Southern European origins.
New York Times: “Tens of thousands of Namibians were killed between 1904 and 1908 in events that foreshadowed Nazi ideology and the Holocaust. Germany is finally close to recognizing the killings as genocide.”
How come we never have these stories about Jews coming to terms with Jews who served as Stalin’s Willing Executioners?
Sever Plocker writes for YNET:
An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”
Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book “Stalin: Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.
Stalin’s close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the “first Stalinist” and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao’s terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.
Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.
In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.” Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and “play dumb”: What do we have to do with them? But let’s not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.
Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of “our hangmen,” who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.
I think the world needs more museums dedicated to the victims of communism.
New York Times: “It has been a violent year in Chicago, and for thousands of children, just walking to school can be dangerous. More than a thousand workers line up along Safe Passage routes to help.”
It’s the same way in most Jewish and Japanese neighborhoods too but nobody ever writes about that. Jews and Japanese are notorious for their gun crime but all the media wants to talk about is stuff that makes blacks look bad. Sad! Must apologize!
Mr. Kirchick has a knack for answering the questions most on my mind. I had always assumed that Ivanka Trump would save us. Now I know better.
Jamie writes: “It’s easy to be seduced by Ivanka — she really is smooth, not to mention beautiful — but keep your guard up: This is a trap. Ivanka is nothing more than pretty window dressing to the explicitly authoritarian, racially divisive, conflict-of-interest-laden presidential campaign (soon-to-be administration) of her father.”
Wow, just wow.
“Mariela’s purpose is not improving the livelihood of her LGBT countrymen so much as it’s fooling credulous Western progressives into thinking that Cuba is anything other than a one-party state run by a mafia clan. Mariela Castro and Ivanka Trump are what happen when privileged entitlement meets political depravity.”
Sad! Must apologize!
I expect every nation to act in its self-interest and that will usually involve spying and interference in other countries. So if Russia or Israel tries to influence our elections, or China hacks our government and private websites to gain an advantage, I’m not surprised or outraged. I assume that America does similar things. I assume that it is America’s responsibility to protect itself from outside interference and that if the interference occurs and damages America, that is the fault of America’s government for not protecting us.
Sometimes differences are fantastic for a relationship and sometimes they make a relationship impossible.
The Jewish question is the name given to a wide-ranging debate in European society pertaining to the appropriate status and treatment of Jews in society. The debate was similar to other so-called “national questions” and dealt with the civil, legal, national and political status of Jews as a minority within society, particularly in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The debate started within societies, politicians and writers in western and central Europe influenced by the Age of Enlightenment and the ideals of the French Revolution. The issues included the legal and economic Jewish disabilities (e.g. Jewish quotas and segregation), Jewish assimilation, Jewish emancipation and Jewish Enlightenment.
The expression has been used by antisemitic movements from the 1880s onwards, culminating in the Nazi phrase “the Final Solution to the Jewish Question”. Similarly, the expression was used by proponents for and opponents of the establishment of an autonomous Jewish homeland or a sovereign Jewish state.
Since the 1950s, there’s been little public discussion of The Jewish Question. Most citizens of the United States, Canada, Australia, England, France and Germany do not question granting their Jews the same rights as everyone else. Prior to the 20th Century, however, most Europeans nations were not down with this.
With the rise of the Alt Right in the past year, there’s been a renewed interest among a few thousand people (my guess) about The Jewish Question.
Alt Right Jewish philosopher “Ari Ben Canaan” tweets: “I support the eventual end of the Jewish diaspora. We belong in Israel, where our home is.”
The sacred texts of Judaism debate this question. Some texts argue that Jews belong in Israel. Other texts say Jews have valuable work to do in the diaspora shining the light of Torah.
From an objective perspective, it seems to me that no people has permanent friends or enemies. In some circumstances, Jews and Muslims, for example, have common interests, and in other circumstances, they have conflicting interests. In some circumstances, gentile countries will find the presence of Jews in their interest and in other circumstances, they will find the presence of Jews a problem. It does not make sense to me that in all times and places outside of Israel, gentile nations will always find Jewish citizens more of a hassle than a blessing. I sure hope that is true because the odds that Israel survives another 50 years as a Jewish state are probably no greater than 50%. If Israel is destroyed and gentile nations start kicking Jews out, Jews will be in big trouble a la WWII.
Like all peoples, Jews have strengths and weaknesses. Jewish strengths include intelligence, industry, energy and a commitment to education. Jews have started disproportionate number of businesses in the West, and they’ve paid, I suspect, a disproportionate amount of tax compared to the public services they’ve used. Most Orthodox Jews, for example, send their children to private Jewish schools while paying considerable taxes to maintain public schools.
If Jews leave the diaspora, who will represent God among the nations? If God wanted goyim to have own countries, He would have given them the brains to defend them. If Jews leave the diaspora, who will teach the goyim how to be multicultural? If Jews leave the diaspora, who will teach the goyim the lessons of the Holocaust?
James M points out: “White people were nothing until the Jews came from the desert & created our civilizations.”
Richard Spencer has some interesting tweets:
When thinking of nationalism it helps to understand Latin. You are born into a nation. The word nation comes from the word for birth. You don’t choose a nation anymore than you choose a mother. This is why “civic” nationalism or “economic” nationalism is contradictory. “Civic” nationalism comes from civis, which means citizen. Citizenship had to be earned, not just believed really hard. It was difficult. And came with duties and that was why people wanted to be citizens. “Civic nationalism” defines citizenship down. Steve Bannon’s economic nationalism is also absurd. “Economics” comes from Greek word for household and its management. Economic nationalism then is either redundant or misleading about who is in the household. You can’t have many mothers in one house. You can’t have many peoples in one nation. Sooner or later one will dominate the other & there goes “economic nationalism.”
Ask yourself why it is that our country spends more time talking about and thinking about Israeli politics rather than Mexican politics.
In a way, Trumpism–as the last gasp of “Americanism”–has to fail for the #AltRight to fully emerge.
Let me make one thing clear: I’m a bit black-pilled about Trump; I’m enthused by the Alt Right.
The entire govt. and civil service will be aligned against him, and Trump’s appeasing Cucks, who don’t really have his back.
“Trumpism” will fail because it offers nothing but a cult of personality. Trump is our leader only so long as he is for our people.
I fear that Richard hasn’t learned the lessons of the Holocaust.
Have Jews learned the lessons of the Holocaust? Jews are not a great fit for every nation on earth at all times. For instance, once Germany became a Nazi state, Jews were a bad fit. Nations that regarded themselves as exclusively Roman Catholic were not a good for Jews. Any gentile nation that principally organizes itself around race or religion is not likely to be a good fit for Jews (unless the race is people of Northern European origins and the religion is Protestantism). Jews have done best in WASP countries because people of Northern European extraction who are of Protestant origins tend to see people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups, and a collective strategy will usually out-compete an individualist one.
Protestants nations have never committed genocide against Jews.
Judaism regards Jews as a blessing to the world, but one can believe in God and Torah and understand that in some circumstances, Jews are not a great fit for a particular nation (such as Nazi Germany).
My understanding of Orthodox Judaism is that God’s primary demand of Jews is that they obey the Torah, which would theoretically make them a safe choice for almost any nation. History shows, however, that whenever Jews have had a choice, they have chosen to not be Orthodox and to not be observant of Jewish law.
National Post: In one of her online videos from her suburban Toronto bedroom, 19-year-old Veronica Bouchard slouches before the camera in a low-cut dress and a choker, lamenting the Jewish conspiracy to control society by corrupting minds with degenerate inter-racial pornography.
In another, she offers cupcakes decorated with swastikas to a portrait of Adolf Hitler, as she sings him Happy Birthday.
“Hitler actually wasn’t that bad. He wasn’t evil at all. And he’s one of my favourite people of all time,” she says.
Petite and pretty, she speaks variously in an over-acted breathy whisper, or a treacly, girlish singsong, sometimes blatantly trying to force tears about the supposed genocide of white people. At other times, she is vulgar, smug, sarcastic, agitated and angry, swearing at the suggestion she is uneducated and ignorant.
Ignore what she says, and she could be any other petulant teenager talking to her phone. But Bouchard, known as Evalion, is fast becoming a leading star of neo-Nazism, and her runaway popularity threatens to upend the nearly unbroken tradition of male dominance in white supremacy.
Tagged online as “Future Queen of the Fourth Reich,” she is a prime example — the latest, not the first — of how young women can become the hot new thing in racist subcultures almost overnight, far easier than sieg-heiling, black-costumed, tattooed male skinheads.
* The EU is a recreation of Christendom without the Christianity. Soon enough to be Europe without the Europeans.
* It’s a very obvious but rarely spoken fact, that the main role of the EU is the integration of Germany into Europe, or in other words, the prevention of a German nationalism. This is the real meaning of the often mentioned goal of “preventing war in Europe”. France has been sidelined by events much like after Versailles. When German re-unified, peacefully, rather than through wars of restoration like last time, there was little that France could do to oppose it, even morally. German leadership knew how sensitive this issue was, so it pushed for the Maastricht treaty, firmly binding Germany to a new liberal institutional order, which became the basis of the new EU. So France became stuck in an impossible quagmire: it could not oppose German hegemony through war, but also not through peace. A more robust EU would eventually be dominated by Germany and France could do nothing to help it.
* Visualizing Values Mismatch in the European Union
http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/visualizing-values-mismatch-in-the-european-union/
In my July 1 post, Brexit as Destructive Creation, I argued that one significant cause for the European dysfunction was the choice made by the European elites to expand the union too fast too far. Why do I think this was a mistake? […]
The pattern is so striking it almost doesn’t require commentary, but let’s spell it out anyway. The original six (“Core Europe”) group together very closely. There are only two other countries that are part of the same cluster, Austria and Switzerland. Remarkably, the modern territories of both of these countries were encompassed by the boundaries of the Carolingian empire (see Is this the Beginning of the End for the European Union?). It looks like the “ghost” of the Charlemagne’s empire has more influence on today’s cultural values than such later distinctions as Catholicism versus Protestantism.
The current 28 members of the European Union, on the other hand, don’t cluster at all. On the contrary, they span three-quarters of world variation in values. Only African-Islamic countries and central America end up outside the ellipse that encompasses all 28 EU members.
EUROPE’S NORTH-SOUTH DIVIDE—A STUBBORN CHASM
Proponents of the cultural explanation for the North-South divide, like Tino Sanandaji from the Institute of Industrial Economics, are returning to a certain extent to the ideas of 19th century German sociologist Max Weber. The latter had suggested that Protestant countries in Northern Europe outperformed the rest of the continent because of their superior work ethic, because they were thriftier and because they possessed more effective social capital, that is to say the efficacy of social networks. Following in Weber’s footsteps, Sanandaji argues that the current gap in economic outcomes between North and South cannot be explained by differing policies, since both display roughly comparable levels of social expenditures, taxation rates and government sizes. Instead, similar policies are resulting in different outcomes because the latter are ‘mediated through the deeper structures of society’, such as culture, norms, or social capital.
Cognitive emotion regulation and psychopathology across cultures: A comparison between six European countries
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916302756
Most notably, there were differences on strategies that have been linked to symptoms of psychopathology; overall northern European countries (Germany and Netherlands) made less use of strategies such as rumination, catastrophizing, and other-blame, when compared to southern and eastern European countries (Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Hungary).
* The EU was Europhobic in its origins. The first President of the Paneuropean Union, elected in 1923, was Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. He envisioned the destruction of the existing European races through admixture with Africans. The new mixed race was to be ruled over by a new, primarily Jewish, aristocracy. From his book Practical Idealism written in 1925 (i.e. prior to the rise of National Socialism in Germany):
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals …
Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi
The Paneuropean Union is the oldest European unification movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneuropean_Union
The Coudenhove-Kalergi Foundation awarded its European Prize t0 Angela Merkel in 2010.
* Juncker seems to be very similar to Yeltsin. The more his project falls apart, the more he drinks. He drinks to avoid the reality of what he has created.
Trump is of course a teetotaller. I wonder if he will impose some of that philosophy on, for instance, the white women and Native Americans who are drowning in drink?
* It is interesting to note the impact of Muslim immigration on Germans. Having lived there for four years in the 1970s and visiting often, it was without question one of the safest places on earth. I’ve found myself in the Red Light districts of many German cities at night before immigration (no aspersions please :-), noting in surprise the number of women walking alone (including little old ladies with canes) and young mothers pushing baby carriages … something you would not dare to do in the United States.
From the news, many German girls and women today find it too dangerous to venture out of their homes to visit the town square during the day or leave their homes at night without male escorts. What a contrast as German cities areas start to reflect the seedier aspects of decaying urban ghettos in the United States and the generally degenerate conditions in underdeveloped countries.
It is difficult to comprehend the argument that the solution to the social decay in Germany caused by Third World immigration is more Third World immigration. “Quick, my house is on fire … quick, more fuel for the fire!”
* How did the US go from being a country founded by slave owners, to a country willing to send 600,000 to their deaths to end slavery? How did the UK Liberal party go from wanting to abolish the income tax in 1882 to introducing the welfare state in 1906? How did the Israeli Labour party go from “There’s no such thing as the Palestinians” in 1969 to Oslo in 1993? The list goes on and on. The basic point seems to be that liberalism should not be understood as a set of beliefs, but as a process, the telos of which is always receding into the future. The best work on unwrapping this remains Moldbug, but, of course, he never systemized his observations. Part of the problem is that much of basic mental equipment we use to understand politics itself comes out of the liberal tradition and is thus delusory. More recently, the blogger doing the most to carve out something like an explanation is the recently defunct Reactionary Future, but I’m not sure if he’s insane or not. It’s hard to tell when you lose your bearings.
In the specific case of the EU, though, it’s worth noting that it was constructed by liars – Leftist radicals working with the State Dept – who at every stage dissembled about their true intentions. It’s basic purpose has always been to destroy pre-WW2 conservative Europe.
