Counterpunch: “Trump, Anti-Globalism and the Anti-Semitism Slur”

Steve Sailer: From Counterpunch:

OCTOBER 14, 2016
Trump, Anti-Globalism and the Anti-Semitism Slur
by JONATHAN TAYLOR

There are few tactics in contemporary politics more effective than labeling your opponent as an anti-Semite. So, as Donald Trump’s campaign continues to ramp up its radical populism, Trump’s attacks on global elites are increasingly being characterized as anti-Semitism. It’s as if every time Trump excoriates a Washington insider or international corporate power broker he really wants to say “Jew.” At least, that’s the charge by numerous members of the media, many of whom are Jewish themselves.

Just listen to Louise Mensch, ostensibly a conservative blogger for Heat St, whom Wikileaks just outed as a Hillary campaign helper: “Globalists is a racist code word for Jew because there are none. free trade between sovereign nations is not a wish to abolish the former.” By Mensch’s convoluted logic, since globalists don’t want to completely destroy national sovereignty, they aren’t really globalists. Therefore when people say globalists, they must mean Jews.

Or let’s hear from the Republican campaign strategist and “Never Trump-er” Rick Wilson: “Globalist”…why don’t you just say “Jew” and get it over with?”

Then there’s Bret Stephens from the Wall Street Journal, who demanded conservative columnist Laura Ingraham be fired for using the term “globalist cabal.” “Globalist cabal” is an anti-Semitic dog whistle of the first order. Fox News should act,” Stephens insisted.

And Louise Mensch again: “”Globalists” is, like “zionists” or “zios” the new antisemitic code word for Jews”. Distressing news no doubt to anti-Zionist Jews and critics of Israel, who are used to being spuriously accused of anti-Semitism.

I’m not sure that Louise Bagshawe LoCicero Mensch, a Catholic Englishwoman whose Yiddish last name is courtesy of her latest husband, Metallica’s manager Peter Mensch, is really the world’s leading expert on anti-Semitism or, for that matter, Semitism.

When she announced she was banning from her Twitter feed as anti-Semitic anybody who uses the word “Zionist,” a troll asked her if she would ban Theodore Herzl as anti-Semitic:

And Wikileaks has Louise’s email to a Clinton campaign insider proposing a killer TV spot for Hillary:

OUR TIME

A succession of mostly young women, a few old women, one with a baby daughter, multiracial and multi-occupation, to include a nurse and a woman in uniform of some kind where permitted…

one after the other, smiling and looking to camera and saying

‘It’s our time.’

and the last woman says, ‘It’s our time. I’m with her.’

fade to banner credit ‘Hillary 2016′

—-

That would be inspirational, aspirational, and the kind of riff you really need on ‘Yes we can’.

Best,

Louise

Would Rupert Murdoch have thought Louise was smart enough to be put in charge of his new website HeatStreet if she hadn’t gotten hold of a Jewish surname in mid-career? What do Jewish women journalists think of shiksa journalists who latch onto both their men and their names?

Back to the lefty Counterpunch:

Then there’s neocon blowhard Jamie Kirchick’s response to an incoherent tweet by Paul Ryan challenger Paul Nehlen, about Ryan’s staffer Dan Senor “With globalist advisers like @DanSenor it’s no wonder @PRyan is to the left of @HillaryClinton on #TPP. “ To which Kirchick responded “Why don’t you just say “Jew?”” Senor is indeed Jewish, and is rumored to be the person who leaked the infamous Trump- Billy Bush “pussy” tape to the press. …

In his speech of October 13, 2016, Donald Trump used the term globalist repeatedly, triggering accusations of anti-Semitism from media outlets such as Mother Jones and Raw Story. The ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted his concern, mildly stated compared to the rampant Twitter hysteria, that “Trump should avoid rhetoric&tropes” that suggest anti-Jewish themes. But despite the media pile-on, Trump has been discussing globalism in his speeches for months. As Jill Stein and to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders represent the long-standing anti-globalization movement of the left, Trump represents the anti-globalization movement of the right. And there is significant overlap between the two, as opposition to the TPP demonstrates or to provocative militarism towards Russia demonstrates. …

Trump, whose daughter Ivanka is a Jewish convert married to an Orthodox Jewish husband who is a top Trump campaign advisor, seems an unlikely Jew hater, but the mainstream Hillary-loving press has been insisting he is Hitler throughout the campaign (odd since they also accusing him of being controlled by Russia. A new Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?) As the election looms the media are busy cranking up Jewish paranoia to 11. As the unflappably cool Matthew Iglesias surmises. “My guess is that in a Trump administration angry mobs will beat and murder Jews and people of color with impunity.”

… Tactically speaking, the primary purpose of an accusation of anti-Semitism is to end debate. So if someone says “globalist is a code word for Jews”, or “blaming international banks for economic problems is anti-Semitic”, the function of this is to ensure that globalists and international banks cannot be blamed. It’s as if someone responded to the Occupy movement that “the 1%” is a codeword for Jews, so we should stop talking about wealth disparity.” The ramifications are obvious – leave the global elites out of this campaign or you’re a Jew-hating bigot and by the way here comes the ADL.

COMMENTS:

* all jews i have spoken to either support trump or are ambivalent to trump. none think he is anti jewish, his daughter is orthodox . she is shomer shabbat , that makes her more jewish than 75% of american jews nowadays and they know it.

* Louise Mensch is a hilarious character. Her interactions with the alt-right on Twitter are something to behold. I hope she sticks around to provide more laughs.

* Seemed to me Mensch skipped town a few steps ahead of the electoral pitchforks, having made a colossal fool of herself as a transparently over-promoted airhead bimbo in the British media, where as an attractive female globalist she was constantly given more than enough airtime to fully display her empty-headedness and rarely properly skewered for her many, many foot in mouth moments.

Whatever the reasons might have been for putting her “in charge” of a media operation, they certainly didn’t include smarts.

* She was a loud Brexiteer, so a Murdochist rather than a Sorosite.

She was/is a chick-lit writer and was parachuted into a constituency up north. The prospect of spending her weekends in Corby (where the trouser-presses don’t come from) didn’t appeal.

* Even a lot of Jews don’t like Jewish bankers because they believe they screw the little guy. The hippie Burning Man loving Portlandia White liberals who were part of Occupy Wall Street were disproportionately made up of Jews, especially since their headquarters were in New York City.

* Louise has a pretty ritzy upper-class gentry background, her grandfather did this, his grandfather was noted for that.

Her sister Tilly Bagshawe also seems to have married a Jew, Robin Nydes, a former investment banker and current semi-retired hedge fund manager.

It took me a while to Jew-detect Mr. Nydes. It is a very rare last name, either Danish or Polish from what I can tell. The only other man I could find who has that surname was a fairly famous American psychologist named Jule Nydes who died in 1973 and was married a English-American gentile hippie who had a very long retirement dabbling in touch theory and Indian mysticism in Santa Fe.

Tilly got pregnant at age 17 and named her daughter Persephone (hope you recognize that name from Greek mythology), went to Cambridge as a single mother, and is a best-selling novelist, starting from her first one. She married Nydes when she was 28 and has had two boys with him, with the more normal names of Zac and Theo, rather than perhaps her initial inclination of Hades and Minotaur.

View post on imgur.com

* That stupid Mensch woman was a MP for the Conservatives in Britain…probably tells you all you need to know about Cameron’s “modernization” of the party. Depressing that someone dumb/uneducated enough to have never heard of Theodore Herzl can get a well-paid career in politics and journalism.

* I tried to tell Louise Mensch on Twitter not to conflate globalism and Judaism but apparently she didn’t listen. It really is idiotic to make such an assumption. Pop globalism, internationalism and world federalism has been pumped out at us from the metropole since the days of H.G. Wells. After WW2, it went from the margins to the mainstream and popped up in forms as varied as Coca-Cola ads, rides at Disneyland and episodes of the original Star Trek. It’s been celebrated and advocated by almost any big corporation you can name. In short, it’s not a Jewish thing, even if they have a particular affinity for it.

Trump is right that globalism has had its day, that its done enormous damage and that those continuing to advocate it are using the media to combat his reform agenda. This is how it works when one governing consensus is challenged by another. No need to reference the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion on this.

* Listen, if Jewish people are unable to allow others to apply political labels to groups and policies, then maybe they should retire from the hurley-burly of civic life and leave it to the more thick-skinned? If the rest of us can’t use terms like “globalist” or “international banker” then how are we supposed to engage in self-government? Maybe we should do away with democratic debate in order to calm the nerves of our Jewish communities, who have been through so much in the last few thousand years?

* It’s as if someone responded to the Occupy movement that “the 1%” is a codeword for Jews.

This already happened. The Wall Street Journal featured the following letter from billionaire venture capitalist Tom Perkins in its issue of Jan. 24, 2014.

Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?
I would call attention to the parallels of Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich.”

Regarding your editorial “Censors on Campus” (Jan. 18): Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich.”

From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent. There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these “techno geeks” can pay. We have, for example, libelous and cruel attacks in the Chronicle on our number-one celebrity, the author Danielle Steel, alleging that she is a “snob” despite the millions she has spent on our city’s homeless and mentally ill over the past decades.

This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant “progressive” radicalism unthinkable now?

Tom Perkins, San Francisco
Mr. Perkins is a founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

* Herein lies the problem with sacred cows of all sorts. When criticism of Jews is taboo, then an argument can be made that criticism of any group in which Jews are overrepresented is just an end run around the taboo and thus should be taboo, too. In my time, I have seen the following alleged to be anti-semitic codewords: globalists, elites, media, Zionists, Israel, leftists, liberals, cultural Marxists, Frankfurt School, neocons, bankers, Wall Street, Hollywood, and, most recently, “George Soros and Sidney Blumenthal.” In some people’s warped minds, you can’t just hate Hollywood pedophiles, you must hate Jews. Well, if that’s the price of admission, then maybe it’s worth it. Ditto the neocons.

Likewise, when blacks are a sacred cow, then all of a sudden it’s Not Okay to complain of criminals, felons, thugs, rapists, misbehaving athletes, rowdy students, and even DMV ladies.

It’s as if the speech police agreed that stereotypes are true, but differed on how they should be applied.

* Jews who care about actual Judaism are solidly pro-Trump. At the Orthodox shul I go to most Saturday mornings, opinions range from passionately pro-Trump to “I would have preferred Cruz, but Trump is what we got.” Nobody wants Hillary.

Of course, Reform “Judaism,” led by the irrascible traitor Rick “Jihad” Jacobs is a whole other story.

* I recently read that not a single Fortune 500 CEO has donated to Trump.

* This woman gets invited on Fox News, but genteel Jared Taylor is beyond the pale.

* About 90% of what’s wrong with the West is stupid old men like Murdoch putting bimbo airheads like Mensch in charge of things. She’s a woman. OF COURSE she’s the White Man’s enemy. She’s a woman — and like most women views men with the prism of Alpha or Not; particularly being independent financially and not having a “sunk cost” of early marriage and kids to some beta male dude.

And that’s the elites in a nutshell. The elites are a DISASTER. They all have to go. All of them. Even the “sensible” ones want Hillary’s coming war with Russia, because President Huma is mad at Assad. And its Huma Abedin running things after Hillary’s fifth aneurism. Someone like a Murdoch, a Saban, a Slim, they all have a lot to lose in a War and are too stupid to understand the risks.

And that’s the thing. Murdoch inherited his money and got lucky. Saban just go lucky at the right time in the 1980s; absent the Power Rangers he’d be a seedy, down on his luck “manager” to fading starlets desperate for anything. Carlos Slim got lucky and corrupt getting his billions; how smart he is remains to be seen. Hillary is not anyone’s idea of even borderline competent, and no one in the Democratic or Republican party has either brains or ability from what I’ve seen. Tim Kaine? Marilyn Moseby? Kamala Harris? Romney? McCain?

* Why has nobody in the mainstream media reported that Fortune 500 CEOs all support Crooked Hildabeast over Donald Trump? Is it because it would hurt that bitch’s image as the candidate of the blue collar class?

* They don’t want to sever Judaism from globalism (except in Israel). It’s too useful. If you can unite them in the public’s mind then every anti-globalist is Literal Hitler. All calls for borders and trade restrictions is a call for gas chambers.

* She seems to have developed a habit of putting on a trans-Atlantic accent when talking to Americans.

Compare here on France24:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFVsXs9LDs&feature=youtu.be&t=146

and on Bill Maher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJvj2bth8t0&feature=youtu.be&t=71

Just weird. It reminds me of a former England football (ie soccer) coach who went to Holland and then affected a “Dutch” accent (in English) because the idiot thought it would help him communicate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZnoP4sUV90

* >Louise Mensch is reliably dim, if nothing else. Check out her several online debates with Vox Day on anti-semitism, marital rape, and feminism. Day goes pretty easy on her, for some reason, but even so, Mensch is manifestly incapable of rising above the level of hackneyed neocon talking points. There really does seem to be more than a hint of Dunning-Kruger about her.

* Murdoch seems to collect feisty, but intellectually limited acolytes.

There is the notoriously dim Kay Burley, who has been with Sky News from day 1. She was the subject of this dialogue from the political comedy The Thick of It:

“Being interviewed by Kay is, as we all know, like being interviewed by a backward child. That’s obviously great most of the time. But occasionally she will throw you a curveball like a child might – “Why is there war?” “What is Europe?” – and if you can’t answer it’s you who ends up looking like the thick-as-pigcrap chancer.”

* I love that she thinks Galileo was burned at the stake.

* A textbook example of how the double advantages of being attractive and benefiting from active positive discrimination can result in meteoric rises for a politically useful woman in our modern society.

* The trouble with taking the easy pleasure of watching the likes of Mensch shout down vacant lefties is that in the end you are left with someone like Mensch in an over-promoted position of power and influence. A globalist to her fingertips (as demonstrated incontrovertibly by her easy transatlantic shift – the very definition of a “rootless cosmopolitan”), who has none of the loyalty to her country or to tradition and nativism that defines positive conservatism, as opposed to the pseudo-conservatism of the neocons, which is basically just sucking up to the present power elites.

The likes of Mensch should really not be indulged. That way lies, in the short run, the end of free speech beneath a flood of “hate speech” laws and taboos, and in the longer run, the end of the nation state.

Posted in America, Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Counterpunch: “Trump, Anti-Globalism and the Anti-Semitism Slur”

Who’s The Change Candidate?

Steve Sailer writes: “Trump is the candidate of change, Hillary is the candidate of stasis. Not surprisingly, roughly 98% of everybody who is on top of the world under the current Invade the World / Invite the World arrangements favors Hillary.”

Posted in America | Comments Off on Who’s The Change Candidate?

How to Spot a White Supremacist Online

“When you spot them, report them for abuse.”

Posted in America, Censorship | Comments Off on How to Spot a White Supremacist Online

Did Jews Fail To Win The Oppression Wars?

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Did Jews Fail To Win The Oppression Wars?

NYT: ‘A black doctor from Houston says a Delta flight attendant dismissed her attempt to help an ill passenger by saying, ‘We are looking for actual physicians.”

As seven out of eight black applicants to medical school receive affirmative action and bring grades and test scores below that of the average white person refused admission to medical school, the brusque observation of the flight attendant was reasonable.

Black doctors get sued for malpractice at a much higher rate than other doctors. Going to a random black doctor is not usually a smart move unless you really want an affirmative action doctor and that kind of expertise.

New York Times:

Dr. Tamika Cross, a black physician at the Lyndon B. Johnson Hospital in Houston, could not immediately come to the phone on Friday. She was busy delivering a baby boy by C-section.

So, yes, in case anyone has any doubt, Dr. Cross is an “actual physician.”

But the 28-year-old doctor said that was the question hanging in the air, raised by a flight attendant, when she volunteered to treat a sick passenger on a Delta flight from Detroit to Minneapolis on Sunday.

From the website Medical School Success:

A common question many medical school applicants ask is, “How hard is it to get into medical school?”

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), there were 42,742 applicants vying for a spot in the entering class of 2010 – 2011. Each applicant sent out an average of 14 applications. And even with all that work, only 40-something percent of the applicants were accepted into medical school.

So my answer is that getting into medical school is pretty darn difficult.

If you take a look at the medical school requirements page, you can see that I recommend a GPA of at least 3.5 and a MCAT score of at least 30. With these scores, you should have a chance to get into medical school.

However, your chance for getting in also depends on the color of your skin.

Medical School Looks at Your GPA, MCAT Score, and … Ethnicity?!

I have always had a suspicion that the standards are not universal, but instead, adjusted to which group or ethnicity an applicant fits into. I do not expect medical schools to blatantly say, “If you are a minority, we make it easier for you to get in. If you are not a minority, we make it tougher for you to get in.” That would not be very good for public relations. But never in my life would I have expected the data to be out in the open. But it is!

AAMC has provided data on medical school applicants’ GPA, MCAT score, and ethnicity. (As of May 2012, the data are for 2009 – 2011. If you access the link at the later date, the years and the subsequent data may have changed.) AAMC did not right-out say that minorities have lower standards for admissions (it does not have one table comparing all the different ethnicities), but it gives data to arrive at that conclusion.

What Are Your Chances with a GPA of 3.5 and a MCAT Score of 30?

The very first thing I did was to compare the acceptance rates of each ethnicity with a GPA of 3.5 and a MCAT score of 30. I am recommending these as the minimum acceptable numbers, but how effective are they? The results are actually quite shocking.

how-hard-is-it-to-get-into-medical-school-1

Various minorities are American Indian, Alaska Native, Black, or Hispanic.

Table 1 – Acceptance Rate by Ethnicity for Applicants with GPA of 3.40 – 3.59 and MCAT of 30 – 32 for 2009 – 2011

If you are black, you are pretty much guaranteed a spot in medical school. But if you are Asian, your chance of getting in could very well be based on the flip of a coin. Heads, you are accepted. Tails, you are rejected.

For some reason, Asians have a slightly worse probably of getting in compared to Whites. My guess is that a disproportionally large amount of Asians (compared to its makeup of the general population) is applying to medical school. So if Asians make up 10% of the total US population, maybe 20% of the total applications come from Asians.

So I quickly jumped to the US Census Bureau and found the percentage each ethnicity makes up in the total US population in 2010. I then compared that to the percentage each ethnicity makes up in medical school applications.

how-hard-is-it-to-get-into-medical-school-2

Table 2 – Percent of Population vs Percent of Applicants by Ethnicity

As I suspected, a disproportionate amount of Asians are applying to medical schools. They make up less than 5% of the population and yet comprises of more than 20% of the medical school applicants! Hispanics are very under-represented in terms of medical school applicants.

Are Medical Schools Reluctant to Accept Asians?

Since so many Asians are applying, medical schools are in a quandary. Should they make it very hard for Asians to get in, so the percentage of Asian US medical students reflects that of the US population? Or should they take the applicants regardless of color?

To determine the answer to the question, I looked at the acceptance rate of each group, which is shown below:

how-hard-is-it-to-get-into-medical-school-3

Table 3 – Acceptance Rate by Ethnicity for 2009 – 2011

It seems that the acceptance rate of each ethnicity is roughly the same, 40-something percent. Medical schools are not reluctant to accept Asians. If medical schools wanted the student population to reflect the US population, Asian acceptance rates would be a lot lower than 40%. What is quite unexpected is that the lowest acceptance rate does not go to Asians, but to the Blacks.

Why Are Blacks Less Likely to Get into Medical School?

So far, it makes no sense. There is a disproportionately large amount of Asians applying to medical school. There is a disproportionately small amount of Blacks applying to medical school. And yet, Asians have a higher acceptance rate than blacks. Why?

I decided to look at the average (mode and median) GPA and MCAT score of each ethnicity. Maybe that will explain why.

how-hard-is-it-to-get-into-medical-school-4

Table 4 – Average (Mode) and Its Acceptance Rate by Ethnicity for 2009 – 2011

The mode is basically the largest group. So if there are three groups (A, B, and C), and if group A has 5 people, group B has 6 people, group C has 10 people, the mode is group C.

Based on the mode, Whites have the best scores and Blacks have the worst scores.

how-hard-is-it-to-get-into-medical-school-5

Table 5 – Average (Median) and Its Acceptance Rate by Ethnicity for 2009 – 2011

The median is basically the middle person. If one guy is 5 years old, another guy is 10 years old, and the last guy is 100 years old, the median age is 10 years old.

Based on the median, Asians and Whites have the best scores and again, Blacks have the worst scores.

If you take a look at the acceptance rates for both Table 4 and Table 5, you will see that on average, Blacks have a lower acceptance rate because of their poor scores.

This means that GPA and MCAT scores matter a lot. You cannot make up for it just by being a minority.

GPA and MCAT Score that Guarantees Acceptance

In Table 1, I have established that the acceptance rate depends not only on GPA and MCAT score but also on your ethnicity. Therefore, I am not satisfied with a 3.5 GPA and 30 MCAT as a baseline goal to get into medical school.

I want to give you a targeted goal, based upon which group you fall into. This goal will practically guarantee a spot in medical school. If you can hit these numbers, you have around 80% of getting accepted.

Read more.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on NYT: ‘A black doctor from Houston says a Delta flight attendant dismissed her attempt to help an ill passenger by saying, ‘We are looking for actual physicians.”

Invite Muslim Refugees To Your Sukkah!

Posted in HIAS | Comments Off on Invite Muslim Refugees To Your Sukkah!

44% Of American Jewish Households Earn Above $100,000 Per Annum

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on 44% Of American Jewish Households Earn Above $100,000 Per Annum

A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics

Prof. Alan Wolfe writes in 2004 for the Chronicle of Higher Education:

To understand what is distinctive about
today’s Republican Party, you first need to know about an obscure and
very conservative German political philosopher. His name, however, is
not Leo Strauss, who has been widely cited as the intellectual guru of
the Bush administration. It belongs, instead, to a lesser known, but in
many ways more important, thinker named Carl Schmitt.

Strauss and Schmitt were once close professionally; Schmitt supported
Strauss’s application for a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship to Paris
in 1932, the same year in which Strauss published a review of
Schmitt’s most important book, The Concept of the Political. Their
paths later diverged. Strauss, a Jew, left Germany for good and
eventually settled in Chicago, where he inspired generations of
students, one of whom, Allan Bloom, in turn inspired Saul Bellow’s
Ravelstein. Schmitt, a devout Catholic who had written a number of
well-regarded books — including Political Theology (1922), The Crisis
of Parliamentary Democracy (1923), and Political Romanticism (first
printed in 1919) — joined the Nazi Party in 1933, survived World War
II with his reputation relatively unscathed, and witnessed a revival of
interest in his work, from both the left and the right, before his death in
1985 at the age of 96.

Given Schmitt’s strident anti-Semitism and unambiguous Nazi
commitments, the left’s continuing fascination with him is difficult to
comprehend. Yet as Jan-Werner Müller, a fellow at All Soul’s College,
Oxford, points out in his recently published A Dangerous Mind, that
attraction is undeniable. Müller argues that Schmitt’s spirit pervades
Empire (2000), the intellectual manifesto of the antiglobalization
movement, written by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, as well as the
writings of the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, recently much in
the news because of his decision to turn down a position at New York
University as a protest against America’s decision to fingerprint
overseas visitors (although not those from Italy).

When I served as the dean of the graduate faculty of political and
social science at the New School for Social Research in the 1990s, the
efforts of the decidedly left-wing faculty to play host to a conference
on Schmitt’s thought brought into my office an elderly Jewish donor
who informed me that he was not going to give any more of his money
to an institution sympathetic, as he angrily put it, to “that fascist.” I was
tempted to tell him, not that it would have helped, that Schmitt had
become the rage in leftist circles. Telos, a journal founded in 1968
dedicated to bringing European critical theory to American audiences,
had started a campaign in the 1980s to resurrect Schmitt’s legacy,
impressed by his no-nonsense attacks on liberalism and his contempt
for Wilsonian idealism. A comprehensive study of Schmitt’s early
writings, Gopal Balakrishnan’s The Enemy, published by the New
Leftist firm of Verso in 2000, finds Schmitt’s conclusion that liberal
democracy had reached a crisis oddly reassuring, for it gives the left
hope that its present stalemate will not last indefinitely. Such
prominent European thinkers as Slavoj Ziûek, Chantal Mouffe, and
Jacques Derrida have also been preoccupied with Schmitt’s ideas. It is
not that they admire Schmitt’s political views. But they recognize in
Schmitt someone who, very much like themselves, opposed humanism
in favor of an emphasis on the role of power in modern society, a
perspective that has more in common with a poststructuralist like
Michel Foucault than with liberal thinkers such as John Rawls.

Schmitt’s admirers on the left have been right to realize that after the
collapse of communism, Marxism needed considerable rethinking. Yet
in turning to Schmitt rather than to liberalism, they have clung fast to
an authoritarian strain in Marxism represented by such 20th-century
thinkers as V.I. Lenin and Antonio Gramsci. And it hasn’t just been
Schmitt. Telos, in particular, developed a fascination with neofascist
thinkers and movements in Italy, as if to proclaim that anything would
be better than Marx’s contemporary, John Stuart Mill, and his legacy.
Schmitt’s influence on the contemporary right has taken a different
course. In Europe, new-right thinkers such as Gianfranco Miglio in
Italy, Alain de Benoist in France, and the German writers contributing
to the magazine Junge Freiheit (Young Freedom) have built on
Schmitt’s ideas. Right-wing Schmittians in the United States are not as
numerous, but they include intellectuals — often described as
paleoconservative — who expend considerable energy attacking
neoconservatism from the right. One of them, Paul Edward Gottfried, a
humanities professor at Elizabethtown College, in Pennsylvania, is
especially prolific. Himself an occasional contributor to Junge
Freiheit, Gottfried defends the magazine for rejecting “the view that
every German patriot should be evermore browbeaten by selfappointed
victims of the Holocaust.” No wonder he has a soft spot for
Carl Schmitt. Gottfried is the kind of writer who puts the term
“fascism” in quotation marks, as if its existence in the European past is
somehow open to question.

But there are, I venture to say, no seminars on Schmitt taking place
anywhere in the Republican Party and, even if any important
conservative political activists have heard of Schmitt, which is
unlikely, they would surely distance themselves from his totalitarian
sympathies. Still, Schmitt’s way of thinking about politics pervades the
contemporary zeitgeist in which Republican conservatism has
flourished, often in ways so prescient as to be eerie. In particular, his
analysis helps explain the ways in which conservatives attack liberals
and liberals, often reluctantly, defend themselves.

In The Concept of the Political, Schmitt wrote that every realm of
human endeavor is structured by an irreducible duality. Morality is
concerned with good and evil, aesthetics with the beautiful and ugly,
and economics with the profitable and unprofitable. In politics, the
core distinction is between friend and enemy. That is what makes
politics different from everything else. Jesus’s call to love your enemy
is perfectly appropriate for religion, but it is incompatible with the lifeor-death
stakes politics always involves. Moral philosophers are
preoccupied with justice, but politics has nothing to do with making
the world fairer. Economic exchange requires only competition; it does
not demand annihilation. Not so politics.

“The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism,” Schmitt
wrote. War is the most violent form that politics takes, but, even short
of war, politics still requires that you treat your opposition as
antagonistic to everything in which you believe. It’s not personal; you
don’t have to hate your enemy. But you do have to be prepared to
vanquish him if necessary.

Conservatives have absorbed Schmitt’s conception of politics much
more thoroughly than liberals. Ann H. Coulter, author of books with
titles such as Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the
War on Terrorism and Slander: Liberal Lies About the American
Right, regularly drops hints about how nice it would be if liberals were
removed from the earth, like her 2003 speculation about a Democratic
ticket that might include Al Gore and then-California Gov. Gray Davis.
“Both were veterans, after a fashion, of Vietnam,” she wrote, “which
would make a Gore-Davis ticket the only compelling argument yet in
favor of friendly fire.”

…Schmitt argued that liberals, properly speaking, can never be political.
Liberals tend to be optimistic about human nature, whereas “all
genuine political theories presuppose man to be evil.” Liberals believe
in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting
positions, but to Schmitt there is no such neutrality, since any rule —
even an ostensibly fair one — merely represents the victory of one
political faction over another. (If that formulation sounds like Stanley
Fish when he persistently argues that there is no such thing as
principle, that only testifies to the ways in which Schmitt’s ideas
pervade the contemporary intellectual zeitgeist.) Liberals insist that
there exists something called society independent of the state, but
Schmitt believed that pluralism is an illusion because no real state
would ever allow other forces, like the family or the church, to contest
its power. Liberals, in a word, are uncomfortable around power, and,
because they are, they criticize politics more than they engage in it.
No wonder that Schmitt admired thinkers such as Machiavelli and
Hobbes, who treated politics without illusions. Leaders inspired by
them, in no way in thrall to the individualism of liberal thought, are
willing to recognize that sometimes politics involves the sacrifice of
life. They are better at fighting wars than liberals because they
dispense with such notions as the common good or the interests of all
humanity. (“Humanity,” Schmitt wrote in a typically terse formulation
that is brilliant if you admire it and chilling if you do not, “cannot wage
war because it has no enemy.”) Conservatives are not bothered by
injustice because they recognize that politics means maximizing your
side’s advantages, not giving them away. If unity can be achieved only
by repressing dissent, even at risk of violating the rule of law, that is
how conservatives will achieve it.

In short, the most important lesson Schmitt teaches is that the
differences between liberals and conservatives are not just over the
policies they advocate but also over the meaning of politics itself.
Schmitt’s German version of conservatism, which shared so much with
Nazism, has no direct links with American thought. Yet residues of his
ideas can nonetheless be detected in the ways in which conservatives
today fight for their objectives.

Liberals think of politics as a means; conservatives as an end. Politics,
for liberals, stops at the water’s edge; for conservatives, politics never
stops. Liberals think of conservatives as potential future allies;
conservatives treat liberals as unworthy of recognition.

Posted in Carl Schmitt | Comments Off on A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics

‘Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring’

I am not remotely offended by this sentiment. I suspect that all proud peoples want their women making babies with in-group sperm. Why would the Japanese, for instance, want their women inseminated by non-Japanese sperm?

Blood and soil are the most basic sentiments for a healthy nation.

cug7olnvmaa5mqf

YNET: Rabbi Dov Lior says Jewish Law prohibits sterile couples from conceiving using non-Jew’s sperm, as it causes adverse traits. On subject of single mothers he says, ‘Child cannot be 100% normal’

Rabbi Dov Lior, a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement, asserted recently that a Jewish woman should never get pregnant using sperm donated by a non-Jewish man – even if it is the last option available.

According to Lior, a baby born through such an insemination will have the “negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews.” Instead, he advised sterile couples to adopt.

Lior addressed the issue during a women’s health conference held recently at the Puah Institute, a fertility clinic. His conservative stance negated a ruling widely accepted by rabbis, which states that sperm donated by a non-Jew is preferable to that of an anonymous Jew, who might pose a genealogical risk.

“Sefer HaChinuch (a book of Jewish law) states that the character traits of the father pass on to the son,” he said in the lecture. “If the father in not Jewish, what character traits could he have? Traits of cruelty, of barbarism! These are not traits that characterize the people of Israel.”

Lior added identified Jews as merciful, shy and charitable – qualities that he claimed could be inherited. “A person born to Jewish parents, even if they weren’t raised on the Torah – there are things that are passed on (to him) in the blood, it’s genetic,” he explained. “If the father is a gentile, then the child is deprived of these things.

“I even read in books that sometimes the crime, the difficult traits, the bitterness – a child that comes from these traits, it’s no surprise that he won’t have the qualities that characterize the people of Israel,” he added.

‘Kids born to single moms become criminals’
Lior condemned artificial insemination and sperm donation in general, saying that they lead to waste of sperm, unclear genealogy and other Jewish law offenses. He warned against undergoing intrauterine insemination at hospitals, where the workers may mix sperm samples for one reason or another – a major halachic violation.

On the subject of women who freeze their eggs to use at a later date, the rabbi asserted that instead they should concentrate their efforts on getting married younger.

“Our public has been influenced by a part of the Western culture in which every woman, instead of becoming a mother, needs to get a Masters Degree,” he lamented. “The role of women – child rearing – is not less important than an academic degree.” Lior noted that there is nothing wrong with attaining a profession, but it should not be a priority.

Moreover, the rabbi spoke against single women getting pregnant.

“We can understand the desire of every woman to have a child, but according to our Torah it is impossible to address the demand of a certain woman when it can cause someone else suffering,” he said.

“If a child is born without a father, he cannot be 100% normal.” He stated that rabbinical literature defines these kids as “criminals and subjects of other negative phenomena.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on ‘Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring’

The Second Debate

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* LAT / USC daily tracking poll:

. . .

Friday, 10/7: Trump +3.1%

Saturday, 10/8: Trump +2.8%

Sunday, 10/9: Trump +3.1%

* * *

In other words, the Trump-Bush tape revelation, on Friday, barely moved the preference needle, on Saturday, and was a total washout, by Sunday. Early tomorrow morning, we shall see how much the second debate has moved the needle. Clinton had a minute lead on Sunday, 9/11. On Monday, 9/12, after Clinton’s 9/11 collapse at Ground Zero, Trump surged into the lead. Since then, that lead has ranged from a low of 1.8% to an high of 6.7%. Whether this particular poll turns out to be accurate, come 11/8, it is clear that this supposedly mortal wound to Trump’s campaign was much ado about nothing. “Paging Dr. Seinfeld! Paging Dr. Seinfeld!”

* Trump needs to win in order to salvage his reputation. Winners write the history. A Clinton victory assures that Trump’s name is mud, that America was saved from a tyrant who was on the path to becoming a new Hitler. Then there are going to be the weaponized agencies going after Trump and his family. Then the social ostracism where the Trumps become toxic.

Trump needs to win and put his own stamp on history.

* The more I think about it, the more brilliant Trump’s “Because you’d be in jail” line is. It’s pretty much the only thing people will remember from this debate 2-3 days from now.

* Steve Sailer: Tom Wolfe wrote an article about 50 years ago about how everybody in New York City believes they are a Big Leaguer.

Sometimes, even, they are. I remember a taxicab driver in 1984 who got me from Midtown to LaGuardia in 18 minutes because he had timed all the traffic lights and knew the optimal speed was to drive 3rd Avenue at 36.2 mph, so we hit dozens of greenlights in a row. He was a Big League cabdriver!

* I think most military votes would be strongly affected by the email scandal. Higher level govt employees. In short, anyone familiar with history of clearance, importance of clearance, management and leadership. It really rubs people up the wrong way to elect someone to the highest office of the land like that when anyone not politically connected would lose their job or be jailed for the same thing. And she lies about it. It is all kinds of wrong.

* It’s almost amusing to see how insane the media has gone over Trump’s bringing in the women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.

They seem to be genuinely shocked that Trump might bring up Bill Clinton’s horrible behavior — but how could they possibly be so?

How many shots across the bow did Trump fire beforehand, warning off the Clinton campaign from pushing the sexual angle against him? Did this stop them? Of course not. They really do seem to believe, from Hillary on down, that the usual rules of tit-for-tat simply don’t apply to them. The depth of their belief in this was exposed most obviously in the Machado case, in which it was apparent they didn’t even do the obvious vetting any such figure should require.

There’s a breathtaking arrogance, entitlement, and lack of accountability in their behavior. They seem to have spent so much time sucking on their own exhaust, and isolating themselves from opposed opinion, that they aren’t even capable of entertaining points of view other than their own.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Second Debate